Quote of the month: March

"Get along with the ruling powers as much as you can, but put no trust in them. Let's let our lives reflect the truth that governments are part of a fallen world order that has been rendered obsolete in Christ. May our lives reflect the truth that the hope of the world lies in the power of the cross, not the sword -- or the vote."

-Gregory Boyd

major blog relaunch

After several years of downtime, I'm relaunching this blog! It's changing focus from abstract ideas to real-world issues including social justice, humanitarian issues, and true spirituality. You will notice that there is still some of my more abstract writings in the achieves on things as disparate as political philosophy to epistemology, but I promise to be a lot more practical in the future.

Welcome to the conversation,
Kelvin Reynolds

Quote Of The Month

"I think that democratic communities have a natural taste for freedom; left to themselves, they will seek it, cherish it, and view any privation of it with regret. But for equality their passion is ardent, insatiable, incessant, invincible; they call for equality in freedom; and if they cannot obtain that, they still call for equality in slavery. They will endure poverty, servitude, barbarism, but they will not endure aristocracy."

Alexis de Tocqueville (1805-1859)

God and Truth

[What follows is (again) an article in progress. Feel free to make comments, critiques, or suggestions. I know it certainly needs descriptions of the theories in discussion ]

A question that has occupied my thinking a lot recently is: do I believe in God (and Christianity in general) because I am convinced it is true or does my whole grounding of truth come from a belief in the Christian God; in other words, what comes first: God or truth?

The choice here is basically one of foundationalism vs. religious epistemology (such as that expounded by Alvin Plantiga in 'Warranted Christian Belief'). Here I will provide a evaluation of these two opposing theories, and introduce a third which I hope will successfully answer the dilemma.

Foundationalism on one hand has many advantages: It is an option available for theists and atheists alike, it has a long history, and it seems to conform to most peoples’ intuitions. It is not perfect however, theists might be a little uncomfortable with it because it puts something higher than God (namely reason and evidence), and some might reject it because it ultimately rests on out intuitions; which we have no good reason to trust.

Religious epistemology on the other hand also it's advantages: Many theists might like it because it puts God at the foundation, and it can act as an apoligetic argument for God. Atheists, however, would rather accept any other theory than this as it admits God at the very start. Another objection would be that God should never be used as an abstract answer to a problem as this trivialises the infinite-personal God of the bible.

I propose that both these theories fail because they rely on a 'bottom up' concept of justification like so:

















In this model of justification you have to blindly acept either reason and evidence or God. However if a different model of justification is adopted then nothing is blindly acepted:





















In this model, the existence of God provides justification for reason and evidence; and reason and evidence provide justification for the existence of God. Most importantly, however, they do so simulaneously; neither one these beliefs is prior to the other. This theory I will term 'Mutual Justification' and is a combination of foundationalism and religous epistemology.

Quote Of The Month

"...it is sometimes claimed that faith and reason are hostile to each other, and whatever is of reason cannot be of faith. But this represents [a] misunderstanding of the biblical concept of faith. The biblical notion of faith includes three components: notitia (understanding the content of the Christian faith), fiducia (trust) and assensus (the assent of the intellect to the truth of some proposition). Trust is based on understanding, knowledge, and the intellect's assent to truth. Belief in rests on belief that. One is called to trust in what he or she has reason to give intellectual assent (assensus) to. In Scripture, faith involves placing trust in what you believe to be true. Faith is not a blind, irrational leap in the dark. So faith and reason cooperate on a biblical worldview. They are not intrinsically hostile."

- J.P Morland and William Lane Craig, Philosophical Foundations For A Christian Worldview.