Posted by blue on June 19, 1998 at 04:28:59:
In Reply to: Popular Agnosticism as Stopping Place (Problem with following up rpcman post -- so I put posted here) posted by Matt Berry on June 17, 1998 at 16:37:26:
But in my not so humble opinion I believe that the Theist is confused about the nature of language and so, for genuine communication to take place, I have to speak their language, and not expect them to communicate within a language they have not yet learned.
The only validity to your point is that it would be beneficial to all debate if everyone spoke an identical, static language. Perhaps you've heard of the convenience of using Latin or even synthetic language in certain situations.
When we discuss the Bible, it would be nice if we all spoke Hebrew and Aramaic, since translating from them into English has caused no small trouble.
Beyond this, however, your point seems misguided. In any serious debate one first establishes a common vocabulary, and then proceeds. Truth does not vascillate based upon the terms used to describe it.
The Theist believes that he can actually sponge away or alter reality. (Evolution is sponged away in order to protect the "Word of God," for example. The words used "make this so." This is akin to belief in magic. Another example, the Book of Mormon places iron into early America, ... etc.).
This seems to be the crux of your misconception. There is no need to deny what you are terming "reality" to accept the Bible. Nor is there any redemptive power of particular words. Words are, and always have been, a tool of communication. Nothing more. You can bias an argument by framing it a certain way, since certain words illicit a certain emotional response. But in any serious debate, especially about theology, you quickly rise above syntax. Your examples are too trite to be considered examples of theological debate.
: The atheist, pantheist and agnostic look beyond words (and other aspects of cultural inheritance) for confirmation in reality.
As do Christians.
Interestingly, enough premises exist within the believer's word-set to show him that this "cultural transcendence" may just be what many of the ancient prophets have been suggesting anyways. The Theist must either follow this grounded reasoning or succumb to muddled-thinking.
This is an empty statement.