Comments on: Bavinck, Reid and Realism

By: God Must Exist

God Must Exist — Thu, 14 Jul 2011 02:38:24 +0000

[…] http://reformedforum.wpengine.com/pft1/ Poythress noted: “The ‘realists’ said that the universal category, ‘dog’ … was the starting point, and individual dogs were embodiments of the prior, real idea. By contrast, the ‘nominalists’ said that the particular dogs were the starting point, and that the general category was … a kind of grouping together of the particulars under one name, ‘dog.’ Our examination of the words suggests that neither of these accounts is completely right (Vern Poythress: In the Beginning was the Word, p. 275). http://www.theLordGodExists.com/ Prove the existence of God. ← Global Cooling: GW Refuted Examined Lives: WSJ Book Review → […]

By: Mike Robinson

Mike Robinson — Mon, 03 Jan 2011 23:23:17 +0000

Let me add a quote (sorry it’s tardy) by Poythress: â€œThe ‘realists’ said that the universal category, ‘dog’ … was the starting point, and individual dogs were embodiments of the prior, real idea. By contrast, the ‘nominalists’ said that the particular dogs were the starting point, and that the general category was … a kind of grouping together of the particulars under one name, ‘dog.’ Our examination of the words suggests that neither of these accounts is completely right” (Vern Poythress: In the Beginning was the Word, p. 275).

By: Rob de Roos

Rob de Roos — Fri, 07 May 2010 01:22:20 +0000

I cannot comment on Reid but concerning Bavinck’s realism, I think Jan Veenhof’s little booklet, “Nature and Grace in Herman Bavinck”, definitively puts Bavinck’s realism in connection to creation. Veenhof himself holds views that is less than to be desired. But I think to reduce Bavinck’s realism to just the 3 pages in the prolegomena of the Reformed Dogmatics is a mistake.

By: Bob McDowell

Bob McDowell — Thu, 29 Apr 2010 12:36:51 +0000

I guess I’m not a theologian, so I didn’t get much from this. Too free-flowing and staccato for my ageing cerebral cortex.

I guess I should have bought the program so I could have determined the players’ names and numbers, earned run average, etc.

By: Jonathan B

Jonathan B — Thu, 29 Apr 2010 00:17:05 +0000

In reply to Patrick.

Patrick,

Fair enough, and Thanks for your comment. Please understand that I am not calling Quine a ‘postmodern’ per se. Instead, Quine’s ontological relativism and denial of ‘first philosophy’ of aprior knowledge for empirical data leads to instrumentailism and thus results in pragmatism. Quine’s “two dogmas” concludes with any logical or analytic statement being up for revision. What does that mean…it means A=A is not necessarily true. This leads to a skepticism about ‘meaning’…and who does that sound like?…That’s right, Derrida. The “two dogmas” was mainly criticized for neglecting analytic presuppositions by men such as Grice, Strawson, and Soames. Is Quine in the analytic tradition? Yes, you are correct, and I admit that. Nevertheless, I would argue that his conclusions, when stripped of their analytic clothes are very similar to many post-modern thinkers. This is why I find him fascinating.

By: Chris E

Chris E — Wed, 28 Apr 2010 15:47:22 +0000

If I might make a suggestion – you dived into the main issues a little early, I suspect listeners who weren’t already familiar with the material would have found it hard to follow.

By: Patrick

Patrick — Tue, 27 Apr 2010 19:21:04 +0000

Passing reference to Quine as ending in something of a postmodern position suggests the RF crew could do a better job staying within their areas of research, but overall an interesting show and great new series. I’m sure you have more show ideas than time to record them, but might I suggest a possible future show format: RF participants could each read an article or book/chapter (in this case, in philosophy) and discuss it on a show, perhaps each preparing 5-10 minute or-so comments or responses. Alternatively, you could interact with some of the philosophy of religion audio online–for example, the 2009 conference at Notre Dame “My ways are not your ways,” which is all online here: http://www.nd.edu/~cprelig/conferences/HebrewBible.shtml I look forward to hearing future discussions in this series though.

By: Camden Bucey

Camden Bucey — Tue, 27 Apr 2010 10:22:08 +0000

Thanks. Jared and Jonathan will be handling most of this one. They’re planning to address one philosopher or philosophical topic per episode and drill drown in a structure fashion. This was sort of a free-for-all discussion. Regardless, I enjoyed it 😉

By: G. Kyle Essary

G. Kyle Essary — Tue, 27 Apr 2010 05:26:07 +0000

Very interesting show. I look forward to future installments.

By: Tim H.

Tim H. — Mon, 26 Apr 2010 21:06:53 +0000

Good decision and good resource!