Rudolf Bultmann and the authentic self came out of response to Martin Heidegger. Heidegger thought that one must choose to become authentic–human nature is inauthentic. You’re split from your own self-hood, but the self calls the self back to itself and to wholeness and integration. Hence, there are two “me’s.” We can heed that call through philosophical analysis and become authentically whole. Bultmann says, “No you can’t, because we are in sin.” Bultmann connects Heidegger’s view of human being with the biblical view of humanity and the human situation. Sin is not inauthenticity itself but the choice (entscheidung, decision) not to heed the call to freedom and selfhood. In contrast to Heidegger, the I of the human being, which has fallen into inauthentic they cannot get itself back no matter how hard it tries.
Immanuel Kant’s Religion Within the Limits of Reason Alone synopsis
- How the free will, even though radically evil, can regenerate itself
- How Christianity as rationally interpreted exemplifies this process of moral regeneration
- As such, two views about humanity are rejected by Kant
- Rejects the view of the enlightenment (Aufklarung) that humans are basically good
- Rejects the view of human depravity
- How can the evil disposition be converted to a good one? How is it that oughtness is a can?
- There must be a revolution of habits, which Kant understands to be the new birth (Jn. 3)
- How, if we are corrupt, can we cause ourselves to be born again?
read more »
On 8 November 2012 I did a presentation to the Ratio Christi club at Liberty University on how to argue for the existence of God. It was designed to be a smaller training session for the Ratio Christi members. I discussed the importance of apologetics and the difference between knowing your faith to be true and showing your faith to be true. That was the followed by methodological differences and my use of the classical approach.
I then gave three arguments: 1) Thomas’ cosmological argument from contingency, 2) the abductive fine-tuning argument, and 3) the abductive moral argument (or as I like to say, the new moral argument).