From Greg Koukl’s “Tactics: A game plan for defending your Christian faith,” p. 118.
. “There is no truth.” (Is this statement true?)
. “There are no absolutes.” (Is this an absolute?)
. “No one can know any truth about religion.” (And how,
precisely, did you come to know that truth about
religion?)
. “You can’t know anything for sure.” (Are you sure about
that?)
. “Talking about God is meaningless.” (What does this
statement about God mean?)
. “You can only know truth through experience.” (What
experience taught you that truth?)
. “Never take anyone’s advice on that issue.” (Should I take
your advice on that?)
I like this one (p. 118), which reminds me of Richard Dawkins:
“I don’t believe in religion.”
“Why not?”
“There is no scientific evidence for it.”
“Then you shouldn’t believe in science either.”
“Why not?”
“Because there is no scientific evidence for it.”
Koukl comments “Since there is no scientific evidence proving that science is the only Way to know truth, the view self-destructs.”
Read on the topic Reflexivity. Many philosophers in the Post-Modern Era such as Nietzsche and Heidegger have different takes on it which sums up the explanations on such statements you’ve posted. 🙂
I’d like to read more on this in Nietzsche. Could you recommend any sources?
Well as far as I know, the books of Nietzsche that concerns reflexivity are Beyond Good and Evil and Thus Spoke Zarathustra.
Hope those will help 🙂
Upon reflection, I must have missed the reflexivity bits in Nietzsce. Like Michaelangelo I was concentrating too much on the other bits.
Worth posting in my next round up of Presuppositional apologetics links
Sorry. Won’t happen again.
?
I’m just being lexically silly, as usual. I apologise.
Oh, that went over my head 🙂
Reblogged this on beliefspeak2.
Reblogged this on Pure Antithesis.