Greg Bahnsen - Introduction to Worldviews (part 2)

[leonardstilwell]

This is a fascinating lecture!

[Vargsvideoblogs]

I don't understand..Do we go to your channel and curse you out? NO! If you don't like it then plz move on.

[darrinrasberry]

concepts are epistemological.

[jaminhubner]

Bahnsen is the shiz.

[devourerofbabies]

Bahnsen is shit.

[devourerofbabies]

Bahnsen is a shithead.

[MRKetter81]

Whatever you say "devourerofbabies"...

[6StringPhilosopher]

I'm blocked?

[6StringPhilosopher]

Sorry, I guess not.

[6StringPhilosopher]

I agree that sensory-based world views do not base themselves on logic, sir. My point was simply this: BAHNSEN'S statements are illogical. He says one world view must remain consistent indefinitely. He is basing that observation on anaylsis of worldviews, and his conclusion is not based on an objective, unbiased view of the data. Until you can tell me how I gave you that impression, I'm going to assume you either didn't read my comment properly, or you are just too stupid to grasp my point.

[6StringPhilosopher]

This guy says that you need to be commited to christ always, even if your committment was just brief. One, that's self contradictory, and two, that doesn't go beyond apologetic, because that's exactly what it is, whith no evidence to back it up.

[a5dr3]

Huh?

[6StringPhilosopher]

This video is nothing more than an apologetic. It contains no evidence to back its claims. He says "once committed, you must remain committed", and offers no reasons why this is true. His "world-view" argument is a self-contradictory argument. Actually, its better to describe it as self-defeating, I think.

[a5dr3]

I don't understand what u mean by apologetic. That word just means defense, so, yeah, that's basically what the video is.-I'm not sure that your quite understanding his point about worldviews. Everyone is committed to a view of reality by which they interpret facts and evidence. -This is 7 minutes from a six hour course so 'reasons' for commitment r coming up.-I don't understand what is self-defeating.

[6StringPhilosopher]

Its self defeating in that he sais once you commit to christianity you need to remain committed for the rest of your life, and he uses the world-view thing to back that up. So, if you have an atheistic world-view, then by his logic it would be necessary to cleave to it indefinitely.

[6StringPhilosopher]

If you base your every sensation and experience around an atheistic world-view, then by this logic it would be necessary to never believe in god.

[RingAroundTheRozie]

Congratulations, you missed two points. First, Bahnsen is saying that if you say you are a Christian, you can't be a Christian just when you go to church or when you pray. You must be a consistent Christian 24-7. Second, and more importantly, a worldview cannot be subjected to evidence. A worldview interprets reality and determines what is and is not evidence for everything.

[6StringPhilosopher]

You're an idiot.

[kisstheclowns]

hey 6stingphilosopher! I think your philosophyguitar just broke as string, because it sounds REALLY out of tune.

"If you base your every sensation and experience around an atheistic world-view, then by this logic it would be necessary to never believe in god."

yeah, except that within the sensory based reality world view. you cannot appeal to abstract entities such as logic because you can't see, smell, touch or taste them.....Who's the idiot?

[RingAroundTheRozie]

Oh I thought you commented because you wanted to actually discuss what you thought was bahnsen's error. Not be a troll. Ironic that you put philosopher in your username.

[6StringPhilosopher]

You came out with a total straw-man!! Watch the vid again and see what it contains. Then, reread my point and say something that acutally adresses it!

[RingAroundTheRozie]

Seems hard to determine who is responding to who. Would you point out my strawman? At this point I haven't attacked your position, so I'm not sure why I'd be going after a strawman. You said that Bahnsen is saying you must hold to your worldview indefinitely-he is saying you must be a consistent Christian.

[RingAroundTheRozie]

You were saying Bahnsen is saying you must always believe in whatever you believe. I may have misunderstood something with my 2nd point, but that still wouldn't be a strawman-it would simply be replying to something nobody said by accident. Misunderstood "He is basing that observation..." But my first point deals with that, and you can throw out the second point

[6StringPhilosopher]

Watch the video. Your first point doesn't address what I'm reacting to. He said, "if you are commited to christ at ANY point in your life, then you must be commited to him at every point." There is no philosophical reason for that. In fact, everything we know tends to support the healthyness of renewing our paradigms as we develop! There is a word for what Bahnsen perscribes, its a pejorative: "Oneism" check out Jung!

[a5dr3]

Your stance is sef-refuting 6string. Do I really have point out why? -Also, keeping an 'open mind' to a conclusion that has been apodictically proven is the same thing as being closed minded. In short, you should renew your pardigm and give God the glory he deserves.

[6StringPhilosopher]

I have taken no stance whatever. I could, but I'm here conveying reasonable criticism of Bahnen's stance. So how are my criticisms not valid a5dr3? You don't even know if I have faith or not! And for your info, I HAVE renewed my paradigm, twice this year.

[Jpangyarihan]

Where does Bahnsen say that "you need to be committed to Christ always, even if your commitment was just brief?" I think that you have misunderstood him and hence misrepresented his statement.

[6StringPhilosopher]

1min 14 - 1min 26. " If you were commited to christ at ANY PARTICULAR POINT in your life, than you must be commited at every point." Please clear up my misrepresentation here.

[Jpangyarihan]

Actually, he says "if you are committed.." He's simply saying that if you are committed to Christ when you pray, go to church, evangelize or read your Bible, you will also approach other aspects of life--such as what you read or the people you associate with or what you understand about living organisms--committed to Christ because of a distinct Christian World view.

[6StringPhilosopher]

Now I admit I replaced "were" with "are", there is a bit of a semantic difference there. I admit, perhaps, that's what he did in fact mean. However, my main quarrel with this is that he said that it goes beyond apologetic. Tell me, how is that not just simply an apologetic with no evidence to back up its claims?

[berettaNZ]

It IS evidenced. He reasons from the fact that Christianity is a worldview to the implications of that claim: Namely that it applies to all parts of life and not just apologetics etc. The evidence for this is that if something does not apply to all of life then it's not a worldview, be definition. It's an analytical truth.

[6StringPhilosopher]

Well first of all, thank you for correctly interpreting what I was saying. However, I disagree in the following respect; One's life is not composed of a single worldview. We change all the time. Its called adaptation. If you reject information, that's dogmatic and obscurantist thinking which is a necessary ingredient to all faith based organizations. Therefore, one cannot inference christianity as a lifelong necessity.

[CrazyManAndyX]

As Jpangyarihan said, he is not referring to a point in time. He is referring to the different areas (points) of man's life. If you get drunk on saturday and then go to church on sunday, you're obviously not committed to Christ in every area of your life.

CMA

[6StringPhilosopher]

Ok, granted, but hows that not just an apologetic for the faith?

PS. Bahnsen claims its beyond apologetic.

[Jpangyarihan]

What CMA said above IS the sense of "beyond apologetics" which Bahnsen was talking about. Apologetics is one aspect of life, not the only one. That is why Bahnsen later states that the Christian World view is not just "one of the many options that a number of different philosophies can tie into," and that it is "logically fundamental...so that it effects everything systematically."

[6StringPhilosopher]

But these are just ways to look at the faith favourably -apologetics. I see where you're coming from though, and my only concern is when you guys say that you can use science and logic to back your beliefs, when its really just faith.

[6StringPhilosopher]

Also, I should add, christianity is not logically fundamental at all. It contradicts many logical observations that have been formulated. A miracle is an example of such. Gravity is logically fundamental, christianity can only claim fundamentalism.

[Sage80]

Good argument. Clearly, Bahnsen is no match for you.

[Jeremyguru]

Why would any thinking person want to be "committed to Jesus?"