Cameron Bertuzzi of "Capturing Christianity" Avoids Answering Questions
Marty Sampson of "Hillsong" posted this on Instagram. See what Cameron Bertuzzi thinks is a sufficient response:
CC:
A few thoughts:
(1) Interesting use of legos.
(2) This is why it’s important that we continue to emphasize that questions aren’t arguments.
(3) Maybe I should start saying that incredulity isn’t an argument either.
(4) Christians have not been silent on passages like these (e.g., see Copan and Flannagan’s book).
---
Kit Alcock:
I think it's obvious what the implicit argument here is, or at least one can do a charitable construction of such an argument
---
CC:
The most that we’d have is a syllogism, there certainly wouldn’t be a defense of the premises.
----
Kit Alcock:
Right I agree with that, I just think that that can often be achieved by setting out the argument for them
----
CC:
But this is kind of missing the point. The point is to get the person asking questions to think logically. To help them think about the connections between their statements and their conclusions. To get them to consider whether their statements are supported by more than their own credulity.
It depends on the situation. Just giving them a reconstruction that’s valid isn’t necessarily going to help them give valid arguments in the future.
----
John Loftus:
This final answer of yours makes no sense if you're trying to actually help the doubter. The goal isn't to teach them to offer articulate arguments. Your goal should be to answer their objections.
=====================
Seems as as though he's taking this kind of of response straight out of Greg Koukl's playbook.
CC:
A few thoughts:
(1) Interesting use of legos.
(2) This is why it’s important that we continue to emphasize that questions aren’t arguments.
(3) Maybe I should start saying that incredulity isn’t an argument either.
(4) Christians have not been silent on passages like these (e.g., see Copan and Flannagan’s book).
---
Kit Alcock:
I think it's obvious what the implicit argument here is, or at least one can do a charitable construction of such an argument
---
CC:
The most that we’d have is a syllogism, there certainly wouldn’t be a defense of the premises.
----
Kit Alcock:
Right I agree with that, I just think that that can often be achieved by setting out the argument for them
----
CC:
But this is kind of missing the point. The point is to get the person asking questions to think logically. To help them think about the connections between their statements and their conclusions. To get them to consider whether their statements are supported by more than their own credulity.
It depends on the situation. Just giving them a reconstruction that’s valid isn’t necessarily going to help them give valid arguments in the future.
----
John Loftus:
This final answer of yours makes no sense if you're trying to actually help the doubter. The goal isn't to teach them to offer articulate arguments. Your goal should be to answer their objections.
=====================
Seems as as though he's taking this kind of of response straight out of Greg Koukl's playbook.
0 comments:
Post a Comment