Grisham’s Worldview Not Biblical

Posted: December 6, 2012 at 2:18 a.m.

It is truly unfortunate, but not surprising, that the Rev. Lowell Grisham was chosen to “share a Christian perspective” on the Science and Religion panel discussion reported on Nov. 24. Pastor Grisham, I believe, represents a very liberal, social justice viewpoint, but not a true biblical worldview.

This story is only available from our archives.

Opinion, Pages 5 on 12/06/2012

This one should be framed as classic circular thinking.

I bet the opinion pages editor had a doozy of a time with it. Well, on second thought perhaps not.

Posted by: cdawg

December 6, 2012 at 11:31 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

Premise A : "Laws of logic are immaterial, abstract, universal, invarient..."

Premise B: "God himself is omnipresent, immaterial and invariant."

Premise C: immaterial concepts "cannot be accounted for or exist..."

Premise D: Both "these laws" and "God himself" "...are not material"

Premise E: "...therefore, are thinking irrationally"

Although I disagree with your premises, thank you Mr. Eckard for attempting to prove that the biblical God cannot exist outside of one's imagination.

Posted by: Lmore

December 6, 2012 at 1:15 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Donald J. Eckard commits the logical fallacy of circular reasoning.

He says, the "laws of logic...can only make sense in a biblical worldview." Then concludes that any thought outside his "biblical worldview" cannot be logical. That's not a logical conclusion; it's simply a restatement of the premise.

In general, it would seem imprudent to expose oneself in the newspaper by using circular reasoning to accuse a Doctor of Philosophy in philosopy of "thinking irrationally."

Posted by: FrankLloydLeft

December 8, 2012 at 8:25 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

"We must question the story logic of have an all-knowing, all-powerful God, who creates faulty Humans, and then blames them for his own mistakes.".....Gene Roddenberry

Posted by: JailBird

December 8, 2012 at 9 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

FrankLL: "Donald J. Eckard commits the logical fallacy of circular reasoning.">>

Oh yes he does, and with bells on. And he's so used to believing things based upon merely believing things, he doesn't even bother to attempt to support any part of his question begging circles.

Don Eck: "Atheists... cannot justify [laws of logic] within their worldview.">>

Why doesn't Don tell us why this is so?

DON: "Laws of logic are... invariant laws that can only make sense in a biblical worldview...">>

Oh really. Why is that? Don doesn't bother to say. The logical concept of contradiction doesn't exist unless a God makes a command about it? Where do people get such nonsense?

Don: "reflections of God’s thinking because God himself is omnipresent, immaterial and invariant."

Mere assertions.

Don: "[laws of logic] cannot be accounted for or exist in a materialistic, atheistic universe.">>

Assertions stacked. Don might not be aware he is passing along a silly strain of quack Christian philosophy known as presuppositionalism. We like to call them "presuppers." Wiki has a nice blurb on it here:


"Presuppositionalism is a school of Christian apologetics that believes the Christian faith is the only basis for rational thought. It presupposes that the Bible is divine revelation and attempts to expose flaws in other worldviews. It claims that apart from presuppositions, one could not make sense of any human experience, and there can be no set of neutral assumptions from which to reason with a non-Christian.[1]"

One of Dr. Krueger's first debates on the existence of God was against one of these presuppers at a "Cornelius van Til Apologetics" Conference in Maryland. Doug positively wiped the floor with the guy.

Even William Lane Craig thinks these presuppers are ludicrous.

Paul Feinberg on presuppositionalism:

"Furthermore, rationality is not entirely different for the believer and the unbeliever. For instance, both believers and unbelievers think using the law of noncontradiction. It is not as if the believer has one set of logical rules and the unbeliever has another entirely different set of logical rules. These rules of thought are a common ground between believers and unbelievers." (p. 253)

Finally, W.L. Craig ridicules the presuppositionalist notion that one must assume God exists in order to prove that God exists. Craig writes, "It is difficult to imagine how anyone could with a straight face think to show theism to be true by reasoning, 'God exists. Therefore, God exists.' Nor is this said from the standpoint of unbelief. A Christian theist himself will deny that question-begging arguments prove anything." (p. 233)
--Cowan, Steven B. FIVE VIEWS ON APOLOGETICS (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan, 2000).

Posted by: fayfreethinker

December 10, 2012 at 10:09 p.m. ( | suggest removal )