| Kenny |
| Posted 08/06/10 at 09:58 PM | Reply with quote #16 |
|
Well, since you answered "yes" to the question, you're still not making sense. Why would you want someone to listen to a Christian apologist who isn't a philosopher, who his a misogynist, etc.? I wouldn't want to listen to an atheist about atheism if he wasn't a philosopher.
|
| Loading... | |
| theowarner |
| Posted 08/06/10 at 10:02 PM | Reply with quote #17 |
|
Quote: Originally Posted by Kenny
Well, since you answered "yes" to the question, you're still not making sense. Why would you want someone to listen to a Christian apologist who isn't a philosopher, who his a misogynist, etc.? I wouldn't want to listen to an atheist about atheism if he wasn't a philosopher.
Again, this isn't about what I want. I'm saying that Craig is an important Christian apologist (and if you're interested in Christian apologetics, you should go look him up.) But, saying that he's an important Christian apologist is not to say that he is a good Christian apologist. |
| Loading... | |
| Kenny |
| Posted 08/06/10 at 10:04 PM | Reply with quote #18 |
|
So, you think someone can be an important Christian apologist who is not a philosopher?
|
| Loading... | |
| Kenny |
| Posted 08/06/10 at 10:05 PM | Reply with quote #19 |
|
BTW I'm not saying what you want but what you think.
|
| Loading... | |
| theowarner |
| Posted 08/06/10 at 10:10 PM | Reply with quote #20 |
|
Quote: Originally Posted by Kenny
So, you think someone can be an important Christian apologist who is not a philosopher? BTW I'm not saying what you want but what you think.
To answer your question out of context, yes. It's very possible for someone who is not a philosopher to be an important Christian apologist. Lee Strobel, for example, rarely claims to be a philosopher. That's example. But, simple as a matter of definition, it's very possible.
More to context, however, I again remind you that my claim about whether Craig is a philosopher is a contentious one between us. Despite my continued attempts to explain myself, you continue to harp upon the title as a factual claim. So, your question has to be answered out of context. In context, it assumes statements about Craig that I have no made, namely that he is not a philosopher. |
| Loading... | |
| Kenny |
| Posted 08/06/10 at 10:25 PM | Reply with quote #21 |
|
Lee Strobel is an important Christian apologist? He's popular no doubt but I wouldn't put him up there with Alvin Plantinga, William Lane Craig, JP Moreland, Dallas Willard, etc. So, I have to question your view on scholarly people when it comes to Christian apologetics. But it's just common sense, you can't be an important Christian apologist unless you're a philosopher, which you doubt that WLC is. You say you never meant it that way, but you said, "WLC is fond of pointing out he's a 'professional philosopher' and that what he does is philosophy. I disagree." If you disagree that he's a philosopher and that what he does is philosophy, then you can't logically call him a philosopher. Yet you call him a philosopher anyway, and in a typical "Theo" fashion you say that everybody didn't get your video on Craig and that you actually meant that Craig is a philosopher?  Sorry, Theo, but there are no square-circles.
|
| Loading... | |
| theowarner |
| Posted 08/06/10 at 10:36 PM | Reply with quote #22 |
|
Quote: Originally Posted by Kenny
Lee Strobel is an important Christian apologist?
Yeah, I would say so.
Quote: Originally Posted by Kenny
He's popular no doubt but I wouldn't put him up there with Alvin Plantinga, William Lane Craig, JP Moreland, Dallas Willard, etc.
"Up there"? I'm not making qualitative comments, right now. They're all important in my book.
Quote: Originally Posted by Kenny
So, I have to question your view on scholarly people when it comes to Christian apologetics. But it's just common sense, you can't be an important Christian apologist unless you're a philosopher[.]
Well, I disagree. Apologetics is about defending the Faith. There are lots of ways to defend the faith without being a philosopher.
Quote: Originally Posted by Kenny
You said, "WLC is fond of pointing out he's a 'professional philosopher' and that what he does is philosophy. I disagree." If you disagree that he's a philosopher and that what he does is philosophy, then you can't logically call him a philosopher.
I did say that. My intent is to suggest that when we talk about Craig's life-long project, I wouldn't characterize it as philosophy. I can characterize it as a Christian apologetics. It may be philosophy in nature but Christian apologetics is more descriptively accurate.
Quote: Originally Posted by Kenny
Yet you call him a philosopher anyway.
Yes. Because it is a fact. But, as a fact, it is as descriptively accurate as calling him a Christian apologist.
Quote: Originally Posted by KennyIn a typical "Theo" fashion you say that everybody didn't get your video on Craig and that you actually meant that Craig is a philosopher Sorry, Theo, but there are no square-circles.
Non-sequitur aside, do you have any more questions? |
| Loading... | |
| Kenny |
| Posted 08/06/10 at 10:58 PM | Reply with quote #23 |
|
Quote: Originally Posted by theowarnerQuote: Originally Posted by Kenny
Lee Strobel is an important Christian apologist?
Yeah, I would say so. Well, that goes to show that you haven't really done any serious research on Church history or philosophy. No Christian scholar studies Lee Strobel like they would study Alvin Plantinga or Richard Swinburne.
Quote: Quote: Originally Posted by Kenny
He's popular no doubt but I wouldn't put him up there with Alvin Plantinga, William Lane Craig, JP Moreland, Dallas Willard, etc.
"Up there"? I'm not making qualitative comments, right now. I am. And learned Christians would too. Sorry, but Lee Strobel is for beginners.
Quote: They're all important in my book. Given your history of taking WLC out of context, and even down-right lying about him, I doubt you know who any of these people are, let alone know what they've done in the field of philosophy of religion. You definitely don't know Craig's view on Plantinga. The fact that you called him a Plantangian in your biased wiki page proves it. You're not good at philosophy, Theo. Honestly, you're not.
Quote: Quote: Originally Posted by Kenny
So, I have to question your view on scholarly people when it comes to Christian apologetics. But it's just common sense, you can't be an important Christian apologist unless you're a philosopher[.]
Well, I disagree.  No kidding. Aside from admitting that square-circles existed, you even suggested that all four gospels were eyewitnesses to Jesus. Quote: Apologetics is about defending the Faith. There are lots of ways to defend the faith without being a philosopher. You can't do it without philosophy, though. You have to know the laws of logic. If you're an expert at philosophy (like WLC) then you hold more credential. Last I saw you have no degree in philosophy (disclosure: I have a BA in philosophy).
Quote: Quote: Originally Posted by Kenny
You said, "WLC is fond of pointing out he's a 'professional philosopher' and that what he does is philosophy. I disagree." If you disagree that he's a philosopher and that what he does is philosophy, then you can't logically call him a philosopher.
I did say that. Then it wouldn't make sense to call that person a philosopher. By your own admission you admit it. Quote: My intent is to suggest that when we talk about Craig's life-long project, I wouldn't characterize it as philosophy. I can characterize it as a Christian apologetics. It may be philosophy in nature but Christian apologetics is more descriptively accurate. But Christian apologetics uses philosophy. It's a subgroup on the philosophy of religion. Virtually every time you study the philosophy of religion you deal with apologetics, whether it's from Augustine, Aquinas, Anselm, etc.
Quote: Quote: Originally Posted by Kenny
Yet you call him a philosopher anyway.
Yes. Because it is a fact. Good. Then don't say WLC doesn't do philosophy when he obviously does. Quote: But, as a fact, it is as descriptively accurate as calling him a Christian apologist.  Okay.
Quote: Quote: Originally Posted by KennyIn a typical "Theo" fashion you say that everybody didn't get your video on Craig and that you actually meant that Craig is a philosopher Sorry, Theo, but there are no square-circles.
Non-sequitur aside, do you have any more questions?
No, it isn't a non-sequitur. Like when you admitted that square-circles existed, you say that WLC doesn't do philosophy, but is still a philosopher. I call it as I see it...
|
| Loading... | |
| theowarner |
| Posted 08/06/10 at 11:15 PM | Reply with quote #24 |
|
Quote: Quote: Originally Posted by KennyQuote: Originally Posted by theowarnerQuote: Originally Posted by Kenny
Lee Strobel is an important Christian apologist?
Yeah, I would say so. Well, that goes to show that you haven't really done any serious research on Church history or philosophy. No Christian scholar studies Lee Strobel like they would study Alvin Plantinga or Richard Swinburne.
Well, now you're changing the question. I agree that no Christian scholar studies Lee Strobel like they would study Alvin Plantinga or Richard Swinburne. But, that fact is not relevant to the question of whether Lee Strobel is an important Christian apologist.
Quote: Quote: Quote: Originally Posted by Kenny
He's popular no doubt but I wouldn't put him up there with Alvin Plantinga, William Lane Craig, JP Moreland, Dallas Willard, etc.
"Up there"? I'm not making qualitative comments, right now. I am. And learned Christians would too. Sorry, but Lee Strobel is for beginners.
Yes, he is. So what? And important Christian apologist can't be for beginners?
Quote: Quote: They're all important in my book. Given your history of taking WLC out of context, and even down-right lying about him, I doubt you know who any of these people are, let alone know what they've done in the field of philosophy of religion. You definitely don't know Craig's view on Plantinga. The fact that you called him a Plantangian in your biased wiki page proves it. You're not good at philosophy, Theo. Honestly, you're not.
If you would like to argue about "taking WLC out of context," you should create a thread and we can talk about it.
If you feel I've lied, you can create a thread and we can talk about it.
I'm not bothered by your estimation of my knowledge or my abilities as a philosopher.
I was not the original author of the Plantangian phrase on the wiki-page.
Quote: Quote: Quote: Originally Posted by Kenny
So, I have to question your view on scholarly people when it comes to Christian apologetics. But it's just common sense, you can't be an important Christian apologist unless you're a philosopher[.]
Well, I disagree. No kidding. Aside from admitting that square-circles existed, you even suggested that all four gospels were eyewitnesses to Jesus.
I was wrong on both counts. You announce your pettiness when you repeat these things so often. Quote: Quote: Apologetics is about defending the Faith. There are lots of ways to defend the faith without being a philosopher. You can't do it without philosophy, though. You have to know the laws of logic. If you're an expert at philosophy (like WLC) then you hold more credential. Last I saw you have no degree in philosophy (disclosure: I have a BA in philosophy).
Are you suggesting that having a credential is a necessary condition for defending the faith?
Quote: Quote: Quote: Originally Posted by Kenny
You said, "WLC is fond of pointing out he's a 'professional philosopher' and that what he does is philosophy. I disagree." If you disagree that he's a philosopher and that what he does is philosophy, then you can't logically call him a philosopher.
I did say that. Then it wouldn't make sense to call that person a philosopher. By your own admission you admit it.
No, as a matter of fact, he is a philosopher. In the context of appraising his life-long project, "philosopher" is less descriptively accurate than "apologist." Quote: Quote: My intent is to suggest that when we talk about Craig's life-long project, I wouldn't characterize it as philosophy. I can characterize it as a Christian apologetics. It may be philosophy in nature but Christian apologetics is more descriptively accurate. But Christian apologetics uses philosophy. It's a subgroup on the philosophy of religion. Virtually every time you study the philosophy of religion you deal with apologetics, whether it's from Augustine, Aquinas, Anselm, etc.
Ah... well, here we get to an interesting question. Christian apologetics does use philosophy. Does that mean it's necessarily and only a philosophical activity? Do all things that are a "subgroup" of philosophy remain philosophy? These are interesting questions.
Let me ask you this... Explain why Catholics pray the Rosary is an act of apologetics. Is it philosophy?
Quote: Quote: Quote: Originally Posted by Kenny
Yet you call him a philosopher anyway.
Yes. Because it is a fact. Good. Then don't say WLC doesn't do philosophy when he obviously does.
I won't. I haven't. Quote: Quote: But, as a fact, it is as descriptively accurate as calling him a Christian apologist. Okay.
Okay.
Quote: Quote: Quote: Originally Posted by KennyIn a typical "Theo" fashion you say that everybody didn't get your video on Craig and that you actually meant that Craig is a philosopher Sorry, Theo, but there are no square-circles.
Non-sequitur aside, do you have any more questions? No, it isn't a non-sequitur. Like when you admitted that square-circles existed, you say that WLC doesn't do philosophy, but is still a philosopher. I call it as I see it...
No, what I'm saying is: saying that there are no square-circles is not relevant. That fact is not in dispute. |
| Loading... | |
