|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Purgatory: Empirical evidence?
|
Raptor Eye
Shipmate
# 16649
|
Posted
The conversation went like this:
'Here it is in the dictionary: empirical - based or acting on observation or experiment, not on theory, deriving knowledge from experience.'
'Ah. In that case I've got empirical knowledge of Christianity.'
'No, that can't be right. Christianity is a belief system. You can't have experience of it.'
'Of course you can. If you couldn't, I wouldn't be a Christian.'
'That's like saying someone could have empirical knowledge of a ghost'.
'Well he could, if he saw a ghost, couldn't he?'
'Of course not. There's no such thing'.
My questions for the ship:
Is it reasonable to claim empirical knowledge of Christianity, or of God? What is your own experience?
[ 10. April 2013, 06:07: Message edited by: Barnabas62 ]
--------------------
Be still, and know that I am God! Psalm 46.10
Posts: 4359 | From: The United Kingdom | Registered: Sep 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mark Betts
Ship's Navigation Light
# 17074
|
Posted
"Empirical evidence" (or knowledge) is a term used by the many scientismists on this board and elsewhere. They change its criteria as necessary to suit their arguments, so you can't win with them.
--------------------
"We are not some casual and meaningless product of evolution. Each of us is the result of a thought of God. Each of us is willed, each of us is loved, each of us is necessary."
Posts: 2080 | From: Leicester | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Yorick
Infinite Jester
# 12169
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Raptor Eye:
Is it reasonable to claim empirical knowledge of Christianity, or of God?
All evidence is experience. The data provided by scientific method are experienced personally by scientists, in exactly the same way that your belief in God is experienced personally by you. The difference, and this is important, is that the evidence of science is interpersonal. Others can also experience the same evidence by following exactly the same method of experiencing it. With non-interpersonal experience as evidence, your data on the existence of God is no different from mine that I am Napoleon, Emperor of the French.
--------------------
این نیز بگذرد
Posts: 7574 | From: Natural Sources | Registered: Dec 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Raptor Eye
Shipmate
# 16649
|
Posted
What do you think, Mark?
I suppose that acceptance of sets of beliefs pretty much equates to the theoretical, but what has convinced me of the truth is personal experience.
--------------------
Be still, and know that I am God! Psalm 46.10
Posts: 4359 | From: The United Kingdom | Registered: Sep 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sergius-Melli
Shipmate
# 17462
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Yorick:
With non-interpersonal experience as evidence, your data on the existence of God is no different from mine that I am Napoleon, Emperor of the French.
Before we progress which Emperor Napoleon do you think you are?
Posts: 722 | From: Sneaking across Welsh hill and dale with a thurible in hand | Registered: Dec 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Raptor Eye
Shipmate
# 16649
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Yorick:
All evidence is experience. The data provided by scientific method are experienced personally by scientists, in exactly the same way that your belief in God is experienced personally by you. The difference, and this is important, is that the evidence of science is interpersonal. Others can also experience the same evidence by following exactly the same method of experiencing it. With non-interpersonal experience as evidence, your data on the existence of God is no different from mine that I am Napoleon, Emperor of the French.
What if interpersonal experience is gained although it cannot be forced by any specific method, as it's given by the will of God rather than of man?
--------------------
Be still, and know that I am God! Psalm 46.10
Posts: 4359 | From: The United Kingdom | Registered: Sep 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
EtymologicalEvangelical
Shipmate
# 15091
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Yorick
Others can also experience the same evidence by following exactly the same method of experiencing it.
Strictly speaking, that is not true. Even Bertrand Russell admitted as much.
From 'The Problems of Philosophy' (chapter 1: Appearance and Reality):
quote:
It follows that if several people are looking at the table [the empirical object in question] at the same moment, no two of them will see exactly the same distribution of colours, because no two can see it from exactly the same point of view, and any change in the point of view makes some change in the way the light is reflected.
For most practical purposes these differences are unimportant, but to the painter they are all-important: the painter has to unlearn the habit of thinking that things seem to have the colour which common sense says they 'really' have, and to learn the habit of seeing things as they appear. Here we have already the beginning of one of the distinctions that cause most trouble in philosophy -- the distinction between 'appearance' and 'reality', between what things seem to be and what they are. The painter wants to know what things seem to be, the practical man and the philosopher want to know what they are; but the philosopher's wish to know this is stronger than the practical man's, and is more troubled by knowledge as to the difficulties of answering the question.
And there then follows a great deal of prevarication about the value of empiricism - and that from a staunch empiricist!
Furthermore, we cannot perceive anything by our senses without some structure of concepts in our minds, otherwise the perception is nothing more than neural impulses that tell us absolutely nothing (imagine a visual sensation experienced by someone without any concept of space, substance, shape, colour, unity, plurality, totality, identity etc). The scientific method draws on philosophical assumptions (for example, the principle of uniformity) to interpret sense data, and the theorising that results from this goes way beyond the idea of interpersonal experience.
So clearly the philosophy of naturalism has the same status as Christianity: both rely on faith* to some extent.
(* in the popular sense of believing something for which the empirical evidence may not be perfectly convincing.)
--------------------
You can argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome': but you neither can nor need argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome, but I'm not saying this is true'. CS Lewis
Posts: 3625 | From: South Coast of England | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Evensong
Shipmate
# 14696
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Raptor Eye:
'Here it is in the dictionary: empirical - based or acting on observation or experiment, not on theory, deriving knowledge from experience.'
If that is indeed the correct definition of empiricism then absolutely we can have empirical knowledge of Christianity.
If, however, as Yorick says, empiricism is defined by reproducibility of experiment, then that would be more difficult because the variables in the Christian experiment are too many to successfully control and reproduce in each person.
But that's the beauty of Grace. ![[Angel]](graemlins/angel.gif)
--------------------
a theological scrapbook
Posts: 9481 | From: Australia | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
Empirical knowledge of Christianity? Not only is it possible, it exists. Whole anthropological, sociological, and historical studies have been done on Christianity, most of them the product of observing Christians in their native habitat.
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
roybart
Shipmate
# 17357
|
Posted
I'm glad that this thread has been spun off from "Atheists' Church."
One of the most interesting set of comments from that other thread is this:
quote:
quote:Originally posted by Raptor Eye:
quote:Originally posted by SusanDoris:
How do those who believe that God is communicating with them tell the difference between their own thoughts and input from God?
This is a good question. We have thoughts entering our heads all of the time. Where do they come from?
God speaks into the spirit, which then feeds into the mind, so that the blessing of peace in the heart accompanies God's guidance. Discernment is applied logically too: God would not guide us into harmful behaviour, and we must be conscious of our own tendencies and influences.
To which Boogie responded:
quote:
Unbidden thoughts, dreams, spiritual experiences, feeling of peace, dreams, visions ...
all these can be accounted for as coming form our own subconscious mind. We have great imaginations too.
There are so many ways that religious people "know," "experience," "believe," "feel," "imagine," that they are in contact with God. Can they all be authentic? Beneficial, or at least free from harm to us or others?
This puts a huge burden on the "discernment process" -- one's own, and that of the larger community/communities in which we live.
--------------------
"The consolations of the imaginary are not imaginary consolations."
-- Roger Scruton
Posts: 547 | From: here | Registered: Sep 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
I think Yorick has a good point, that scientific evidence is intersubjective, but also the Russell quote is interesting. It suggests that science is subject to idealization - that the differences between individual experiences are ironed out normally. Thus, if there is a speck of dust on my telescope lens, I will ignore it.
The obvious point from this is that 'empirical' is not synonymous with 'scientific'. After that, the usual problems with religious experience apply, if in fact, they are seen as problems. I mean, that they are individual experiences; but then, surely, there is some intersubjectivity as well, otherwise, forums like this would not work!
In fact, one of the functions of religious ritual is to harmonize people's experience to an extent.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
For most practical purposes these differences are unimportant
I think this a very important component of that Russell quote.
The painter, the scientist and the philosopher place their tea cups on the table. And, despite their different perspectives, the tea does not fall to the floor.
This type of experiment does not translate to inter-religious beliefs. Or, often, intra-religious beliefs.
This by quetzalcoatl is on the mark.
quote:
In fact, one of the functions of religious ritual is to harmonize people's experience to an extent.
(Bold mine)
Despite religious denialists, religious belief =\= scientific methodology.
[ 30. January 2013, 16:01: Message edited by: lilBuddha ]
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
The thing that has always interested me is that scientists make observations about appearances. They do not conjecture that this is reality; well, OK, they may do privately, but normally that will not get written up. Thus, they don't normally worry about whether atoms really exist.
I know also that quantum mechanics does conjecture about reality.
But science has (brilliantly) separated itself off from such metaphysical speculation. Therefore, it seems to me, that it is not equipped to speculate about metaphysical questions.
But then who is?
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
HCH
Shipmate
# 14313
|
Posted
It seems to me that an empiricist cannot simply state that there are no ghosts; the most he can say is that he has not personally observed any.
Posts: 1540 | From: Illinois, USA | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
S/he can say no one has produced verifiable evidence.
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549
|
Posted
Originally, an empiric is a doctor whose medical practice is based upon trial and error rather than upon any body of theory about human anatomy or physiology. (In other words, and this says something about the history of medicine, an empiric is a quack.)
By derivation, an empiricist is a philosopher who believes knowledge is all derived from the senses rather than innate or derived from pure reason.
Knowledge that is derived from sensory observation is empirical. For example, if you know what colour a flower is because you looked at it you have empirical knowledge.
The question of whether religious revelation is empirical or not would therefore depend on whether there is a sense devoted to such things. Now most senses have a phenomenology - we can say one taste is not like another taste, and so on. As there isn't any attested phenomenology of a religious sense, and religious revelation or religious awareness don't behave in other ways like sensory observations, it's not empirical knowledge.
--------------------
we remain, thanks to original sin, much in love with talking about, rather than with, one another. Rowan Williams
Posts: 10567 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
The Machine Elf
Irregular polytope
# 1622
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
Empirical knowledge of Christianity? Not only is it possible, it exists. Whole anthropological, sociological, and historical studies have been done on Christianity, most of them the product of observing Christians in their native habitat.
The Pragmatic movement took this idea and used it, in part, to create an empirical view of Christian belief which could be summarised as judging the tree by its fruits - if you hold a belief, and it effects your behaviour and emotional state, these can be observed and, if found to be beneficial, you can create an empirical judgement that that belief is useful. Interestingly, by concentrating on empirical effects, Pragmatism does not find the idea of 'truth' useful.
--------------------
Elves of any kind are strange folk.
Posts: 1298 | From: the edge of the deep green sea | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mili
Shipmate
# 3254
|
Posted
I don't think you can start with a dictionary definition as 'empirical' has different meanings in different contexts. It's similar to starting with a proof text from the Bible except that no-one claims that dictionaries are the infallible word of God.
When scientists or those coming from a scientific point of view use the word empirical they are referring to a a very particular kind of evidence. We can not use this type of evidence to prove or disprove religious beliefs.
It doesn't matter to them whether a philosopher, a theologian or the average person in the street uses the word differently.
Posts: 1015 | From: Melbourne, Australia | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Raptor Eye
Shipmate
# 16649
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by roybart:
There are so many ways that religious people "know," "experience," "believe," "feel," "imagine," that they are in contact with God. Can they all be authentic? Beneficial, or at least free from harm to us or others?
This puts a huge burden on the "discernment process" -- one's own, and that of the larger community/communities in which we live.
Consciousness of the dangers and the need for collective discernment is important, and exercised where individuals feel as if they're being 'called' into ministry.
However, the idea of expressing personal consciousness of God or of learning to listen for and discern God's guidance is not generally encouraged outside of this context. Could it be that fear of deluded individuals insisting that God has told them something may lead to active discouragement of any such discussion? It would be understandable. I've met many an individual who makes decisions using a fatalistic 'meant to be' approach, and others who would love to pass responsibility for their decisions onto God. This is contrary to the way God guides us, in my experience, which is connected with our service to God rather than God's service to us, and is always by invitation and never imposition.
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:The question of whether religious revelation is empirical or not would therefore depend on whether there is a sense devoted to such things. Now most senses have a phenomenology - we can say one taste is not like another taste, and so on. As there isn't any attested phenomenology of a religious sense, and religious revelation or religious awareness don't behave in other ways like sensory observations, it's not empirical knowledge.
Few people deny that human beings experience more than the physical senses provide. Love, emotional feelings, being 'moved', etc are shared human experiences, as is religious revelation. Whether or not there is a set down standard by which the phenomena may be tested, surely those who can testify to them have empirical knowledge of them, using the term in its broadest sense.
--------------------
Be still, and know that I am God! Psalm 46.10
Posts: 4359 | From: The United Kingdom | Registered: Sep 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
no prophet's flag is set so...
Proceed to see sea
# 15560
|
Posted
Two concepts, which have both statistical and practical definitions and applications.
1. Reliability. If I write IQ=150 on a piece of paper and wave it over a shipmate's head and chant "I'm measuring intelligence, I'm measuring intelligence", and then repeat the exercise, I will obtain 100% reliability. If I give the paper to Raptor's Eye and have him/her repeat the chant and paper waving, we'll obtain 100% inter-rater reliability for this SOF-IQ Test.
2. Validity. Is the exercise in #1 valid?
With this empirical evidence question with Christianity, we may get 100% reliability within certain groups of people. Validity? That's the key isn't it. The validity of Christianity hinges on something that cannot be validated, i.e., belief/faith, and thus fails a simple empirical test.
I'm not sure why this would be a problem in any case. The beauty of a painting or music also fails empirical tests.
[ 31. January 2013, 13:55: Message edited by: no prophet ]
--------------------
Out of this nettle, danger, we pluck this flower, safety.
\_(ツ)_/
Posts: 11498 | From: Treaty 6 territory in the nonexistant Province of Buffalo, Canada ↄ⃝' | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
EtymologicalEvangelical
Shipmate
# 15091
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet
With this empirical evidence question with Christianity, we may get 100% reliability within certain groups of people. Validity? That's the key isn't it. The validity of Christianity hinges on something that cannot be validated, i.e., belief/faith, and thus fails a simple empirical test.
What is the empirical observation or experiment which establishes your definition of 'validity'?
--------------------
You can argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome': but you neither can nor need argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome, but I'm not saying this is true'. CS Lewis
Posts: 3625 | From: South Coast of England | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
no prophet's flag is set so...
Proceed to see sea
# 15560
|
Posted
Definition of validity.
I took 3 undergrad courses in stats, and 7 at the grad level, so my definition tends to go with validity in its "external" or "causal" form.
You have to be able to show that the thing you're validating holds to be true across situations or circumstances, with expectable predictability. The IQ test I invented above does not correspond to any external validity, e.g., other indicators of intellect. Thus invalid.
I cannot see that any form of faith can be so validated in this way. I just don't think this is the right language to consider faith, prayer, existence of God or anything else religious. In fact, a clear proof of any of it invalidates the whole idea of belief in the very absence of verification. So it is a contradiction.
However, I may be persuaded to believe something by my subjective experience or the force of your argument. But it is still not validity.
--------------------
Out of this nettle, danger, we pluck this flower, safety.
\_(ツ)_/
Posts: 11498 | From: Treaty 6 territory in the nonexistant Province of Buffalo, Canada ↄ⃝' | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Raptor Eye
Shipmate
# 16649
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet:
I cannot see that any form of faith can be so validated in this way. I just don't think this is the right language to consider faith, prayer, existence of God or anything else religious. In fact, a clear proof of any of it invalidates the whole idea of belief in the very absence of verification. So it is a contradiction.
However, I may be persuaded to believe something by my subjective experience or the force of your argument. But it is still not validity.
The way I see it, the spiritual substance of our faith is in evidence, as may be verified by those who share it. The fact that it cannot be predictably reproduced proves the validity of belief in a God with a will who is other than us and who cannot be manipulated by us.
--------------------
Be still, and know that I am God! Psalm 46.10
Posts: 4359 | From: The United Kingdom | Registered: Sep 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Raptor Eye:
Few people deny that human beings experience more than the physical senses provide. Love, emotional feelings, being 'moved', etc are shared human experiences, as is religious revelation. Whether or not there is a set down standard by which the phenomena may be tested, surely those who can testify to them have empirical knowledge of them, using the term in its broadest sense.
I think that those are not experiences in the way that the senses provide 'experiences'. Being in love does not work like seeing a red flower or feeling a brick wall. It's much more comparable to the way in which having worked in the same job for thirty years is experience. But that's orthogonal to whether there are sources of empirical data other than our senses.
--------------------
we remain, thanks to original sin, much in love with talking about, rather than with, one another. Rowan Williams
Posts: 10567 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Raptor Eye
Shipmate
# 16649
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
I think that those are not experiences in the way that the senses provide 'experiences'. Being in love does not work like seeing a red flower or feeling a brick wall. It's much more comparable to the way in which having worked in the same job for thirty years is experience. But that's orthogonal to whether there are sources of empirical data other than our senses.
I disagree that spiritual experience is comparable to work experience. I think I understand where you're coming from, as such things as love and the Christian religion are lived and they mature in us, in the same way as our bodies and nature mature.
I'm comparing the experiences we receive into our minds from our physical senses with those that we receive into our minds through spiritual experience, in the here and now. A blessing of peace or joy from God surely affects us as directly as a fellow human being touching us.
--------------------
Be still, and know that I am God! Psalm 46.10
Posts: 4359 | From: The United Kingdom | Registered: Sep 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Thus, if there is a speck of dust on my telescope lens, I will ignore it.
Maybe it's just my crazy brain, but I read that and immediately wondered how you go about determining that it IS a speck of dust, and not, say, Pluto.
(Having seen the photographic plates that led to the discovery of Pluto, this is not an unreasonable comparison.)
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
no prophet's flag is set so...
Proceed to see sea
# 15560
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Raptor Eye:
The way I see it, the spiritual substance of our faith is in evidence, as may be verified by those who share it. The fact that it cannot be predictably reproduced proves the validity of belief in a God with a will who is other than us and who cannot be manipulated by us.
I see where you're going with this. It is not the same thing. I think you're actually talking inter-person reliability. That if this person independently believes of a second, and also independent of a third, then the convergence of independent views tends to confirm the belief. But it doesn't. It just says that there is agreement between people. Such agreement between people may lead us to think the belief is thus valid, but it does not actually work that way. To be valid in the sense of verification, the evidence would have to come from more that a belief.
Consider malaria. Literally thought to come from "bad air", and a shared belief that it did not make it factual. Or that germs and disease arise spontaneously from dirt, also a shared belief, but not valid.
If we're going to enter the land of statistics, validity and evidence, we end up losing if we're talking about religious beliefs. It's like showing up to play golf with snorkelling gear. It cuts the other way as well: science loses when it tries to convince us that it can discuss and conclude about ultimate things, like what got the universe going with the big bang, and the purposes of it.
On the other side of this question, this is what annoys me so thoroughly at the child-like approach to religious faith people like Dawkins take. They make a similar error, in trying to use successful methods from one area of inquiry, misapplying it to another where it also just doesn't fit.
--------------------
Out of this nettle, danger, we pluck this flower, safety.
\_(ツ)_/
Posts: 11498 | From: Treaty 6 territory in the nonexistant Province of Buffalo, Canada ↄ⃝' | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
EtymologicalEvangelical
Shipmate
# 15091
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical
What is the empirical observation or experiment which establishes your definition of 'validity'?
Definition of validity.
I took 3 undergrad courses in stats, and 7 at the grad level, so my definition tends to go with validity in its "external" or "causal" form.
You have to be able to show that the thing you're validating holds to be true across situations or circumstances, with expectable predictability. The IQ test I invented above does not correspond to any external validity, e.g., other indicators of intellect. Thus invalid.
You haven't answered my question. I didn't ask for a definition of validity, but rather I asked for the empirical observation or experiment which establishes your definition (which from your previous post appears to depend on empiricism).
In other words, who decided that your definition of validity should be the correct one? How is this definition arrived at? By what means? If it is not by empirical means, then it follows that not all valid evidence needs to be empirical or empirically testable.
A similar question would be: is empiricism empirically based? Is the idea of empiricism the result of some empirical observation or experiment? The answer is quite obviously no.
What specific empirical observation or experiment proves that something can only be valid if it "holds to be true across situations or circumstances, with expectable predictability"?
The point I am making is that your entire methodology is based on an idea, not on anything empirical. Where in nature do we observe your definition of 'validity'?
The idea that all claims have to be validated empirically is clearly self-refuting, because that idea itself cannot be validated by its own method. Therefore some ideas at least can be validated without reference to the empirical method, but by their logical coherence and relevance to reality. Many of the ideas of the Christian faith fall into this category.
One other point: you talk about the need for validity, but 'valid' for whom? It doesn't follow that everyone will automatically accept an idea which has passed any test of validity. There is still a free will response required. This takes us back to square one. If a group of Christians mutually affirm their common experience of what they believe is God, then that experience is valid for them. The fact that certain other people refuse to believe them is irrelevant. And even if they could provide evidence that satisfies the criterion of 'validity' of, say, science, it doesn't follow that that evidence would be accepted by outsiders or unbelievers anyway. This evidence may be rejected for reasons that have nothing to do with scientific or logical proof. (An example of this would be a claimed miraculous healing backed up with medical documents. No amount of 'valid' proof will convince the hardened sceptic. He would just resort to some kind of 'gaps' explanation such as 'spontaneous remission', depending on the type of disease).
[ 03. February 2013, 11:35: Message edited by: EtymologicalEvangelical ]
--------------------
You can argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome': but you neither can nor need argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome, but I'm not saying this is true'. CS Lewis
Posts: 3625 | From: South Coast of England | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
If a group of Christians mutually affirm their common experience of what they believe is God, then that experience is valid for them.
for a certain value of valid, perhaps. But you are using experience incorrectly. Many, if not most, people are the religion they are by birth. BTW, by your criteria, Islam is becoming more valid each year. If its growth rate continues, it may become more valid than Christianity.
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
An example of this would be a claimed miraculous healing backed up with medical documents.
Jews, Hindus, Muslims, etc. can claim miracle cures as well. Equally valid?
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
No amount of 'valid' proof will convince the hardened believer
Fixed that for you.
Here is an experiment: Go to the roof of your nearest tall building and walk to the edge. The fact that, after walking/riding/motoring and ascending the stairs/lift, you are not floating off into space is valid proof of gravity. Religion does not have this. There is a word that better suits, if I could only think of it. No, no, don't help. I have faith I'll remember.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Raptor Eye
Shipmate
# 16649
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet:
I see where you're going with this. It is not the same thing. I think you're actually talking inter-person reliability. That if this person independently believes of a second, and also independent of a third, then the convergence of independent views tends to confirm the belief. But it doesn't. It just says that there is agreement between people. Such agreement between people may lead us to think the belief is thus valid, but it does not actually work that way. To be valid in the sense of verification, the evidence would have to come from more that a belief.
Consider malaria. Literally thought to come from "bad air", and a shared belief that it did not make it factual. Or that germs and disease arise spontaneously from dirt, also a shared belief, but not valid.
If we're going to enter the land of statistics, validity and evidence, we end up losing if we're talking about religious beliefs. It's like showing up to play golf with snorkelling gear. It cuts the other way as well: science loses when it tries to convince us that it can discuss and conclude about ultimate things, like what got the universe going with the big bang, and the purposes of it.
On the other side of this question, this is what annoys me so thoroughly at the child-like approach to religious faith people like Dawkins take. They make a similar error, in trying to use successful methods from one area of inquiry, misapplying it to another where it also just doesn't fit.
Thank you for your explanation as to why you think I should not use such terms to describe any aspect of my faith. I accept that my approach may be seen as child-like, in that it's simple observation of what my experience tells me are failings in what's being presented.
In this case, there seems to be an enormous failing in a scientific outlook which will accept the inter-personal reliability of what we receive through our physical senses, but not of what we receive spiritually. It greatly limits its scope if it narrows down what is acceptable human experience to be taken seriously and applied, and what must be discounted, based on the lack of predictable reproduction.
Of course we may revise our interpretations as new ideas and tests provide more information as to the sources and nature of our experiences and how we express them, but the events stand as true experiences, and should not be written off as imaginary simply because we can't reproduce them at will.
Much as I dislike what I see as Dawkins' cynical exploitation of the doubts and fears held concerning religion, I think that by raising his concerns he has provided the impetus for some people of faith to take theology seriously and haul themselves out of a pit of complacency. A sideways-on childlike observation may make a difference, as in the emperor's new clothes.
For me, one science doesn't end where another begins. There's a considerable overlap.
--------------------
Be still, and know that I am God! Psalm 46.10
Posts: 4359 | From: The United Kingdom | Registered: Sep 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Truman White
Shipmate
# 17290
|
Posted
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Yorick:
[QBAll evidence is experience. [/QB]
Other way round mate. All
experience is evidence . Go find a social researcher to chat to and he's tell you about it.
Posts: 476 | Registered: Aug 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
If a group of Christians mutually affirm their common experience of what they believe is God, then that experience is valid for them.
That sounds like a very subjective approach to validity. Have you finally come round to my point of view? ![[Smile]](smile.gif)
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Raptor Eye:
Of course we may revise our interpretations as new ideas and tests provide more information as to the sources and nature of our experiences and how we express them, but the events stand as true experiences, and should not be written off as imaginary simply because we can't reproduce them at will.
Ok, here's the thing. By that logic, the experience of a Christian who believes God has acted in her life is true. BUT, by the same logic the experience of a Muslim who believes Allah has acted in her life must also be true.
Logically, it is impossible for both religions to be true. So how can both people's experiences be true? And if one is false and the other is true, how can we tell which is which?
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ikkyu
Shipmate
# 15207
|
Posted
Also using the same argument Fred Phelps is equally "valid"
Posts: 434 | From: Arizona | Registered: Oct 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Raptor Eye
Shipmate
# 16649
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
Ok, here's the thing. By that logic, the experience of a Christian who believes God has acted in her life is true. BUT, by the same logic the experience of a Muslim who believes Allah has acted in her life must also be true.
Logically, it is impossible for both religions to be true. So how can both people's experiences be true? And if one is false and the other is true, how can we tell which is which?
It depends what you mean by 'acted in her life.' If you're talking about the theological analysis and associated religious language used concerning any everyday event in life, there will be some variation, between, within and outside of any religion. The experiences are true, while their interpretation varies, and as you have said it would be impossible to ascertain which if any of them was 'true'.
If, however, we're talking about the event of connection with the one living God, this is a shared but unpredictable experience which touches us intimately and profoundly and which is as real as a kiss. It may happen during prayer/meditation/contemplation/worship, it may not. It may or may not happen in the most extraordinary way. Sometimes people seek out religion in the hope of more, and of understanding. It may be fleeting, it may come in such strength that it lasts for days. In the way it affects the emotions, it comes as a bundle of love, peace, hope, and joy. It stimulates a sense of awe and recognition of God (some don't use the word 'God') who is far greater than we can ever imagine or begin to comprehend. I don't limit God to Christianity. I believe that God touches people from all religions and none, if they're open to receive him.
Jung said 'the more I looked into my own spirit and the spirit of my patients, I saw stretched out before me an infinite objective mystery within, as great and as wonderful as a sky full of stars'. A scientist who doesn't recognise the existence of the human spirit (and its potential to connect beyond itself to its Creator) and who excludes evidence of it from his perception of reality is one with a very limited scope.
--------------------
Be still, and know that I am God! Psalm 46.10
Posts: 4359 | From: The United Kingdom | Registered: Sep 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
tclune
Shipmate
# 7959
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
Logically, it is impossible for both religions to be true.
I have real problems with the notion of a religion being "true." Normally, we say that a sentence is "true" or "false." What would we be claiming if we said, for example, that physics is "true?" Would we mean that everything said in the name of physics is true? Would we mean that anything said about the physical world that was not expressed in a recognized equation of physics is "false?" What on earth would such a weird category mistake of a sentence possibly mean? And what could "my religion is true" possibly mean? This is blather masquerading as common sense. Or so ISTM.
--Tom Clune
--------------------
This space left blank intentionally.
Posts: 8013 | From: Western MA | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
This is interesting. I doubt if many physicists would claim that 'physics is true', since it is not a scientific claim, as far as I can see. They might argue for it on philosophical grounds, but then there are many problems around scientific realism.
Then to say that a religion is true also sounds odd to me. I suppose you could deconstruct it into a claim that its doctrines are factually accurate, but this seems to hit against the buffers also, since how can we establish that?
Not through science, since its methodology simply omits stuff like God, and does not rule them out.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Raptor Eye:
A scientist who doesn't recognise the existence of the human spirit (and its potential to connect beyond itself to its Creator)
and who excludes evidence of it from his perception of reality is one with a very limited scope.
(bold mine)
Technically limited, perhaps. But very limited? And what evidence, pray tell?
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by tclune:
I have real problems with the notion of a religion being "true." Normally, we say that a sentence is "true" or "false." What would we be claiming if we said, for example, that physics is "true?" Would we mean that everything said in the name of physics is true? Would we mean that anything said about the physical world that was not expressed in a recognized equation of physics is "false?" What on earth would such a weird category mistake of a sentence possibly mean? And what could "my religion is true" possibly mean? This is blather masquerading as common sense. Or so ISTM.
Put at its most simple, the phrase "Christianity is true" means that there is a God, that Jesus did exist and is His Son, and so forth. It means that the tenets of the faith are really real, not just made up.
Similarly, to say that Islam is true is to say that there truly is no God but Allah, and that Muhammed was Allah's last and most important Prophet.
I wouldn't have thought that statements about the truth or otherwise of religion(s) would be a controversial topic in Purgatory...
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
no prophet's flag is set so...
Proceed to see sea
# 15560
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Raptor Eye:
Thank you for your explanation as to why you think I should not use such terms to describe any aspect of my faith. I accept that my approach may be seen as child-like, in that it's simple observation of what my experience tells me are failings in what's being presented.
In this case, there seems to be an enormous failing in a scientific outlook which will accept the inter-personal reliability of what we receive through our physical senses, but not of what we receive spiritually. It greatly limits its scope if it narrows down what is acceptable human experience to be taken seriously and applied, and what must be discounted, based on the lack of predictable reproduction.
Of course we may revise our interpretations as new ideas and tests provide more information as to the sources and nature of our experiences and how we express them, but the events stand as true experiences, and should not be written off as imaginary simply because we can't reproduce them at will.
Much as I dislike what I see as Dawkins' cynical exploitation of the doubts and fears held concerning religion, I think that by raising his concerns he has provided the impetus for some people of faith to take theology seriously and haul themselves out of a pit of complacency. A sideways-on childlike observation may make a difference, as in the emperor's new clothes.
For me, one science doesn't end where another begins. There's a considerable overlap.
Science and science methods simply do not have the capacity to deal with questions of religion. I would never suggest that anyone's approach is childlike, your's included. We just mustn't let wrong methods intrude into areas where they simply do not apply.
About inter-person/ inter-rater reliability, it is one form of data that may come to bear on validity, but more is required than simply shared belief whne we're doing science. I believe the error of misapplying methods can also come from the other side, from religion, i.e., a shared experience or belief may be only be valid for the individuals involved in the narrow sense of their personal experiences. Hence, country gospel music moving some people to spiritual heights and thus being rather valid personally and among the group of persons with positive responses, while some of the rest of us find that such music hurtin'.
--------------------
Out of this nettle, danger, we pluck this flower, safety.
\_(ツ)_/
Posts: 11498 | From: Treaty 6 territory in the nonexistant Province of Buffalo, Canada ↄ⃝' | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
tclune
Shipmate
# 7959
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
Put at its most simple, the phrase "Christianity is true" means that there is a God, that Jesus did exist and is His Son, and so forth. It means that the tenets of the faith are really real, not just made up.
<snip>
I wouldn't have thought that statements about the truth or otherwise of religion(s) would be a controversial topic in Purgatory...
And yet, most Christians would say that the different denominations of Christianity don't all believe the same thing. So how can we say that "Christianity" is true, when "Christianity" appears to encompass contradictory views?
Is it your understanding that every tenet of some flavor of Christianity is well-formed, truth-functional, and true? If not, it seems that there is adequate room to say that alternative views are each "true" in whatever sense you are applying to "Christianity." If you can hand-wave the differing theologies of Calvinism, Orthodoxy, Arminianism, Catholicism, and Coptics, my guess is it wouldn't require a whole lot more effort to hand-wave Islam into your "true" tent...
--Tom Clune
--------------------
This space left blank intentionally.
Posts: 8013 | From: Western MA | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by tclune:
If you can hand-wave the differing theologies of Calvinism, Orthodoxy, Arminianism, Catholicism, and Coptics, my guess is it wouldn't require a whole lot more effort to hand-wave Islam into your "true" tent...
I'm not hand-waving those differences. What I said holds for any situation where one person believes one thing, another person believes another thing, and the two things cannot both be true.
How I resolve the problem is by saying that we don't know which beliefs are the true ones - we merely believe that ours are true. But when others claim the status of absolute, objective truth for their beliefs despite having no better evidence than all the others whose beliefs must therefore be false, well I feel that needs arguing against
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
George Spigot
Outcast
# 253
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by tclune:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
Logically, it is impossible for both religions to be true.
I have real problems with the notion of a religion being "true." Normally, we say that a sentence is "true" or "false." What would we be claiming if we said, for example, that physics is "true?" Would we mean that everything said in the name of physics is true? Would we mean that anything said about the physical world that was not expressed in a recognized equation of physics is "false?" What on earth would such a weird category mistake of a sentence possibly mean? And what could "my religion is true" possibly mean? This is blather masquerading as common sense. Or so ISTM.
--Tom Clune
I hope Marvin doesn't mind me butting in and appropriating his words here but I'd be interested to hear an answer to his question.
If "both religions can't be true" isn't palatable then how about Marvins follow up.
Logically, it is impossible for both:
A: There is a God, that Jesus did exist and is His Son.
and
B: there truly is no God but Allah, and that Muhammed was Allah's last and most important Prophet.
to both be true. So how can both people's experiences be true? And if one is false and the other is true, how can we tell which is which?
--------------------
C.S. Lewis's Head is just a tool for the Devil. (And you can quote me on that.) ~
Philip Purser Hallard
http://www.thoughtplay.com/infinitarian/gbsfatb.html
Posts: 1625 | From: Derbyshire - England | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by George Spigot:
Logically, it is impossible for both:
A: There is a God, that Jesus did exist and is His Son.
and
B: there truly is no God but Allah, and that Muhammed was Allah's last and most important Prophet.
to both be true.
Actually, strictly and literally speaking both statements can be true as phrased. The incompatibility comes in when (A) asserts that Muhammed was a false prophet and (B) asserts that Jesus (Isa) was not divine, which are both points that I implied but did not specifically state.
But the overall point stands.
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
tclune
Shipmate
# 7959
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
Actually, strictly and literally speaking both statements can be true as phrased. The incompatibility comes in when (A) asserts that Muhammed was a false prophet and (B) asserts that Jesus (Isa) was not divine, which are both points that I implied but did not specifically state.
But the overall point stands.
Maybe it's just the difference in our approaches to the faith. ISTM that faithful people spend their life deciding what they mean when they say Christ is divine, or that their sins are forgiven, etc. The notion that even precisely the same words mean anything like the same thing to two different Christians is just naive.
Insisting that "Christ died for your sins" is truth-functional and transparent like "Snow is white" is truth-functional and transparent is just plain false. Remember the Arian controversy? The problem was that those damned Arians kept agreeing with everything in the Nicene Creed, but the Athanasians knew damned well that they were heretics. THAT is religious discourse, and the flip side of the Arian controversy is the very real possibility that a Muslim may mean pretty much the same thing that a Christian means -- indeed, that a Christian and a Muslim may be closer to each other in beliefs than two Christians or two Muslims are.
--Tom Clune
--------------------
This space left blank intentionally.
Posts: 8013 | From: Western MA | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Raptor Eye
Shipmate
# 16649
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by George Spigot:
I hope Marvin doesn't mind me butting in and appropriating his words here but I'd be interested to hear an answer to his question.
If "both religions can't be true" isn't palatable then how about Marvins follow up.
Logically, it is impossible for both:
A: There is a God, that Jesus did exist and is His Son.
and
B: there truly is no God but Allah, and that Muhammed was Allah's last and most important Prophet.
to both be true. So how can both people's experiences be true? And if one is false and the other is true, how can we tell which is which?
Why do you suppose that the way they express it theologically would make any difference to the religious experiences of each of the above?
--------------------
Be still, and know that I am God! Psalm 46.10
Posts: 4359 | From: The United Kingdom | Registered: Sep 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by tclune:
Maybe it's just the difference in our approaches to the faith. ISTM that faithful people spend their life deciding what they mean when they say Christ is divine, or that their sins are forgiven, etc. The notion that even precisely the same words mean anything like the same thing to two different Christians is just naive.
Indeed, but that doesn't change the fact that there must be one interpretation or meaning that is actually true.
quote:
Insisting that "Christ died for your sins" is truth-functional and transparent like "Snow is white" is truth-functional and transparent is just plain false.
As I said, the claim has to be either true or false. Whether we can actually know which it is doesn't change that. Neither does throwing multiple possible interpretations of the claim into the mix - all that does is increase the number of possible options, it doesn't change the fact that only one of them can really be true.
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Raptor Eye:
Why do you suppose that the way they express it theologically would make any difference to the religious experiences of each of the above?
You started the thread by arguing that empirical evidence for Christianity exists. If you're saying that the theological expression of any given experience isn't relevant then you're saying that such empirical evidence does not exist, because once you take away the theological expression all you're left with is empirical evidence for a funny feeling that could have been caused by anything. You can't even describe the experience as religious, because that too is a theological expression.
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
tclune
Shipmate
# 7959
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
As I said, the claim has to be either true or false. Whether we can actually know which it is doesn't change that. Neither does throwing multiple possible interpretations of the claim into the mix - all that does is increase the number of possible options, it doesn't change the fact that only one of them can really be true.
No. This is just a primitive understanding of language. Religious language seems to have more in common with poetry (bad poetry, admittedly) than it has with declarative statements like, "It is raining outside."
The point of religious discourse is to capture the inner state of a person, not the external reality of the work-a-day world. "How is it with your soul?" may be rather wooden, but it strikes me as a quintessentially religious query. You don't "disprove" "April is the cruelest month" by showing that you got a raise at work then. But you may be moved to respond, "It was the best of times: it was the worst of times."
--Tom Clune
--------------------
This space left blank intentionally.
Posts: 8013 | From: Western MA | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
George Spigot
Outcast
# 253
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by tclune:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
As I said, the claim has to be either true or false. Whether we can actually know which it is doesn't change that. Neither does throwing multiple possible interpretations of the claim into the mix - all that does is increase the number of possible options, it doesn't change the fact that only one of them can really be true.
No. This is just a primitive understanding of language. Religious language seems to have more in common with poetry (bad poetry, admittedly) than it has with declarative statements like, "It is raining outside."
The point of religious discourse is to capture the inner state of a person, not the external reality of the work-a-day world. "How is it with your soul?" may be rather wooden, but it strikes me as a quintessentially religious query. You don't "disprove" "April is the cruelest month" by showing that you got a raise at work then. But you may be moved to respond, "It was the best of times: it was the worst of times."
--Tom Clune
Does that mean that god may or may not exist?
--------------------
C.S. Lewis's Head is just a tool for the Devil. (And you can quote me on that.) ~
Philip Purser Hallard
http://www.thoughtplay.com/infinitarian/gbsfatb.html
Posts: 1625 | From: Derbyshire - England | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
