[Vision2020] unequivocal words of God

[Doug Jones]

Bob Dickow wrote:

>Well, no. Reason is not something that could be refuted anyway by its
>nature. Reason is a process. It involves such things as argumentation,
>deduction, induction, etc. Reason is not itself a proposition or idea
that
>can subject itself to 'refutation' in the sense you use.

But doesn't this just prove my point? Both historic Christianity and the
Enlightenment hold their ultimate standards to be irrefutable. Why
pretend that only Christianity does this?

"Reason" does sometimes apply to the process, as does "revelation." But
"Reason" also applies to the norms (propositions) dogmatically "obeyed"
in deduction, induction, etc. They make whopping claims about the nature
of the universe and can be refuted.


>Now, if you suggest that the existence or validity of Reason might be
>called into question, I think you'll have a VERY hard time arguing that
>point.

And, again, Christians can say the same regarding their ultimate
standard (i.e., "You can't disprove the Bible without using the very
norms you're attempting to reject"). 

Also, consider how exclusivist and parochial Dickow's claim is. It
assumes that only an Enlightenment account of Reason could conceivably
be correct, regally excluding alternate accounts from Asian religions,
postmodernism, Trinitarianism, etc. It's like saying, "if you suggest
that the validity of the Enlightenment's account of Reason might be
called into question [shudder], I think you'll have a very hard time
arguing that point." Yikes. Yet more secular fundamentalism.

Doug Jones