On Dr. R.C. Sproul

I felt it necessary to cycle back on a few things regarding your earlier post. Dr. Sproul is very definitely operating from a few foundational premises in his arguments:

• God exists
• The Bible is his true revelation

I've not spoken to the man, but I'm quite certain he would agree that the basis of his logical argument is dependent on those two necessary first conditions. Further, I'm quite certain that he's quite accustomed to having to cycle back and defend those two first principles. The MP3 I sent you was from a lengthy series giving an overview of the Bible. No doubt he felt anyone interested in hearing an overview of the Bible would have settled -- or at least temporarily accepted -- the idea that God exists and that the Bible is in some what related to God.

But that's not to say that R.C. Sproul is unschooled in the ways of science or philosophy (or the "isms" as you call them). He is in fact a quite intelligent man. His formal training is in philosophy and theology. He has an extraordinarily keen grasp on the historical structure of philosophical development, and in other series he goes to some length to explain where certain philosophical belief systems came from.

I just listened to one from a series titled, "Christian Worldviews" where Dr. Sproul explained where the idea of the utter separation of church and science came from (Emmanuel Kant, primarily, from a formal philosophical point of origin, it turns out). Sproul ties Kant's philosophical premises to earlier St. Augustine works, and explains how (in Sproul's opinion) Kant misunderstood what Augustine was expressing in his earlier works. Dr. Sproul finishes up with an explanation of the well-known strife between Galileo and the Catholic Church, and there makes an interesting and, in my view, credibility-building statement: "Science may very well correct the word of a theologian." The Catholic Church, at the time of Galileo, had endorsed an earlier Ptolemian view of the universe (earth-centric) and therefore had boxed itself in when the newer (and scientifically correct) Copernicun model had emerged. Science had indeed corrected the word of a theologian (collectively, the official view of the Catholic Church), but science did not correct the Word of God. For the Bible nowhere specifies that the earth (or the sun) is the center of the universe.

Sproul's talk on "Science" is actually quite interesting in that he welcomes the pursuit of scientific knowledge by believers, and offers a quite compelling argument how the two are never, ultimately, contradictory.

But it is built on the first two basic premises.

If you're interested in that MP3 (9MB in size), I can send it to you.

* * *

Contrary to your earlier post, I do believe that "Atheism" is a thing. It is very much a belief structure. They strongly -- and quite passionately -- believe in the absence of God. I fail to see how that's not a "thing" any less than "existentialism" is a thing.

* * *

I'm curious ... you seem particularly interested in not offending members of other religions. Do you draw a distinction between predominant religions and any religions? Would you be equally as concerned about the sensibilities of someone who belongs to a small sect or cult as you are about a billion-member religion? If so, why? Does the creed of the religion make a difference to you?