I just came across this youtube. What's interesting about it is that it directly addresses the issue that I find the Humble Skeptic to be correctly addressing -- that Christianity is a truth claim, not a myth. Christianity isn't true because we believe it (no matter how many or how few we's there may or may not be who believe it) -- We believe it because it is true.
I really like Jordan Peterson. And I know from listening to many, many interviews with him that, while he is not Christian, he is sympathetic to Christianity and is often a good defender of aspects of Christianity. But here he is completely dismantled by Christopher Dawkins. And the reason he is so completely dismantled (beyond the fact that he didn't know that there is a simple and elegant answer to Dawkin's inquiry) is that he is doing exactly what I was describing in my earlier post. That is: He is saying that Christianity is arrived at by a faith that resides outside of the universe of facts. He's saying that facts don't matter to the Christian belief. And he believes that that peculiar defense of Christianity will make Christianity more, not less, believable. It's the invalid apologetic (shell game) of "can" believe (offering something that allows "permission" to keep on believing what we want to believe), rather than the true apologetic of "must" believe (forcing the thinker to accept a reality that we must believe even if we don't want to). Because, so it timidly goes (by Peterson's defense), since we can't know everything, then we can't know anything. And that defensive posture is so unnecessary. Truth is on Christianity's side.
I just came across this youtube. What's interesting about it is that it directly addresses the issue that I find the Humble Skeptic to be correctly addressing -- that Christianity is a truth claim, not a myth. Christianity isn't true because we believe it (no matter how many or how few we's there may or may not be who believe it) -- We believe it because it is true.
I really like Jordan Peterson. And I know from listening to many, many interviews with him that, while he is not Christian, he is sympathetic to Christianity and is often a good defender of aspects of Christianity. But here he is completely dismantled by Christopher Dawkins. And the reason he is so completely dismantled (beyond the fact that he didn't know that there is a simple and elegant answer to Dawkin's inquiry) is that he is doing exactly what I was describing in my earlier post. That is: He is saying that Christianity is arrived at by a faith that resides outside of the universe of facts. He's saying that facts don't matter to the Christian belief. And he believes that that peculiar defense of Christianity will make Christianity more, not less, believable. It's the invalid apologetic (shell game) of "can" believe (offering something that allows "permission" to keep on believing what we want to believe), rather than the true apologetic of "must" believe (forcing the thinker to accept a reality that we must believe even if we don't want to). Because, so it timidly goes (by Peterson's defense), since we can't know everything, then we can't know anything. And that defensive posture is so unnecessary. Truth is on Christianity's side.
https://youtu.be/lGD0yzV8EH4?si=0SLPYmPCxHnGzfHu