What Skepticism Is Good For | Dallas Willard at Claremont

In the modern age, skepticism is equated with intelligence. What room is there for belief in the contemporary mind? Philosopher Dallas Willard discusses the usefulness and danger of doubt in our society. | Claremont McKenna College, 2013 | Explore more at www.veritas.org.
Want Veritas updates in your inbox? Subscribe to our twice-monthly newsletter here:
www.veritas.org/newsletter-yt
INSTAGRAM: / veritasforum
FACEBOOK: / veritasforum
PODCAST: podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast...
SUBSCRIBE: kzbin.info_...
Over the past two decades, The Veritas Forum has been hosting vibrant discussions on life's hardest questions and engaging the world's leading colleges and universities with Christian perspectives and the relevance of Jesus. Learn more at www.veritas.org, with upcoming events and over 600 pieces of media on topics including science, philosophy, music, business, medicine, and more!

[@purecat123]

Mr. Willard, you are terribly, terribly missed

[@nancybaumgartner6774]

Susan L what a legacy , huh ?

[@michaelbrickley2443]

SusieQ, There is so much content on the internet now.

[@michaelbrickley2443]

@@nancybaumgartner6774 he was a blessing and the content is growing online

[@auntielaura2937]

Trt

[@thesetruths1404]

I wish that there were many more tactful elders willing to be bold for young people. I don't want to grow old if I can't be bold for the youth, to help them be genuine for themselves and others!

[@Jak35ter]

A fellow apologist on KZbin waving the sword...Power to you brother.

[@darrenfaber2334]

Refer back to what Dallas claims to be the two indispensable uses of skepticism: 1) To undermine illegitimate forms of authority. 2) To stimulate inquiry." This means that we should be free to check how those things thought of as true by sources of authority could be true for us. And this means trying to see how it could be applicable to our lives. We have to be open to being wrong and the authority being right in order to do this. It's only when we do this that skepticism stimulates inquiry

[@darrenfaber2334]

This is very simplistic. Faith is not opposed to knowledge. You have not taken the time to understand what the people who actually struggle to take the things that are supposed to be part of their faith, and apply them in life to test the truth that such teachings may reveal. Just because you found the religious belief you may or may not have grown up with lacking, does not mean that there is not knowledge there.

[@darrenfaber2334]

The reason we experience the presence of God when we serve others- when we love others, is because we Go to the place where God is. We draw on that unending well, and we live in that eternal way. The reason people run to God when they hit their lowest is because they have gone to the place where God is. They are cradled in his arms. God makes himself as nothing, and shows himself to be God by doing just this.

[@darrenfaber2334]

Furthermore, everything we say both reveals particular aspects of truth and conceals others. Telling my sister that I love her reveals particular things about our relationship to one another, but in choosing to use such words for my feelings for her, I conceal other aspects of that relationship. It is no less true that part of what it means to be me is to have a brain, without which the processes by which I could express emotional feeling and commitment would be impossible. Both are true.

[@b.terenceharwick3222]

Skepticism's two primary uses: 1) question illegitimate sources of authority; 2) stimulate inquiry. "Targeted skepticism" vs. "extreme skepticism" What are the premises of "extreme skepticism" in inquiry? What context is permitted in such premises? Do your premises and understandings of context evolve and deepen in life or are your ideas fixed? "Extreme skepticism" is just another dogmatism -- i.e., by its own premise, it cannot support itself as knowledge. "Targeted skepticism is in many ways the only hope of humanity." Live responsibly? Do you continue to learn -- or are you too omniscient to learn and acquire knowledge in life? Do you feel as a person you have access to pursue what is true in life? How will you proceed with integrity?

[@darrenfaber2334]

Just as he commanded us to love our enemies, he not only washes the feet of those who loved him, but also those who didn’t- Judas. He was obviously very popular with those who weren’t religious. Why would that be? It is because he served them with his time (he sat with them), with his ears (he listened to them), and he served them by allowing them to serve him (he asks the woman at the well for a drink).

[@darrenfaber2334]

In this talk on skepticism, Dallas implores those listening to take seriously the claim to truth of John 3:16. Taking something seriously means attempting to understand, even if you don't agree, how something might be true. Otherwise the statements seems like nonsense. I have attempted to show you here how John 3:16 could be true.

[@darrenfaber2334]

Many Christians who believe that Jesus' words matched his actions, and that his words and actions spoke truly of the reality that underlies those words and actions have struggled to understand the issues you have raised in ways that make good intelligible sense. They have succeeded in ways that you have not acknowledged here. I would recommend that, in the future, you do your homework before you brush people aside so flippantly. Listen closely to Dallas. You may hear things you werent expecting

[@darrenfaber2334]

God shows us what forgiveness-what love- truly looks like through sending his son. That is literally what it means to be forgiven. So God simultaneously, in this action, forgives and teaches us what it means to forgive. To forgive Listen, although you are spit on, love up close, even when it kills you. Look at the pattern of Jesus' life. The Cross is important, but not as a crude transaction, but as a culmination of a life of faithfulness to those he was sent to serve.

[@darrenfaber2334]

So God isn’t absent. He never is, never has, and never will be absent. For if he were not lower than all, upholding all, then all that is would not be. I am sorry I posted so much. I don't mind if you don't read all of it. Especially since this sort of thing is best discussed in private. This is the kind of thing that Dallas Willard talks about. Faith in this God is faith in reality- and conformation to it.

[@darrenfaber2334]

That isn't even all that the Chapter of the book you cited has to say about faith. And as I said before, we may not see God, but that does not mean he is not there. Assurance of what we do not see is assurance that the foundation and ground of this reality is the God of love- the servant of all.

[@darrenfaber2334]

Forgiveness "is" Immanuel- God with us. So God sending his son to "Be with Us" is literally what forgiveness means. When I forgive another person, it is not enough to simply say it. God shows what forgiveness is here. I have to go to the other person, and actually be willing to get close enough to them to understand their position. Furthermore, isolating one verse (Heb. 11:1) and acting as if it is the only thing the book has to say on faith and faithfulness is not fair to the text.

[@darrenfaber2334]

And if you mean by skeptic that you only accept those prejudices given to you by the natural sciences, then you have lost sight of the multifaceted nature of truth. It can simultaneously be the case that God has structured this world in such a way that the interconnected web of relationships within us gives rise to reflective consciousness, and that this consciousness would be impossible without the brain. I don't know of any thinking christian who would deny this.

[@darrenfaber2334]

Christ was not simply giving commands to his, but was describing the reality of God behind his actions. He was not describing something detached from reality, but that which makes reality what it is. In other words, the way he lived matched what he said, and what he said matched who God is.

[@darrenfaber2334]

I don't blame you for not believing in the resurrection. We believe what we can, and we shouldn't be hard on one another for disagreeing. However, I wrote all this to hopefully show you that there are indeed good reasons for faith in and faithfulness to God. I hope this helps, and I hope I didn't write too much.

[@WarriorOfWriters]

If you examine the claims of the gospells and the acts Christ in his sacrifice is the channel by which a 'new covenant' is issued (despite these technical alterations only being mentioned as late as the letters to the Corinthians and the Romans), this is supposedly an act redeeming the choices made by Adam and Eve in the second chapter of Genesis and the hereditary curse placed on mankind. But if we examine the evidence, any possible translation of Genesis is incorrect; there was no 6 days of creation, the universe is expanding and pumping out stars and planets and mass and has been doing so for some 13.7 billion years. We can also examine our own biology, our phylogenetics and discover that not only do we inhabit a comparitively unimportant corner of a universe that doesn't know we're here but also that our own habitat has only been a domain of ours for about seven thousand years. Does this undermine the existence of a creator god? No, but it undermines the existence of a loving and caring god and a worthy sacrifice. See, when humans couldn't explain phenomena that frightened them they related such things as omens, particularly if they coincided with tragedy. Our intuition and superstition helped us survived against lurking predators but it also decieved us well into the modern age.

[@mackdmara]

I see how you might think so, but you seem to have narrowly interpreted Genesis, ignored the phrases that give the length of time, & unvalued God sacrificing himself to save you. In other words, I am skeptical about your assertions, as they don't fit the account of the value of God given in Christian doctrine or a Biblically solid view of Genesis. If God was only a man, then sacrificing himself would be worth one man's sins. *1:1 ratio* God is infinite. An infinite being sacrificed himself to save you & anyone else that takes it. *Infinity:a large number of souls smaller than infinity ratio* No matter the number saved, a greater good has been given to pay. God is God, not a man alone. This is the flaw in your presented logic on that count. God gave more than you are worth to save you, out of Love. Second, is Genesis a 7 day cycle? Reread the text. There are these periods of time that are either unspecified or not 24 hours, but there are seven of them. So, is a set of different times all a day each? No, there is the issue. Of course, you are also equating a teaching that is not meant literally & saying it is equal to science. The Genesis account could not be scientific, since we started that endeavor, as you use it, some thousands of years later. It is like Plato on a motorcycle, anachronistic. You are attempting to force a prescientific literature to be scientific in nature, it isn't. *Why would you do that?* Thus, I doubt your claims, as they assume God a man & Genesis as a scientific treatise on creation. Neither is true, never was, never will be.

[@darrenfaber2334]

The Word and the Holy spirit- Never seen, not because they are not there, but because they are the means by which all that does exist exists. If we did see God in any other way, then he would not be God, for he would not be lowest.

[@darrenfaber2334]

I am afraid you weren't listening to my previous posts. That is not the point of the cross, and John 3:16 says nothing about that view of the cross. Once again, you are not reading what I have written. "We draw on that unending well, we live in that eternal way". Eternal life is life lived in love for God and others. It begins now and never ends because it is that which enables you to be who you are, and shapes the world. This is God- The way, the truth, and the life.

[@darrenfaber2334]

But I will add one more thing publicly. You assume that the resurrection is impossible, but if one were to use the old philosophical language, that employs something Hume called the problem of induction. Just because one has not experienced something does not entail that it is an impossibility. You have assumed a hidden premise, namely that future experiences do not have the power to pull you up short. A resurrection would certainly be surprising, but I would be wary of invoking impossibility.

[@lacuthbert]

I'm quite skeptical of that statement.

[@darrenfaber2334]

Christ made himself lowest, and in making himself lower than all, showed himself to be great. In the same way, God has taken up the lowest position in the universe- he is beneath us, upholding us. We don’t see him anywhere, not because he is not there, because he has no need of our affirmation. God has shown himself to be greater than all by making himself lower than all. Christ is the intelligible and finite incarnation of this God (which is why no-one knows God but through him)

[@darrenfaber2334]

If you still believe that faith is believing in things without a good enough reason, then you have not been listening close enough to those who have it, like the man who spoke in the video you have commented upon. The fact that God becomes man is not a legal event, but an event in which God first forgives us through coming to be with us (Immanuel). People often ask why God could not forgive people by the wave of his hand. But this misses what forgiveness is.

[@windwingvideo1932]

It was skepticism of the sort that Dr. Willard approves, the kind that challenges authority with knowledge, that displaced the Judeo-Christian scriptural tradition as an authoritative account of, e.g., creation. Scientific orthodoxy, too, must be open to skeptical inquiry, and so the quest for truth continues; but there is no percentage in returning to pre-modern ways of thinking about the universe as a way of examining the value of scientific knowledge and the orthodoxy it imposes upon the academy.

[@WarriorOfWriters]

+Windwing Video the scientific orthodoxy is constantly reviewed. The filtering systems of science may not be perfect but it's the best system we have for verifying claims. The orthodoxy only remains in the method and it's quite likely that no other system of verification could top it.

[@darrenfaber2334]

If you are referring to penal substitutionary atonement with your statement about "vicarious redemption and Inherited crimes", then I think you will find that you are mistaken with regard to your understanding of church history. The eastern orthodox church has never accepted such understandings of Christ. I don't deny that penal substitution is horrendous in the common understanding, I just deny that it is the crux of the Christian story, and have the support of the ancient church to support me.

[@darrenfaber2334]

This is not a very good medium for good dialogue. I think a lot of my posts are not in order, and are hard to follow, when they are supposed to be one after the other. I am not used to trying to have conversations on KZbin. Oh well.

[@CorndogMaker]

Faith is believing in things without a good enough reason/ in the face of reasons to the contrary. If you have more of a reason to doubt something, it is said you need more faith to believe it. According to Heb 11:1 "...faith is being sure of what we hope for and certain of what we do not see." In a modern world Believing The idea that the torture/blood sacrifice of an innocent person is an effective way of absolving someone elses crimes, is insane. They think it's even necessary, even loving.

[@darrenfaber2334]

I am really regretting posting that last bit about resurrection. I hope that is not the only thing you read because it was something that you had responded to in the past, and thus did not have to re-think. Read what I posted that grates against the picture you have been painting of Christianity.

[@CorndogMaker]

No matter how liberally they interpret the Bible to be "true", they still need to believe in vicarious redemption to be Christian. But we aren't ancient troglodytes, we have better philosophies of restorative justice that actually make sense and don't involve magical thinking. Honestly applying the smallest amount of skepticism to ideas like vicarious redemption and inherited crimes will make someone a doubter. You also need to believe in an impossible resurrection based on ancient hearsay.

[@uiPublic]

John 3:16 to Secular Society's lack of Senses if the Sovereign sacrifice only Son for World's if not Spiritually satisfied saving it's own suicide ie. Sought solely

[@uiPublic]

Swine squatting sequential supremacists else slavishly surrendering of sanely souls asunder

[@uiPublic]

John 17:3 say's it all sanguine as safe

[@uiPublic]

It's wrath against those who put a wreath on knowledge of God's aka atheism, and power principalities so far treated His authority as sculpted in stone so some hated violence used at enmity who inturn deprive you off eye a limb else body?!

[@uiPublic]

Even admonition aimed for the fantastical and postfacto truth alike vipers and whitewash wall expressed over the world wide web caught up paid trollers...

[@CorndogMaker]

In Heb 11:1 (NIV) "...faith is being sure of what we hope for and certain of what we do not see." I'm only going by the definition of faith that the Christians holy book goes by. If Dallas Willard has actual empirical evidence for his god, then he doesn't show it here. Forgiveness can be hard, but even a mere mortal could do it without killing someone or having to "become lower" than anyone- whatever that means.

[@CorndogMaker]

No one who is skeptical could believe John 3:16. Not just because there is no evidence for it but because we know that killing someone horrifically in order to forgive someone else is not a "loving" act and believing that someone was killed for your crimes does nothing to enable cosmic forgiveness. Then there is the ridiculous claim in there of "eternal life" which is insurmountable for a skeptic who knows that consciousness is a product of our brain chemistry.

[@Nancy-ju1vv]

CorndogMaker How very limited and sad to reduce our lives to the physical only. Our spirits will live for ever.

[@quentissential]

What do you mean by 'cosmic forgiveness'? And what do you think the Christian claim of 'eternal life' is? Thanks for sharing the comment 8 years ago by the way haha! (edit: just realized your comment is part of a greater thread that got broken up with the new comment system).

[@CorndogMaker]

anyone who applies skepticism to their religious belief, will find that they have no justification to believe. That's why they need faith.