Это видео недоступно.
Сожалеем об этом.
James Anderson: What's Your Worldview?
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 19 авг 2024
- Dr. James Anderson helps Christians identify, evaluate, and interact with non-Christian worldviews.
This message is from our 2016 National Conference, The Gospel: • The Gospel: 2016 Natio...
Purchase a digital download or DVD of this conference: www.ligonier.or...
Thanks for starting with what 'worldviews' are. Most people don't understand that we all have one. This is helpful.
Very concise and helpful. Glad that many more people are seeking to understand the subject and how vital the content is
Excellent, just excellent - one of the best I've seen/heard on this subject, given 20 min.. Thank you. And, remarkably, the name of Calvin wasn't invoked! Thank for that as well.
Right on!He nailed it...
In the US and in world politics there is currently an emergence of a more clear distinction of two world views. The first view believes that governments should be caregivers and act as substitute fathers, mothers, and family leaders. That the role of government is to be a savior to single mothers and refugees. It also believes that nationhood and national identity is a fiction that was responsible for WW2 and therefore must be abolished. It believes that bureaucracy is more important than democracy.
The second view, expressed in the US constitution, is that government must be limited in scope and power. There must be checks and balances upon the corrupt nature of man. This view also holds that human beings should be free in their religious, economic, and social interactions. That the world is a better and richer more productive place when human beings are free to pursue their own interests without interference from the government. But more importantly this second view holds that families, not government, should raise their own children and father their own children, that the government can never be a substitute parent or caregiver.
Grace and peace! ✌😎✌
Starts topic at 5:30
Consider this story.
Suppose that a member of your Hindu church falls seriously ill, let's say it's a young girl. The doctors do a bunch of tests and discover that she has a very serious, life-threatening condition, but they can't figure out the cause of it. They do everything they can with all the medical technologies available to them, but it's not enough. The doctors say that this girl will be dead within 24 hours. So what do you do? You pray fervently to Shiva. You may well hold a prayer vigil through the night to lift up this girl before Lord Shiva. So suppose that your Hindu church does exactly that, and in hours the girl's condition starts to improve, rapidly improve. In fact it starts to turn around completely, and very quickly she is out of critical condition and on the road to recovery. The doctors are absolutely baffled. They can't explain it. They had exhausted all of the medical options, and none of them had worked. Some of the doctors may even use the 'M' word, "It's a miracle!” Now, how do you interpret that course of events? This HIndu church member became critically ill. The doctors said that she was going to die within 24 hours. Your Hindu church prayed for her, and now she is making a recovery. I think you would most likely interpret that as a divine intervention. Shiva brought about healing, and He did so specifically in answer to your prayers. Well obviously, your Hindu church is going to be overjoyed at this, and you are pretty pumped.
Events like this have occurred. Hindus have prayed to Shiva for healing, been healed, and attributed that healing to Shiva. Afterwards they lived their lives in gratitude to Shiva and eventually died fervent Hindus. Has their worldview been justified as truth? Or is it just a coincidence?
Wow that made it easy to understand what a worldview is
6:20 Yes, yes, I thought it over quite thoroughly. It's 42.
5:10 What makes the difference is that Dan understands that correlation does not imply causation whereas the believer uses confirmation bias, survivor bias and an extreme case of narcissism to insist that the prayer about this one child that they prayed for was answered while 10's of thousands of children die _every single day_ while the prayers of their loved ones and communities go unanswered.
This is not just a difference of world view. One mind uses critical thinking, the other is using demonstrably fallacious reasoning.
Assuming the one who believes that nothing created everything, with no cause or purpose is the one who is fallacious?
Please don't forget you too (and Dan) all have a worldview. Which makes you just as religious as the Christian. The difference is your god is biased reason and your own thoughts.
And who says narcissistic thought is bad? You certainly cannot because you don't have a basis for it. If your belief is lack of believe in the God of scripture than you have no real moral ground to stand on. You're just stealing from God's law and his created order. The naturalistic world has no real basis for anything, thus you cannot be angry at children dying other than it makes you mad. Which is probably why you reject God to begin with.
But youll either never see this or reply with some quip you read in a book that you think has more veracity than Holy scripture. But when you're man centered what do I expect?
Let's drop the insults and be serious here: let's say that you write a letter to your wife before going to work that morning asking her to pick up some bread at the groceries later that day. You don't get the chance to speak to her in the morning or at any point during the day so she only has your note to go by. When you get home, you find that your kitchen counter now has one more loaf of bread on it than it had in the morning before you left. Is it a case of "confirmation" bias if you were to conclude that your wife read your note and went out to buy some bread, even if you didn't see it happen and haven't even spoken to her yet?
No, that's not confirmation bias, that's called communication. Sometimes the answer to a prayer is a little too coincidental to be mere coincidence. You can see the evidence of a mind at work orchestrating events to bring about a desired result for yourself.
@@Jimmy-iy9pl 1- what insults? Pointing out fallacious reasoning is not a personal insult. It's just a provable statement about the nature of an argument.
2- Your analogy doesn't align with what happens with prayer. Try this:
Each day for a month, you purposely do not talk to your wife about grocery shopping. But every morning you try to use mental telepathy to tell her "buy bread today". 29 days of the month, your wife does not buy bread. On 1 day she does.
On that one day you say, "see my telepathy works!" ignoring the 29 failure days. That is confirmation bias and is exactly what happens with prayer.
Billions of humans pray for billions of things that don't happen, ever single day. The fact that sometimes the thing prayed for happens is completely expected by pure random chance, with so many trials.
Calling people narcissists is an insult, Alex.
The problem with your analogy is that there's no reason to think your wife has telepathy. God is omnipotent and omniscient. Also, buying bread in and of itself is not an entirely uncommon phenomenon. So it seems antecedently likely that your wife would buy bread during any visit to the grocery store. There is no reason to suspect a causal link between your attempts at sending a telepathic message and her buying bread here, because your wife is presumably not telepathic.
But let's say that on day 5 your wife *did* suddenly hear a voice in her head telling her to buy bread. Should you discount that successful reception because you failed every other day? No. That wouldn't make any sense. The positive evidence far outweighs the negative evidence here.
Outstanding successful prayer is like that. People who pray for dramatically unlikely things and receive them only after prayer is far more likely on the hypothesis of a prayer-answering God being real. We have many real examples of dramatic answered prayer.
@@alexwilli
Dr. James Anderson is presuppositional on his apologetics method.
Didn’t he say otherwise during his interview with Pat Flynn? Either way, he at the very least *also* offers arguments from logic that aren’t presupp
I believe a better example would have been how Christians view the world verse how the atheist views the world.
By world, I'm thinking of the existence of the earth and the universe.
@Brian Osisek There are many types of Worldviews. There is different athiestic worldviews. (Epistemology, ontology and metaphysics is what makes a worldview)
@@thomaskanke6383 there are only 2. Either God is just or man is just. Period
Bunch of fake detached yuppie creampuffs all youncare about is whether you can pay your bills and keep.up with the joneses
Fake brainless zombies
SOSDD...