FREEDOM!!! (and open thread)

Okay! Now working just one job! (Background here.) Religion blogging to resume momentarily. I’m done ranting about politics fora while, I promise. For now, have an open thread.

I want your comments! (open thread)
Goodbye Asia!
When passing a law is the easy route
Harry Potter and the problem with genre deconstructions
  • MNb

    Great. Two points.
    1. (tongue in cheek) You broke your promise to post more this week. The only way to take away my disappointment is to start blogging on a regular base again, preferably beginning now. (/tongue in cheek)
    2. Your book had quite a few chapters on cosmology. To me it looks very much like the good thinking is done by theoretical physicists these days.

    If you like this I can give you some more links.

  • JHendrix

    Recently I’ve been looking at refutations for presuppositional apologetics, and one of the better series of refutations I came across (it’s a video series here: actually presented an account for logic and reason. He also did a really great job demonstrating how one can never receive “absolute certainty” from divine revelation, even if it existed.

    The part I found interesting is that it justifies the existence of logic as being grounded as the necessary nature of “being”, almost like the move theists like to use grounding just about anything they want in “god’s nature”. He goes on to demonstrate that the three basic rules of logic are true because they must hold as true even for their negation to be asserted, much like the way Descartes showed “I exist” as being necessarily true.

    This seemed really compelling, and I’d be interested in your thoughts on such a move.

    One thing that it got me thinking about was trying to justify skepticism from a philosophical point of view. We know that there are only a very small set of things that we “know with absolute certainty”, and ultimately we must assume that the external world and other minds exist without absolute certainty. However, given that, can’t we justify things like skepticism and the scientific method based on the wealth of experiential evidence that is consistent with itself? Could this be spun around to try and justify positivism, or is that just going way too far?