<<Actually, I do believe that beliefs can be evaluated on the basis of
reasonableness, with the caveat that "reasonableness" can be a slippery
criterion>>
On that basis, then, we can confront Hamas. We agree that beliefs CAN be
evaluated. Within a theological context, too. Within a naturalistic context,
however, they cannot. That has been my point throughout.
<<Let me put it another way -- and please don't take this confrontationally.
Do you propose that people who do not accept a particular personal God
are being unreasonable?>>
That's a perfectly legitimate question. And my answer is, it depends. For
example, I think it can be shown that the Christian God is supported by a
large body of evidence. To the extent such evidence is ignored in favor of
other, more speculative evidence, one might say that reason is not being
employed to the full.
I went to law school with a Mormon Bishop. We had a three year discussion.
Finally he said, "Look, it all comes down to one thing: do you believe in
modern day revelation or not?"
That really is the issue re: Mormonism. If Joseph Smith did in fact get this
direct revelation from God, and the golden plates and seer stones, then
Mormonism is the one, true church. However, there are a number of evidentiary
items which render this belief, to me, untenable.
When confronted with these items, my Mormon friend fell back on the idea of
"the testimony," viz., that the Holy Spirit had imparted to him a direct
revelation of the truth of the Book of Mormon. That is not something that can
be evaluted objectively. It seems to me a tad unreasonable to make that the
sole foundation of faith, in light of the historical problems.
On top of that, I related to him that I had read the Book of Mormon, too, and
had a direct testimony that it was a deception from the enemy (this actually
happened).
At that point, our discussion ended. But there is an example of reasonable
discussion about religious matters. It can be done.
Jim