Discussion Grounds

Thank you for your gracious first letter, getting us off to a good start, Luke.

I want to speak to readers here first, to put our discussion here in context. I created this Discussion Grounds website a year or so ago with the intent of inviting one or more atheists or skeptics to a “disciplined discussion on religion and related matters.” I sent one invitation to a prominent naturalist, which he declined. After that I just kept this on the back burner.

A few weeks ago Luke contacted me by email, asking for an exchange of views on our blogs. I let him know about Discussion Grounds, and he agreed to try this experiment with me. I really do see it as an experiment: I don’t know of any other blogs that operate the way this one is set up, and we’re going to find out how well it works.

Anyway, speaking to you now, Luke, I appreciate the initiative you took, and the spirit with which you are approaching this. I look forward to great conversations with you!

We do indeed have much in common. I was “raised Christian” but in fact I did not have a clue what it really meant to follow Christ until I was in college. I’ll tell that story in a future post. I agree emphatically with much of what you have said about your approach to truth, knowledge, and reality. You asked if I could affirm a list of propositions (bulleted, near the end of your post), and the answer is yes, with these qualifications:

“Science is thus far our most reliable and successful means for gaining knowledge about the natural world.“ I agree with that if “the natural world” is defined properly. One such definition is, the natural world is that aspect of reality that is most reliably and successfully investigated through science. That’s not very helpful this time, though, is it? Another way of putting it is that the natural world is that aspect of reality that consists of matter, energy, and their interactions by way of necessity (natural law or lawlike interactions) and chance. There are aspects of the world that you probably consider natural, that I would not view as natural in that sense: consciousness, free will, morality, reason, and other phenomena related to human personality. I don’t think science has been at all successful in explaining these.

“The supernatural may exist, but it cannot be known to exist a priori.” I’m not sure what you mean in this case by a priori. If you mean the supernatural cannot be directly perceived, then I disagree, for God can and often does make himself known directly. If you mean it cannot be reasoned to, then I somewhat disagree. The philosophical proofs for God depend on sense perception of the universe (the ontological argument being perhaps the exception to that) and on a chain of reasoning, but they can be reasoned to and they are persuasive to many. I think we can know that there is a God through perception and through reason, in other words; though there is much we cannot grasp apart from his personal revelation.

“Some propositions are more probably true than others.” I agree with this; I would just state it more emphatically!

My views regarding Christ are summed up in the Nicene and Apostles’ Creeds, and in historic Protestantism. I believe in the Triune God: the Father; the Son, Jesus Christ as God’s fullest revelation, who lived, died, and rose again for the redemption of our sins; and the Holy Spirit who convicts us of sin, draws us to God through Christ, and guides and empowers believers in following Christ. I believe that God created the world and all of life, and that history is moving toward a consummation at the return of Jesus Christ. I believe that eternal life is a gift of God offered through Christ, and that to reject it is to choose instead eternity apart from God’s goodness and love.

Those are the basics of my belief. I think it might be interesting from here for each of us to describe our spiritual journeys: how we came to the positions we now hold. What do you think?

Warm regards,

Tom