Just a Thought...

A quote from Kenton Sparks’ book God’s Word in Human Words

One implication of practical realism’s account of human knowledge is that the experience of certainty (“I am certain”) does not translate into incorrigible, epistemic certainty (“therefore, I cannot be wrong”). We can be quite certain and quite wrong at the same time.

Alex McManus discusses foundationalism and biblical inerrancy.

To a large extent, their [fundamentalists’s] faith had been shaped by the conversation with Descartes and the Enlightenment project. I understood that for them the scriptures were the foundation and basis for faith. Their entire belief system, if not founded on an indubitable foundation, could potentially be brought down. …

The doctrine of biblical inerrancy was a “hedge” of protection they had raised to protect this foundation. Because the critical approach to the study of scripture had made this already dubious claim difficult to justify, even the hedge had a hedge: it is the original manuscripts of the scriptures that were absolutely flawless. Yes, the Bibles we held in our hands may have a glitch here and there but the original documents themselves were a pristine work of beauty from the hand of God on which men and women could risk their lives.

In what …

Jenell Williams Paris writes about awareness and joy

The breakfast dishes (the ones that have to be done by hand) gave me opportunity to practice awareness – when you’re doing the dishes, just do the dishes. But, many of us say, it’s impossible with young children (“it” being growth, progress, enlightenment, meditation, awareness, focus, and so on)! I spent nine minutes washing the dishes and was interrupted at least six times to settle a conflict, wipe a bum, admire what someone did in the potty, find a battery, comfort an owie, and help get a shirt on. I saw anger arise – “Hey kids – get the hell out of my way so I can practice serenity!!”

But it wasn’t the kids that were interrupting – it was my mental formations. …

I was trying to do the ideal dishes – the ones that need to be done in a sunny kitchen …

From the article Limitations of Science at the website Undeception.com

I think the point of Dr. Miller’s quote was that even a full description of what physical things occur and how they occur in a mechanical fashion does not preclude a third descriptor: why. Philosophical materialists insist that satisfactory answers to “what” and “how” questions are sufficient, and since they are answerable in the laboratory, the picture of reality that the laboratory furnishes for us is, by their estimation, altogether complete. Theists argue that we should not ignore the question “why”, even though it cannot be recovered by the scientific method; discounting “why” as a valid question shows a presuppositional bias toward materialism and does not constitute an argument for it.

No or yes, or perhaps—
from a distance they all look the same.
What changes is the question.

From the poem First Star by Connie Wanek.

Henry Neufeld responds to the assertion that biblical higher criticism “gives inappropriate license to decide what he or she perceives as truth based on the resources and education of the critic.”

Yet whenever we read scripture we interpret. This criticism of higher criticism does nothing more than reject it because one disagrees with the results. There are problems with higher criticism, just as there are problems with [the alternative method of] reading everything literally. These are problems that require thoughtful responses. I would reject a version of higher criticism that stands on purely naturalistic assumptions. But such a foundation is unnecessary to find value in many of the tools provided.