Greg Bahnsen - Problems for Unbelieving Worldviews (part 9)

[DevoutAtheist42]

I'm not sure how well it works with epistemologies, specifically, but in general you absolutely can reject proposed explanations as being inadequate, ridiculous, or simply unlikely, even when you don't have an adequate explanation of your own. Otherwise, whenever we find a gap in our knowledge we'd have to be open to filling it with whatever nonsense comes along, until we can figure out what actually goes there.

[deadgoblin86]

This approach deserves nothing but blatent ridicule

[TheGreatPrince]

(random banner pops-up) "Russell's epistemology was inadequate."

LOL.

But on a serious note, as an aspiring Apologetic, I've only recently discovered Dr. Bahnsen's work (sadly) and I'm 13-14 years too late. I would have loved to tutelage under him, unfortunately that will never happen directly (his work will continue with others). God bless the person who took the time to upload these videos and God bless Dr. Bahnsen and his contribution to the Christian community.

[buildrmann2]

Bertrand Russel was a fool....that is not my opinion but God's opinion. "For the fool has said in his heart, 'there is no God.'"

[aforsy]

He actually criticizes Bertrand Russel for "changing points of view more times than you would expect of a very intelligent person"

I've been passive about this dude's dismissive and disrespectful attitude so far, but that's just ridiculous. It is the person of intelligence that is constantly revising his/her worldview rather than remaining dogmatic and uninformed.

[a5dr3]

Bahnsen is an expert on Russel and is always very respectful of him in every lecture I've heard, including this one. The fact is that Russel is well known for changing positions. There is nothing wrong with pointing that out to beginners. If your criticisism is against having an ultimately consistent position that's just silly and of course also self-contradictory and destructive of all knowledge. It is also silly when people accuse Christians of not developing their perspective.

[a5dr3]

The church, through brilliant scholars of every generation, is constantly refining itself as we learn more and more about Scripture and history. While Christian theology might have some beliefs that are more central, (Jesus resurrected), and less likely to be falsified, it is in this sense certainly epistemologically no different than any other competing worldview.

[daviodapaulson]

Bahnsen's epistemology is every bit as flawed as his assertions regarding Russell. Bahnsen starts with an unwavering faith in his world view, based on an ancient text that he claims to be the "very word of God." A true scientist should be open to changing his mind. Bahnsen should evaluate why he does not have the ability to change his mind. His ideas, though primitive, are fixed. scientifically absurd, and has simply ceased his own intellectual pursuits. He is not qualified to critique Russel.

[vantellian]

@daviodapaulson Bahnsen's "faith" was not simply an assertion that something was true and then based a system upon it. It was true and logically, scientifically etc. justified. It is however, interesting that you state he should be a "true scientist" and "open to changing his mind". Then you call his ideas primitive and scientifically absurd. Who is the person that is not "open to changing his mind"?

[RingAroundTheRozie]

It's amazing how actually listening Bahnsen would dismiss what you said.

[deadgoblin86]

exactly

[metanosis]

am pretty sure GB credited BR with integrity for changing his mind

[timspong]

most informative series I have watched on youtube thanks very much. Greg Bahnsen was a truely blessed man. Blessings to his family.

[plsntn]

Thank you. They were all helpful. Any more?

[daome2012]

thx.