What Caused 9/11? America’s Pulpits Respond
While I may not agree with the Rev. Wright’s point of view, shouldn’t we concede that it’s the only one of the three that has a basis in logic?
[Pat pic came from here.]
Tags: barack obama, Jeremiah Wright, Jerry Falwell, Pat Robertson
Since even before Thomas Aquinas, theologians have struggled to explain why a just and almighty God would let bad things happen.
“Logic” does not necessarily mean “right.” It just means it conforms to a process that can be tested for consistency against a certain standard — in the case of Robertson and Falwell, a biblical worldview.
Just because you don’t agree with something doesn’t mean it has no basis in logic. Do not mistake lack of agreement for lack of logic, and do not mistake logic for accuracy.
A “biblical worldview” is inherently not logical. It’s based on faith, not reason. Christians should never be accused of being logical.
If I want to say that slaveowners who coveted other people’s slaves caused 9-11 (thus disobeying the commandment against coveting, since there was no such commandment against slavery), then that’s as legitimate as blaming gays and abortionists.
Scott - You have a fundamental misunderstanding about what logic is, which is causing your confusion.
This statement, for instance, is logical — whether or not you agree with any of it:
Assumption #1: Everything the Bible says is true.
Assumption #2: The Bible says God is good.
Taking those two statements, the only logical conclusion you can draw is this: It is true that God is good.
That is a simple syllogism. You can dispute assumptions #1 and #2, which can be based on faith, logic, or a combination of the two, but you cannot dispute the logic of the conclusion. If #1 and #2 are true, then the conclusion MUST be true. That’s formal logic.
So if you’re going to claim that something is illogical, you have to do more than simply state it is illogical.
You have to familiarize yourself with the logic — including what assumptions are being made — before you can dispute the conclusions.
Whether we use the assumptions I wrote above or some other assumptions to conclude God is good, it’s indisputable that according to a Christian worldview, God is good. So events and doctrines can and should be tested against that worldview.
If we also assume that God has power and dominion over man and can protect men and nations from harm, we are left to try and explain why He might allow harm to come to man or nations without contradicting the conclusion that God is good. The answer we get, for instance, cannot be that God is bad, because that would be a logical contradiction and disruptive to the entire worldview, and as a consequence, faith.
That is one way logic is used in faith.
I do this, by the way, without even addressing the validity or invalidity of the argument they made, but I should point out that your characterization of it is simplistic and inaccurate.
Oh Cam Cam Cam…
You’re talking about internal logic, and I’m talking about logic that takes facts into account.
Thank you for agreeing that faith is not inherently illogical.