I always appreciate the deep charity you show for those you disagree with. It makes your arguments (combined with your deep knowledge) so much stronger.
Prominent evangelicals like R. C. Sproul have acknowledged that scientists are interpreters of General Revelation and, thus, have something to teach us about how God made the world to work.
Personally natural arguments for and against Same Sex Marriage are faulty cause ultimately lots of things are natural that we don’t consider good like diseases, tornadoes, etc. and lots of things are unnatural that we consider good like cars, indoor plumbing, etc
Thanks for sharing your comment! I understand what you mean. Although I wouldn't go so far as to say all natural arguments are faulty. Just because some things that are natural are problematic doesn't mean *all* things that are natural are problematic. We have to have conversation on what constitutes "natural" (as opposed to merely sociological bias; e.g. racism has been supported on faulty notions of natural). We also have to consider what are the bases for evaluating "good" nature vs. "bad" nature. In other words, I think we still need to have a conversation about nature, but it needs to be more in-depth than the oft superficial treatments.
You’re right not all things that are unnatural are good and not all natural things are bad.
I’m just saying it’s a fault argument because it’s actually its own textbook fallacy called “The Natural Fallacy” basing your judgment of whether something is good or not on whether or not it’s natural doesn’t really hold up in debate
This was a really helpful analysis and review of Gilson’s book. Thanks for writing it!
Thanks Eric!
I always appreciate the deep charity you show for those you disagree with. It makes your arguments (combined with your deep knowledge) so much stronger.
Prominent evangelicals like R. C. Sproul have acknowledged that scientists are interpreters of General Revelation and, thus, have something to teach us about how God made the world to work.
I love this way of thinking about science.
Personally natural arguments for and against Same Sex Marriage are faulty cause ultimately lots of things are natural that we don’t consider good like diseases, tornadoes, etc. and lots of things are unnatural that we consider good like cars, indoor plumbing, etc
Thanks for sharing your comment! I understand what you mean. Although I wouldn't go so far as to say all natural arguments are faulty. Just because some things that are natural are problematic doesn't mean *all* things that are natural are problematic. We have to have conversation on what constitutes "natural" (as opposed to merely sociological bias; e.g. racism has been supported on faulty notions of natural). We also have to consider what are the bases for evaluating "good" nature vs. "bad" nature. In other words, I think we still need to have a conversation about nature, but it needs to be more in-depth than the oft superficial treatments.
You’re right not all things that are unnatural are good and not all natural things are bad.
I’m just saying it’s a fault argument because it’s actually its own textbook fallacy called “The Natural Fallacy” basing your judgment of whether something is good or not on whether or not it’s natural doesn’t really hold up in debate