|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Purgatory: Question to Protestants
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by El Greco
Faith is not a magical answer to my question, mousethief.
It does not explain why you choose one faith over another. What has been argued here by many Christians is essentially that their faith is as arbitrary as the faith in Islam or in the father, the son, the holy spirit and the holy fairy. And when I point to that randomness of choice, you make a cyclical argument saying you believe because you believe. Faith is not the answer here.
No, faith is not the answer of why I choose one faith over another. It is the answer to HOW I choose one faith over the other. The "Why" is the fact that I find one more plausible than the other. Which has been said over and over on this thread.
You push and you push until you get somebody into an alleyway where they have two choices, defined by you (e.g. Christianity and Islam), always the issue is "more plausible" -- then when somebody says they choose Christianity because it's more plausible, you say that's not good enough.
Here's another timely clue: "more plausible" means "more plausible TO ME". I'm not going to choose Islam because it's more plausible to Abdul. I'm going to choose what's more plausible to ME. People have been doing this for centuries. If it's not good enough for you, TOUGH LUCK.
Maybe that's a result of modernism that we have to admit we can't prove Christianity. Nobody can claim to have proved Christianity true. That's silly. I don't even think you will find a lot of Fathers in the East who think they can logically prove God is real and Christianity is true. That was always something the West got up to (cf. Aquinas) -- I can't think of any eastern father who tried to do an Aquinian proof of God. The only person who can prove the existence of God is the mystic who has experienced God directly, and he can only prove it to himself. (or she)
So, to review.
WHY I believe in God has to do with my evaluation of the evidence, internal consistency of the theory, etc, after all of which I've decided it's more plausible to ME. And if that's not good enough for you, stick it in your ear. I don't need your approval for my belief.
HOW I believe in God is by faith.
If you still don't understand this let me know and I'd be happy to say it again in smaller words.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ricardus
Shipmate
# 8757
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by El Greco:
I have been consistent in this thread that you don't have to make claims about metaphysics.
And we have been consistent in saying that you do. But whenever we try to discuss the point, you accuse us of "changing the subject".
Firstly, my reply to Dave Marshall is applicable here too.
Secondly, I gave a rough sketch of my grounds for believing in Christianity here. Taking the first two points: quote:
- I accept on faith that there are such things as right and wrong, truth, beauty;
- Theism, in my judgement, accounts for them more coherently than atheism;
Now of course there are alternatives to theism here, and they have been widely discussed on these boards already.
Perhaps our intuitions about right and wrong can be adequately explained without reference to God. But they would still need to be explained by something - and making that explanation is a claim about metaphyics. (Or, if not metaphysics, something philosophical at least.)
Or perhaps our intuitions are in error. But to claim that our intuitions are erroneous in this respect is still a claim that has profound philosophical consequences. It is not a neutral claim.
--------------------
Then the dog ran before, and coming as if he had brought the news, shewed his joy by his fawning and wagging his tail. -- Tobit 11:9 (Douai-Rheims)
Posts: 7247 | From: Liverpool, UK | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
It occurs to me this is just another one of those threads where an atheist says "put your heart on the table so I can stomp on it" -- asking for our very personal connections with our faith only to ridicule, denigrate, etc. it. If there's one thing I can't stand it's duplicity, and atheists are always bitching about how people of faith don't trust them to be just as ethical as we are. Those who pull stunts like this just make it worse for their comrades.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
El Greco
Shipmate
# 9313
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
It occurs to me this is just another one of those threads where an atheist says "put your heart on the table so I can stomp on it" -- asking for our very personal connections with our faith only to ridicule, denigrate, etc. it.
You are not being persecuted mousethief. I'm not asking for your very personal connections with your faith. I'm not interested in your life story, I don't want to intrude your privacy, and I'm not intruding your privacy!
Read below:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
WHY I believe in God has to do with my evaluation of the evidence, internal consistency of the theory, etc, after all of which I've decided it's more plausible to ME. And if that's not good enough for you, stick it in your ear. I don't need your approval for my belief.
The OP begins with the observation that other people have done their own evaluation of the evidence etc just like you are doing, yet you do not accept their conclusions. And then the question is posed: Why are your conclusions better?
So far, you said that while your conclusions are not better in an objective sense, they are better "to you". I point out that this does not have a logical basis. You are positing a double standard: your conclusions are somehow to be accepted by you simply because they are yours, even though the process for arriving at them does not differ from the one of others whose conclusions you reject.
Doesn't this double standard concern you at all? I am astonished.
This is the kind of question I'm posing. I'm not asking you to put your heart in open view, I'm not asking you to declare your personal connections with your faith. I'm asking a question of a different level.
--------------------
Ξέρω εγώ κάτι που μπορούσε, Καίσαρ, να σας σώσει.
Posts: 11285 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by El Greco:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
WHY I believe in God has to do with my evaluation of the evidence, internal consistency of the theory, etc, after all of which I've decided it's more plausible to ME. And if that's not good enough for you, stick it in your ear. I don't need your approval for my belief.
The OP begins with the observation that other people have done their own evaluation of the evidence etc just like you are doing, yet you do not accept their conclusions. And then the question is posed: Why are your conclusions better?
So far, you said that while your conclusions are not better in an objective sense, they are better "to you". I point out that this does not have a logical basis. You are positing a double standard: your conclusions are somehow to be accepted by you simply because they are yours, even though the process for arriving at them does not differ from the one of others whose conclusions you reject.
Doesn't this double standard concern you at all? I am astonished.
And I am equally astonished that you still haven't registered that your conclusions about everything from theology to politics to how you like your tea brewed suffer from exactly the same 'double standard'.
It's utterly ridiculous to posit this as a problem, when it's the very essence of any opinion that it's YOURS.
[ 18. February 2010, 20:44: Message edited by: orfeo ]
--------------------
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
|
|
El Greco
Shipmate
# 9313
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
And I am equally astonished that you still haven't registered that your conclusions about everything from theology to politics to how you like your tea brewed suffer from exactly the same 'double standard'.
Christianity does not claim that whether Jesus resurrected or not is exactly the same as how we like our tea brewed. When it does, then I will stop posing questions.
You speak as if all opinions are considered to be of the same level, but this is not true.
Jesus' resurrection, how to decrease the deficit and how to have one's tea brewed are issues of different levels. You don't pick up your religion like you pick the trousers you wear. So your argument is flawed in its reasoning.
--------------------
Ξέρω εγώ κάτι που μπορούσε, Καίσαρ, να σας σώσει.
Posts: 11285 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by El Greco:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
And I am equally astonished that you still haven't registered that your conclusions about everything from theology to politics to how you like your tea brewed suffer from exactly the same 'double standard'.
Christianity does not claim that whether Jesus resurrected or not is exactly the same as how we like our tea brewed. When it does, then I will stop posing questions.
You speak as if all opinions are considered to be of the same level, but this is not true.
Jesus' resurrection, how to decrease the deficit and how to have one's tea brewed are issues of different levels. You don't pick up your religion like you pick the trousers you wear. So your argument is flawed in its reasoning.
No, it's not, because of the level you pitched your argument at. You pitched it at the reasoning process, not at whether the conclusions were significant ones. The process of making choices and expressing preferences doesn't alter.
And believe me, I have met people who consider the way tea is brewed to be a matter of extreme importance.
--------------------
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
|
|
El Greco
Shipmate
# 9313
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
You pitched it at the reasoning process, not at whether the conclusions were significant ones.
I pitched it at the reasoning process for truth claims. Not significant conclusions, sure, but not reasoning process period either. Reasoning process for truth claims. After all, if someone begins saying "the blue shirt is the true shirt and other shirts are false" you will rightly assume he went mad. So it's not the same thing.
The difference between what color is satisfying to my eyes, or what kind of tea is appealing to my taste, or even what kind of church music is aesthetically appealing to me and what things about God, Jesus and the Prophet I believe as true is that in the latter case we have claims for truth. Not utility, not taste, not convenience, no nothing but truth.
Again, if Christianity claimed it was about taste or convenience or whatever except for truth, I wouldn't be raising these questions here. One could say I go to church because I find the liturgy aesthetically pleasing. Or I'm a Christian because everyone where I live is a Christian. Or something. And I wouldn't be asking that person these questions.
But once someone claims "I am a Christian because I believe the Christian claims to be true" then I get to ask them these questions, because these are questions that apply in these claims of religious truth.
[ 18. February 2010, 22:08: Message edited by: El Greco ]
Posts: 11285 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by El Greco:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
You pitched it at the reasoning process, not at whether the conclusions were significant ones.
I pitched it at the reasoning process for truth claims. Not significant conclusions, sure, but not reasoning process period either. Reasoning process for truth claims. After all, if someone begins saying "the blue shirt is the true shirt and other shirts are false" you will rightly assume he went mad. So it's not the same thing.
The difference between what color is satisfying to my eyes, or what kind of tea is appealing to my taste, or even what kind of church music is aesthetically appealing to me and what things about God, Jesus and the Prophet I believe as true is that in the latter case we have claims for truth. Not utility, not taste, not convenience, no nothing but truth.
Again, if Christianity claimed it was about taste or convenience or whatever except for truth, I wouldn't be raising these questions here. One could say I go to church because I find the liturgy aesthetically pleasing. Or I'm a Christian because everyone where I live is a Christian. Or something. And I wouldn't be asking that person these questions.
But once someone claims "I am a Christian because I believe the Christian claims to be true" then I get to ask them these questions, because these are questions that apply in these claims of religious truth.
Again, you're missing the point that the very fact you consider religion 'important' and how to brew tea 'unimportant' is a value judgment. One that you've made and that other people don't necessarily share.
Of course, given the nature of this board you can be moderately confident that other people share your view of the importance of religious questions. But there are people out there who genuinely and sincerely think that there is a 'right' and a 'wrong' way to brew tea or do any one of a number of things that you or I might happen to consider of trivial terms.
People DO think of those things in their head as 'right' and 'wrong', not in terms of preferences. People say "that's not how you do it", rather than "that's not how I do it".
You are focusing on claims for truth relating to God because it bothers you, whereas claims for truth relating to the 'right' way to brew tea, or whether or not Thierry Henry handballed against Ireland apparently don't bother you.
Even with the religious sphere, I know that some people think that whether or not human beings evolved or were created is an issue of prime importance. For me, on the other hand, it's not something I care about much.
--------------------
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
|
|
El Greco
Shipmate
# 9313
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
I don't even think you will find a lot of Fathers in the East who think they can logically prove God is real and Christianity is true. That was always something the West got up to (cf. Aquinas) -- I can't think of any eastern father who tried to do an Aquinian proof of God. The only person who can prove the existence of God is the mystic who has experienced God directly, and he can only prove it to himself. (or she)
I didn't want to let this pass.
mousethief, don't buy this! Some modern Orthodox theologians might want to market their denomination this way, but don't think it's only the Catholics that used reason that way while Orthodoxy remained mystical and this somehow distinguishes between the two churches.
Orthodox Saints tried to prove God exists, or that Jesus raised from the dead or whatever, and they used reason as much as their Western counterparts did. In fact, making "proofs" that God exists is as ancient as Christianity itself! From the early apologists to St. John Damascene, people really thought they could use reason to make their points.
Their mistake was not that they used reason, but thinking truth was on their side. All the problems their arguments have are not because they used logic where logic could not be used, but because their faith was not true.
As for the mystic's experience, that's not "proof" even to his own self. And this seems relevant to what we were saying earlier. You assume that what seems true to one is enough to justify his believing it as true. It's not enough. If he chooses to believe it, without actual justification for it, then he is not proving it to himself, but thinks he does when he doesn't!
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
Again, you're missing the point that the very fact you consider religion 'important' and how to brew tea 'unimportant' is a value judgment. One that you've made and that other people don't necessarily share.
I haven't made that value judgment. What I said is that a claim such as "Christ is the Son of God" is a truth claim, while a claim such as "I like tea" is a taste claim, and the two are different kinds of claim and you shouldn't think they are the same.
Even your speaking of people who think of "right" ways to brew tea, is not a "truth claim", but a different kind of claim. You confuse between truth claims with other claims.
And even if you were right, and all claims are equivalent, two wrongs would still not make one right.
[ 18. February 2010, 22:57: Message edited by: El Greco ]
Posts: 11285 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leaf
Shipmate
# 14169
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by El Greco:
[The apologists'] mistake was not that they used reason, but thinking truth was on their side. All the problems their arguments have are not because they used logic where logic could not be used, but because their faith was not true.
Why do you think that?
Posts: 2786 | From: the electrical field | Registered: Oct 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
El Greco, I rather think you need to provide some examples of something you consider IS 'true', otherwise I'm going to end up with the view that you regard nothing at all as 'true'.
If the latter is in fact the case, as it sometimes appears to be, then I am back to the 'so what' position. If as far as you're concerned nothing is 'true', then I really don't feel the need to be concerned by your criticism of Christianity - because anything ELSE I might think will be subjected to exactly the same criticism.
If all we're in fact talking about is your general objection to people positing anything as 'true', then we really are dealing with a situation where you have a problem with the way most of the planet uses language and the way most of the planet thinks.
--------------------
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
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by El Greco:
And even if you were right, and all claims are equivalent, two wrongs would still not make one right.
Which still presupposes there is in fact any kind of 'wrong' here at all. Just because you see certain approaches as 'wrong' or 'astonishing' or various words you've used, the rest of us are under no obligation to reach the same conclusion about our conclusion-reaching process!
--------------------
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
|
|
The Revolutionist
Shipmate
# 4578
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by El Greco:
The OP begins with the observation that other people have done their own evaluation of the evidence etc just like you are doing, yet you do not accept their conclusions. And then the question is posed: Why are your conclusions better?
So far, you said that while your conclusions are not better in an objective sense, they are better "to you". I point out that this does not have a logical basis. You are positing a double standard: your conclusions are somehow to be accepted by you simply because they are yours, even though the process for arriving at them does not differ from the one of others whose conclusions you reject.
Doesn't this double standard concern you at all? I am astonished.
This is the kind of question I'm posing. I'm not asking you to put your heart in open view, I'm not asking you to declare your personal connections with your faith. I'm asking a question of a different level.
I don't believe my conclusions are better because they're mine; they're mine because I believe them to be the best conclusions available to me.
Why don't I accept other people's conclusions if they've also thought about things is far too general a question - if you give any specific conclusion, I'll probably be able to give you some of the reasons I have for believing what I believe rather than the alternatives.
El Greco, you seem to be locked into a modernistic assumption that for belief to be justified, it needs to be provable by an appeal to some kind of universal reason or shared basis.
But if there's one lesson we've had to be reminded of in these postmodern times, it's that there is no way for us to step completely outside of our set of perceptions, both our individual biases and our cultural preconceptions. There is no neutral perspective from which I can judge my beliefs against another's beliefs and have an entirely objective assessment of which is true.
But that doesn't mean that what we believe has to be arbitrary or irrational, or that truth is unknowable. If we're willing to test both our beliefs and the presuppositions by which we form our beliefs against reality, and through careful listening and discussion to compare them against other people's beliefs, then we can make meaningful, rational decisions about what is true.
There's no guarantee that my beliefs are automatically correct, no neutral assessment that can give 100% certainty. But they are beliefs about objective reality, and so can be weighed against that reality so we can decide whether we can hold them with confidence.
The important thing about truth claims is that our focus should be on the truth, on reality itself, rather than on ourselves as knowers. All of us are finite and fallible in our subjective knowledge; but objective reality is out there for us to investigate, learn about, discover and explore.
Posts: 1296 | From: London | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eliab
Shipmate
# 9153
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by El Greco:
You don't "have to" work on that basis. Not having "something better than one's own judgement" is not a logical reason for holding those beliefs as true. It might be practical, as it answers to the question "how can I make certain choices" but my questions have to do with its truth rather than its practicality.
What other truth-finding apparatus is available to me, if my own reason is to be set aside? And how am I to be persuaded of the reliability of that apparatus unless I'm permitted to reason about it?
quote:
The way I read this discussion it seems to me that it goes like this: while one's judgement can be misleading and while we can't tell for sure if our beliefs are actually true, we opine that they are actually true.
And I think the extent to which that is legitimate varies. If I'm engaged in a robust debate about Christian ethics, there's nothing wrong with me putting my case forcefully, so that it (and its contraries) may be challenged and tested. If I'm preaching a sermon about what the Church believes or the Bible teaches, then I should be honest about the clarity of that teaching, and (depending on the style of sermon) the extent to which I am personally convinced by it. If a Christian friend of conventional views asks my advice because she is contemplating adultery or suicide, it might well be a positive duty to assert the established Christian ethic with a very high level of certainty.
I might, rationally and in good faith, express strong conviction in each of those cases, a different type of conviction in each case, and quite consistently with an underlying awareness that I am far from infallible and may be mistaken.
If what you are saying is that I should always be alert to the danger of confusing "I have made up my mind about this" and "I have found the truth about it", then I agree with you entirely. I (and others) are asserting that it is possible and rational to make up one's mind for good reasons, and talk and act accordingly, and still hold on to an awareness that one may be wrong.
quote:
To me the reasonable choice would be to let go of the speculation altogether. Of course, a choice doesn't have to be reasonable. I would expect, however, people who accept reasonableness matters, to have reconsidered their own stance in a series of matters, because of what was said by all participants in this discussion.
When I read a newspaper report of some legal case, I don't have to decide which side I believe - sometimes I just can't, the report doesn't give enough material for any sort of conclusion at all, and often I shouldn't, because the details available to me are insufficient for anything more than speculation. I can, quite reasonably, conclude that I do not know who is right. But the judge who hears the case doesn't have that luxury. No matter how shaky and incomplete the evidence, no matter how personally uncertain he may feel about relying on it, he has a duty to come down on one side or the other. He knows very well that his decision could be mistaken, but to refuse to make a decision at all would be to abdicate a responsibility.
In relation to religion, your argument works if we are in the position of casual newspaper readers. It doesn't work if we, like the judge, have any sort of responsibility to decide. And it's another contentious issue whether we have such a resposibility, about which people cn and do differ. I don't, myself, feel much obligation to make up my mind about the filioque clause - but it might be crucial to someone wavering between Catholicism and Orthodoxy. I certainly do think that I have a duty to decide what I think about whether the Resurrection is true, and not just accept as a default that I should live as if it is (or isn't). I could refuse to speculate about either issue - which might sometimes be legitimate, but for the really important claims would be an abdication of responsibility. It's better to have thought about the important stuff to the point of making up one's mind, even at the risk of being mistaken, precisely because they are the things that matter.
--------------------
"Perhaps there is poetic beauty in the abstract ideas of justice or fairness, but I doubt if many lawyers are moved by it"
Richard Dawkins
Posts: 4619 | From: Hampton, Middlesex, UK | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
David Matthias
Apprentice
# 14948
|
Posted
quote:
various Protestant groups pop in and out of existence as the centuries pass
Up until a more recent era did they tend to "pop out of existence" due to the unrelenting persecution they received at the hands of "the church"?
Broadbent's "the pilgrim Church" is a salutory tale.
Posts: 29 | From: Shrewsbury | Registered: Jul 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Matt Black
Shipmate
# 2210
|
Posted
Hmmm...not sure about that. Broadbent is on the 'Whig view of church history' continuum somewhere between Gibbon and Carroll's Trail of Blood handbook of Baptist Successionism and thus has a tendency to be more than a tad ahistorical. The first group about whose beliefs we can be sure and who can begin to be labelled 'proto-evangelical' are the Waldensians in the 11th century (although arguably they were, initially at least, a reforming Catholic sodality in the manner of the Franciscans in the following century and they just had bad timing); thereafter the Lollards and Hussites are contender pre-Reformation proper. Is is however pure fantasy to label Gnostic groups such as the Cathars and Bogomils as proto-Baptist as Carroll did.
--------------------
"Protestant and Reformed, according to the Tradition of the ancient Catholic Church" - + John Cosin (1594-1672)
Posts: 14304 | From: Hampshire, UK | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
David Matthias
Apprentice
# 14948
|
Posted
That was just an example.
I am certain we would agree that there are many others.
Post reformation history is hardly full of ecumenical welcomes ![[Smile]](smile.gif)
But I realise that was within movements as well as from outside, and it did work both ways.
Posts: 29 | From: Shrewsbury | Registered: Jul 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dave Marshall
Shipmate
# 7533
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
The best reason for adopting critical realism is that we cannot live as though the whole world were an illusion. This means, however, that we have a precedent for making assumptions not because they are true but because they are useful.
Not really. The reliablity of the physical universe is unique in human experience. To be functionally human we cannot not have faith in its reality. Faith in anything else must be superimposed on critical realism and will be of at least a different order, probably more usefully an entirely different kind.
Posts: 4763 | From: Derbyshire Dales | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
El Greco
Shipmate
# 9313
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by The Revolutionist:
I don't believe my conclusions are better because they're mine; they're mine because I believe them to be the best conclusions available to me.
Why don't I accept other people's conclusions if they've also thought about things is far too general a question - if you give any specific conclusion, I'll probably be able to give you some of the reasons I have for believing what I believe rather than the alternatives.
El Greco, you seem to be locked into a modernistic assumption that for belief to be justified, it needs to be provable by an appeal to some kind of universal reason or shared basis.
But if there's one lesson we've had to be reminded of in these postmodern times, it's that there is no way for us to step completely outside of our set of perceptions, both our individual biases and our cultural preconceptions. There is no neutral perspective from which I can judge my beliefs against another's beliefs and have an entirely objective assessment of which is true.
But that doesn't mean that what we believe has to be arbitrary or irrational, or that truth is unknowable. If we're willing to test both our beliefs and the presuppositions by which we form our beliefs against reality, and through careful listening and discussion to compare them against other people's beliefs, then we can make meaningful, rational decisions about what is true.
There's no guarantee that my beliefs are automatically correct, no neutral assessment that can give 100% certainty. But they are beliefs about objective reality, and so can be weighed against that reality so we can decide whether we can hold them with confidence.
The important thing about truth claims is that our focus should be on the truth, on reality itself, rather than on ourselves as knowers. All of us are finite and fallible in our subjective knowledge; but objective reality is out there for us to investigate, learn about, discover and explore.
I think you are contradicting yourself here.
First of all, you are right that modernity brings an impasse to Christian theological thought.
The problem however is not solved with adopting post-modern approaches, exactly because post-modernism is incompatible with the pre-modern worldviews that Christianity presupposes.
You, living in a postmodern society, get to admit that there can be no neutral examination of your beliefs against another's beliefs, and then you go on affirming your beliefs simply because they are yours.
You say you have your reasons for holding those beliefs, but this was never a question. Rather, the issue here is about the validity your reasons when other people's reasons are taken also into account.
You (pl.) are trying to accomplish the impossible here. You have to admit that your reasons are no more special than other people's reasons which you reject, and yet you have to hold fast to those reasons even when there is no rational explanation as to why they are closer to truth than other people's.
This paradox, this irrationality, lies at the heart of the Christian claims.
You are right that I'm not adopting a "we can't know anything" approach. I'm accepting the reasons you give against other people's beliefs, and I'm simply extending those questions to your beliefs as well.
And the answer to that cannot be "I don't believe my conclusions are better because they're mine; they're mine because I believe them to be the best conclusions available to me", because this begs the question. And it ends up with personal idiosyncrasies and tastes and whatnot and not with actual rational conclusions. It is personal tastes and the like that have to do with specific individuals and not reason. Reason, after all, is supposed to be common.
So, we are led to search for an explanation for why some people hold certain beliefs in realms outside of reason, such as custom, political necessity, peer pressure, special psychological needs and traits of character etc.
Posts: 11285 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
El Greco, let's stay practical. There is not a single dogma of my Church, not one, that you can prove false beyond my reasonable doubt by rational means based on facts accessible to both of us. And this is not because I'm stupid or uneducated or insane or irrational. Neither can you prove to me on these terms that my Church has ever erred in any of her dogmas. And this is not because I'm ignorant of theology or history. Finally you cannot prove to me on these terms that there exists any internal contradiction between the dogmas of my Church. And this is not because I am incapable of logic and systematic reasoning.
Now, there are very, very few dogmas which I believe I can prove on such terms to you, and indeed everyone. For example, the existence of a Creator of some form. By this I mean that I will actually consider you to be stupid or uneducated or insane or irrational or ignorant or incapable of logic and systematic reasoning - if you do not follow my argument. Although of course I might just be too inarticulate, or perhaps your upbringing and environment conspire against you. But those are practical issues, not principle ones. However, the vast majority of the dogmas that I hold true are simply not of this form. You cannot prove that they are false, I cannot prove that they are true, based merely on what nobody can reasonably deny. Your attitude is that since that is so, one should simply set aside such dogma as unprovable. Yet while your attitude is intellectually coherent, it is not pragmatic and practical.
There are many questions about our the universe and our lives that cannot be answered without making some reasonable assumptions. And I'm not just referring to philosophical and theological theories, though that too, I'm also talking about deciding concretely about what we shall do next in our lives. Furthermore, assumptions in the sense of mere intellectual speculation are not enough, psychologically. Many times in our lives we must face some hardship, sorrow and sacrifice to stand up for what we actually assume to be true. Such is life. A reasonable assumption that does not ultimately collapse under such stress, that we hold firm, there we have some faith. Indeed, it can hold firm for us even if we fail to follow it in practice - then we feel the need of penance.
This is the actual situation. Your query is hence basically pointless: It is true that my faith could all be "made up", but this can neither be proven nor disproven in an objective fashion, and there is an objective need for such faith in my life. Since I need reasonable assumptions that can guide me through the difficulties in life, I must make some decisions based on what I consider most likely to be true and most fitting for my life. And this is not merely a personal quirk, but it is a general feature of being human: if you believe that you are free of this, then you are unreasonable. What is hence left to do is to discuss likelihood and fittingness. I have plenty of grounds for my faith, many of which are intellectual, others aesthetic and experiential, some even emotional. I can reasonably argue with you about those, but I cannot overpower you with arguments. I cannot force your assent, I can only hope to inspire it. This, I believe, is just as God wants it to be. I hope this will be enough for you one day.
--------------------
They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear
Posts: 12010 | From: Gone fishing | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by El Greco
And it ends up with personal idiosyncrasies and tastes and whatnot and not with actual rational conclusions.
Why do you think rational conclusions don't involve personal idiosyncracies and tastes and what not? I think maybe I have the answer.
It's because you are defining "rational conclusions" to be DEDUCTIVE conclusions, and not INDUCTIVE conclusions. You're basically saying "PROVE THAT GOD EXISTS DAMMIT" and then when we can't come up with a DEDUCTIVE argument for God, you cackle with glee and rub your hands like you've got something over on us.
But nobody (save the handful of Thomists and other misfits) believes God can be proven deductively. So our paths to God, if they're not of the immediate awareness variety (A person appeared in a bright cloud and said 'I am Jesus, believe thou on me' -- that sort of thing (which I do NOT wish to get into as a result of this post because it's NOT my point and NOT a reasonable thing to start harping on)) -- I say, our paths to God tend to be of the INDUCTIVE variety. Which means we have a whole lot of life, philosophy, history, family history, whatever, and from all of that one decides, yes, it makes sense to believe that God exists, or no, it does not. What somebody else might make from exactly the same evidence has fuck-all to do with it. Naught. Zilch. Zip. Fuck-all. It's not a deductive argument, it's an inductive argument, and we each must decide such things as we can based on who we are and what we have available to us. If we all came up with the same conclusion without fail, we would say we're leaving the realm of inductive and entering the realm of deductive reason.
Although given the thread so far I'm starting to think it's not about the reasons why we believe at all. Nothing satisfies Andrew. I think it may simply be about superiority.
[ 20. February 2010, 19:27: Message edited by: mousethief ]
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by El Greco:
Reason, after all, is supposed to be common.
Now why the blazes do you think that?
Two rational people can look at exactly the same evidence on a topic and reach different conclusions. Both using reason.
This is the REAL world I'm talking about. Not some theoretical construct.
What truly irritates me about your argument is that you keep suggesting that personal preferences and idiosyncracies are some sort of bad thing, or more to the point that they can be eliminated. They can't, in the REAL world, and it's ridiculous for you to keep suggesting they can.
Reason and rationality has never, ever meant that everybody reaches the same conclusions on something, because in practice we work in a world of imperfect evidence and differing personal histories.
--------------------
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
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
This rather reminds me of the whole business with economics predicting what a 'rational' person would do.
A decent economist, noticing that real people don't behave the way that a perfect 'rational' person would, adjusts and develops their theories to take this into account.
El Greco, on the other hand, would scold the real people and say "you're not behaving the way you're supposed to".
--------------------
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
|
|
Evensong
Shipmate
# 14696
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by El Greco:
Reason, after all, is supposed to be common.
No, Kant revolutionized philosophy by disproving this in his Critique of Pure Reason. You cannot argue reason or rationality is the way to truth.
quote:
Kant achieves what he calls a Copernican revolution in philosophy by turning the focus of philosophy from metaphysical speculation about the nature of reality to a critical examination of the nature of the thinking and perceiving mind. In effect, Kant tells us that reality is a joint creation of external reality and the human mind and that it is only regarding the latter that we can acquire any certain knowledge. Kant challenges the assumption that the mind is a blank slate or a neutral receptor of stimuli from the surrounding world. The mind does not simply receive information, according to Kant; it also gives that information shape. Knowledge, then, is not something that exists in the outside world and is then poured into an open mind like milk into a cup. Rather, knowledge is something created by the mind by filtering sensations through our various mental faculties. Because these faculties determine the shape that all knowledge takes, we can only grasp what knowledge, and hence truth, is in its most general form if we grasp how these faculties inform our experience.
Excerpt from Kant SparkNotes
quote:
Originally posted by El Greco:
My problem is not with the lack of working theories. Heck, I can make up many such theories about Christ myself that preserve his divinity, but why change one made up teaching for another?
Because its not made up. The Spirit is with us. With us all in all our variety.
And:
“I prefer credulity to skepticism and cynicism for there is more promise in almost anything than in nothing at all”
Ralph B. Perry
The quote itself is cynical, but what it suggests is that there is no point in believing in nothing.
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
--------------------
a theological scrapbook
Posts: 9481 | From: Australia | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
But nobody (save the handful of Thomists and other misfits) believes God can be proven deductively.
No major Thomist, and certainly not St Thomas Aquinas, has ever claimed that the fullness of the Christian God can be proven deductively. There are however aspects of God that are accessible by natural human reason alone. And that's not just a philosophical argument, that's explicitly in the bible:
quote:
Romans 1:18-21 (RSV-CE):
For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and wickedness of men who by their wickedness suppress the truth. For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. Ever since the creation of the world his invisible nature, namely, his eternal power and deity, has been clearly perceived in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse; for although they knew God they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking and their senseless minds were darkened.
St Thomas Aquinas simply made explicit as philosophical argument how God's eternal power and deity can be clearly perceived in the things that have been made. If you don't find that helpful, that's one thing. Horses for courses. However, if you claim that Thomists merely try to logically derive God, then you are simply strutting your shameful ignorance, and if you claim that one cannot say anything about God by reason, then you plainly contradict scripture.
--------------------
They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear
Posts: 12010 | From: Gone fishing | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
El Greco
Shipmate
# 9313
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
This rather reminds me of the whole business with economics predicting what a 'rational' person would do.
A decent economist, noticing that real people don't behave the way that a perfect 'rational' person would, adjusts and develops their theories to take this into account.
El Greco, on the other hand, would scold the real people and say "you're not behaving the way you're supposed to".
I don't mind people behaving irrationally in their private lives. In the privacy of your own home you can worship Christ, the Pink Elephant and the Holy Fairy (blessed be her holy name). But once you bring your religion to a public level, or *cough* to a discussion forum *cough*, then you shouldn't be surprised when others hold you to standards of rationality.
That you yourself do not mind about these standards, it doesn't mean that others can't measure your beliefs against them!
Posts: 11285 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
The Revolutionist
Shipmate
# 4578
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by El Greco:
First of all, you are right that modernity brings an impasse to Christian theological thought.
The problem however is not solved with adopting post-modern approaches, exactly because post-modernism is incompatible with the pre-modern worldviews that Christianity presupposes.
I agree that postmodernism isn't the answer. But postmodernism buys into the same assumptions as modernism - that to have genuine, certain knowledge you need to begin from the autonomous human individual, with reason and faith sharply divided.
Postmodernism is right to deny the possibility of certain knowledge on the basis that modernism offers. But just because postmodernism is right about that doesn't mean that there's no certain knowledge to be found. Modernism is looking in the wrong place for certainty but thinks it has found it; postmodernism is looking for certainty in the wrong place but has realised it can't find it there.
quote:
You, living in a postmodern society, get to admit that there can be no neutral examination of your beliefs against another's beliefs, and then you go on affirming your beliefs simply because they are yours.
I go on affirming my beliefs because they continue to match and explain reality around me. As C S Lewis said, "I believe in Christianity as I believe that the sun has risen: not only because I see it, but because by it I see everything else".
quote:
You are right that I'm not adopting a "we can't know anything" approach. I'm accepting the reasons you give against other people's beliefs, and I'm simply extending those questions to your beliefs as well.
And the answer to that cannot be "I don't believe my conclusions are better because they're mine; they're mine because I believe them to be the best conclusions available to me", because this begs the question. And it ends up with personal idiosyncrasies and tastes and whatnot and not with actual rational conclusions. It is personal tastes and the like that have to do with specific individuals and not reason. Reason, after all, is supposed to be common.
You seem to be assuming that for a belief to be rationally justified, there need to be prior grounds for believing it accessible to common reason.
But if there is no neutral basis from which to start from, no universal reason to act as a ground from which we can build our beliefs by reason alone, we have no choice but to begin from an act of faith, accepting something on trust, at least provisionally, as a starting point.
Every belief and worldview must in the end come to the point where it says that something "just is". For the materialist, there is no prior reason that the universe exists; it "just is". For the Christian, God is the ground of ultimate reality. Each worldview must also have a fundamental basis of knowledge by which we know this reality. The materialist accepts on faith that his thoughts correspond to the material reality around him. The Protestant Christian accepts on faith the Bible as God revealing himself to us.
But this needn't be, and shouldn't be, blind faith. There can't be any prior reasons that prove the truth or falsity of the fundamental assumptions, otherwise you're relying on a belief more fundamental still. But there can be subsequent reasons.
Our article of faith, our ultimate presupposition, will lead to an interpretation of reality. But we also have to live in reality, and so if our faith is misplaced, then the interpretation of reality given won't match reality. If the gap is small, we might be able to simply tweak our understanding; if it is large, then we may realise that our faith is misplaced, and we need to change our whole system of thought.
So I can't start from a neutral position and from there pick the most rational belief system; we always start from within an already-existing system of belief, which rests on fundamental commitments.
But we can weigh our beliefs against our experience of reality. If a materialist encounters an angel or a ghost or some other supernatural being, then if he cannot find a way of explaining it in material terms, he is forced to tear up his belief system and start again from the beginning.
Similarly, if a Protestant finds a genuine contradiction between what the Bible says and reality, then they have to abandon the Bible as their basis for knowledge.
Can we test on the basis of common reason what's true before accepting a belief system? No. But after we have made some necessary fundamental assumptions, can we go on testing our beliefs against reality? Yes - and to the extent that our beliefs continue to match reality as we encounter it, they are rationally justified.
Faith seeks understanding, and there is no way to seek understanding without first having faith in something. But once we do have faith in something, we can use understanding to weigh up our beliefs, including our initial faith.
quote:
You say you have your reasons for holding those beliefs, but this was never a question. Rather, the issue here is about the validity your reasons when other people's reasons are taken also into account.
You (pl.) are trying to accomplish the impossible here. You have to admit that your reasons are no more special than other people's reasons which you reject, and yet you have to hold fast to those reasons even when there is no rational explanation as to why they are closer to truth than other people's.
In relation to other people's beliefs, I wouldn't say that I can prove Christianity to be true on the basis of common reason.
But I would say that Christianity is more rational, because it offers a better interpretation of reality, that better explains life, death, goodness, truth, beauty, suffering and everything else we experience and encounter, than any other worldview I have encountered.
Posts: 1296 | From: London | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
if you claim that one cannot say anything about God by reason, then you plainly contradict scripture.
If so I stand in good stead -- scripture plainly contradicts scripture.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by El Greco:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
This rather reminds me of the whole business with economics predicting what a 'rational' person would do.
A decent economist, noticing that real people don't behave the way that a perfect 'rational' person would, adjusts and develops their theories to take this into account.
El Greco, on the other hand, would scold the real people and say "you're not behaving the way you're supposed to".
I don't mind people behaving irrationally in their private lives. In the privacy of your own home you can worship Christ, the Pink Elephant and the Holy Fairy (blessed be her holy name). But once you bring your religion to a public level, or *cough* to a discussion forum *cough*, then you shouldn't be surprised when others hold you to standards of rationality.
That you yourself do not mind about these standards, it doesn't mean that others can't measure your beliefs against them!
Oh I'm not surprised. But you are using a standard of rationality that makes no sense.
You are seeking perfection from me and others. Which, ironically, the Bible tells me you aren't going to find.
Your basic premise is to say "your beliefs are not perfectly rational". To which my response is "well yes, I already knew that, because I'm not perfect".
It's not REMOTELY the case that I don't care about rationality. What I don't care about is the logical problem that you're positing, because your theorem relies on the absence of perfect rationality. The fact that I lack perfect rationality is neither news to me nor troubling.
I only care about RELATIVE rationality - whether what I believe seems at least as rational as what I don't believe. Or preferably more rational. It doesn't rely on absolutes, it relies on 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
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
Why does this thread make me feel like a mouse in a maze being tested for someone else's purpose and pleasure? It's not like there's another person speaking to me nose-to-nose; they just want to get their research, or jollies, or God-knows-what from setting new patterns in the maze and seeing how I run through it, over and over.
This thread isn't an honest invitation to discuss as equals.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Russ
Old salt
# 120
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by El Greco:
You, living in a postmodern society, get to admit that there can be no neutral examination of your beliefs against another's beliefs, and then you go on affirming your beliefs simply because they are yours.
You say you have your reasons for holding those beliefs, but this was never a question. Rather, the issue here is about the validity your reasons when other people's reasons are taken also into account.
Imagine that a load of people are individually trying to get to a party, but don't quite know the way. They come to a road junction, but there's no signpost. They're all genuinely interested in getting to the party, but it's not a matter of life-or-death. Some of them have maps or directions, some of them don't. Some of those who have the same map or directions interpret it differently. Giving up and going back the way they came (or setting up camp where they are) won't get them to the party. Most of them just do the best they can to apply reason to the different information they have in a rational manner. They go different ways. Some of them end up at the party, but it's not quite where they thought it would be or with the same crowd of people that they thought would be there. Some of them end up at a country pub and have a different sort of party. No-one gets too stressed out about whether they got to where they were going by the "right" route. They try to be mature adults.
Best wishes,
Russ
--------------------
Wish everyone well; the enemy is not people, the enemy is wrong ideas
Posts: 3169 | From: rural Ireland | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
Addendum to previous post of mine:
If we had perfect rationality, we wouldn't NEED discussion forums.
--------------------
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
|
|
Leaf
Shipmate
# 14169
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
It's not REMOTELY the case that I don't care about rationality. What I don't care about is the logical problem that you're positing, because your theorem relies on the absence of perfect rationality. The fact that I lack perfect rationality is neither news to me nor troubling.
I only care about RELATIVE rationality - whether what I believe seems at least as rational as what I don't believe. Or preferably more rational. It doesn't rely on absolutes, it relies on comparison.
Nice ![[Overused]](graemlins/notworthy.gif)
Posts: 2786 | From: the electrical field | Registered: Oct 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
El Greco
Shipmate
# 9313
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
But you are using a standard of rationality that makes no sense.
You are seeking perfection from me and others.
I'm not seeking perfection. I began with the observation that you reject (and rightly so) many beliefs other people hold dear. And then asked why your beliefs are to be taken more seriously than theirs.
This is not me asking perfection from you, but me asking for an explanation as to why you don't apply to your beliefs the same standards you apply to other people's beliefs.
A response that seems to be unanimous here is that your choice enters the sphere of subjective preference. When I read this response, I replied that a) this is OK for private beliefs, but it becomes problematic when said beliefs enter the public sphere (and boy, did Christianity try to take over that sphere in the past!) and b) it seems to be a double standard, applying objective criteria for other people's beliefs but resorting to subjectivity for yours.
That's all. No call for perfection. Just a call for calling a spade a spade, when it comes to speculation and religious imagination.
Posts: 11285 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
fletcher christian
Mutinous Seadog
# 13919
|
Posted
out of curiosity,......... do you think that any of these same issues arise for other religions, or do you think they only arise for christianity?
--------------------
'God is love insaturable, love impossible to describe'
Staretz Silouan
Posts: 5235 | From: a prefecture | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by El Greco:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
But you are using a standard of rationality that makes no sense.
You are seeking perfection from me and others.
I'm not seeking perfection. I began with the observation that you reject (and rightly so) many beliefs other people hold dear. And then asked why your beliefs are to be taken more seriously than theirs.
This is not me asking perfection from you, but me asking for an explanation as to why you don't apply to your beliefs the same standards you apply to other people's beliefs.
A response that seems to be unanimous here is that your choice enters the sphere of subjective preference. When I read this response, I replied that a) this is OK for private beliefs, but it becomes problematic when said beliefs enter the public sphere (and boy, did Christianity try to take over that sphere in the past!) and b) it seems to be a double standard, applying objective criteria for other people's beliefs but resorting to subjectivity for yours.
That's all. No call for perfection. Just a call for calling a spade a spade, when it comes to speculation and religious imagination.
I'm sorry, but you are not seeing your own argument for what it is. What you are describing as a double standard is in fact a single standard, of imperfect rationality. Or subjective rationality.
If what you want to argue is that when people CLAIM to be objective that they are in fact being subjective, using their own point of view, then I happily accept that. In fact people have been happily accepting that for pages and pages now, and you don't seem to like it. You keep wanting people to accept the premise as you've written it. But I think the way you've written the premise is inaccurate.
I don't buy your distinction between the public and private sphere at all, by the way.
--------------------
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
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
If so I stand in good stead -- scripture plainly contradicts scripture.
It doesn't. But anyway, comparing one's failures to the word of God is breathtaking hubris that invites pity, not serious comment.
--------------------
They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear
Posts: 12010 | From: Gone fishing | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
So I stand in good stead.
But are you seriously saying there are not even any prima facie ("plain") contradictions in scripture? Are you serious? Man, there's drinking the Kool-Aid and then....
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Evensong
Shipmate
# 14696
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
If what you want to argue is that when people CLAIM to be objective that they are in fact being subjective, using their own point of view, then I happily accept that. In fact people have been happily accepting that for pages and pages now, and you don't seem to like it.
Very well put orfeo. I think you've hit the nail on the head there.
But maybe the reason El Greco doesn't like it is because of your other comment:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
I don't buy your distinction between the public and private sphere at all, by the way.
The Churches in the past (and some today) have and continue to spout that their understanding of reality is Abosulute Truth (objective reality - not subjective) and have forced people to swallow that truth or, in some cases, be killed for not swallowing it.
--------------------
a theological scrapbook
Posts: 9481 | From: Australia | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
If what you want to argue is that when people CLAIM to be objective that they are in fact being subjective, using their own point of view, then I happily accept that. In fact people have been happily accepting that for pages and pages now, and you don't seem to like it.
Very well put orfeo. I think you've hit the nail on the head there.
But maybe the reason El Greco doesn't like it is because of your other comment:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
I don't buy your distinction between the public and private sphere at all, by the way.
The Churches in the past (and some today) have and continue to spout that their understanding of reality is Abosulute Truth (objective reality - not subjective) and have forced people to swallow that truth or, in some cases, be killed for not swallowing it.
You've made a good point here.
I'm not entirely sure whether it's the point El Greco has been trying to make, though. I'd be interested to hear whether he adopts it.
--------------------
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
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
But are you seriously saying there are not even any prima facie ("plain") contradictions in scripture? Are you serious?
Nice move, introducing the scare quotes. The regular meaning of "in plain contradiction" is that the contradiction is obvious to all and undeniable by common sense, as in "it is plain to see that", not that it is a contradiction (only) by first appearance (which is what prima facie means).
--------------------
They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear
Posts: 12010 | From: Gone fishing | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
QLib
Bad Example
# 43
|
Posted
No, the use of the term prima facie allows that further in-depth investigation may either confirm or deny the 'at first glance' appearance.
So, what mousethief is suggesting (I think) is that you may think you can prove that scripture is never contradictory, but you surely have to allow that some passages appear, at least at first glance, to be contradictory.
--------------------
Tradition is the handing down of the flame, not the worship of the ashes Gustav Mahler.
Posts: 8913 | From: Page 28 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Fuzzipeg
Shipmate
# 10107
|
Posted
Are you really saying that there are no contradictions in Scripture?
Just to take one example,there are a number of instances where J, E and P sources in the Pentateuch are obviously contradictory. This is more than likely where there is an attempt to meld oral and written sources from a number of different traditions whilst attempting to include everything.
[ 22. February 2010, 08:44: Message edited by: Fuzzipeg ]
--------------------
http://foodybooze.blogspot.co.za
Posts: 929 | From: Johannesburg, South Africa | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Golden Key
Shipmate
# 1468
|
Posted
El Greco--
A few ideas that might be helpful, in exploring faith and faiths:
-- The Belief-O-Matic quiz can produce some thought-provoking results. **Probably best not to post your results here, though.** In the past, hosts have preferred to have that as a Circus thread.
-- The Religious Tolerance site has info on a wide variety of faiths, and tries to treat them all fairly and respectfully.
--Read some books on comparative religion. Long ago, I found Huston Smith's "The Religions of Man" useful. (I believe it's been republished under another, more inclusive, title.
--Read individual faith memoirs. Some good authors, IME: Anne Lamott, Thomas a Kempis, Brother Lawrence of the Resurrection, Annie Dillard, Hannah Whitall (or Whitehall) Smith, Isobel Kuhn, G.K. Chesterton, C.S. Lewis, Thomas Merton, George MacDonald, Ann Kiemel.
Those are from the Christian department. You might also try the Dalai Lama, Thich Nhat Hanh, Rabbi Harold Kushner, Jack Kornfield, Sharon Salzberg.
If you really want to wrestle this out, or at least cover all your bases, try some agnostics or atheists. Also people who are freelance, like Buckminster Fuller.
Those are the ones that immediately come to my mind. I've found it useful to go to the religion section of of a library or bookstore, and read whatever attracts me.
Oh, and from the fiction department: Terry Pratchett's "Carpe Jugulum".
May you have an enjoyable search, and find whatever you need.
--------------------
Blessed Gator, pray for us!
--"Oh bat bladders, do you have to bring common sense into this?" (Dragon, "Jane & the Dragon")
--"Oh, Peace Train, save this country!" (Yusuf/Cat Stevens, "Peace Train")
Posts: 18601 | From: Chilling out in an undisclosed, sincere pumpkin patch. | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jengie jon
Semper Reformanda
# 273
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
But are you seriously saying there are not even any prima facie ("plain") contradictions in scripture? Are you serious?
Nice move, introducing the scare quotes. The regular meaning of "in plain contradiction" is that the contradiction is obvious to all and undeniable by common sense, as in "it is plain to see that", not that it is a contradiction (only) by first appearance (which is what prima facie means).
IngoB
You are intelligent. There are two birth narratives one in Matthew and one in Luke. I would be grateful if you would mind taking them as separate stories and then try working out how the two fit together. Especially please explain how Mary and Joseph can return to living in Nazareth after Jesus' circumcision (Luke 2:39-40), yet flee from Bethlehem to Egypt after the visitation of the magi(Matthew 2:8-10, 13-15).
Jengie
--------------------
"To violate a persons ability to distinguish fact from fantasy is the epistemological equivalent of rape." Noretta Koertge
Back to my blog
Posts: 20894 | From: city of steel, butterflies and rainbows | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by QLib:
No, the use of the term prima facie allows that further in-depth investigation may either confirm or deny the 'at first glance' appearance.
What is the 'No' at the beginning of your sentence referring to? I did not say anything that stands against that.
quote:
Originally posted by QLib:
So, what mousethief is suggesting (I think) is that you may think you can prove that scripture is never contradictory, but you surely have to allow that some passages appear, at least at first glance, to be contradictory.
Yes, and I do allow for that. But mousethief plainly contradicted scripture, and then excused himself by claiming that scripture plainly contradicts scripture. When called on this, he started the fudge about prima facie - but while certainly related, "prima facie" is just not the same thing as "plain".
Mind you, so far mousethief has not actually claimed "prima facie" status for his contradiction of scripture. Instead he has tried to create a smokescreen by diverting attention to apparent self-contradictions in scripture (*). However, I'm not actually interested in those here. I'm interested in nailing him down on his disgust with reason. Because while I think El Greco's measure has been well and truly taken on this thread, I consider mousethief's irrationality defense to be much worse than the Greek attack. The Incarnated God, who is Love, is ... the Logos, not the Chaos.
quote:
Originally posted by Fuzzipeg:
Are you really saying that there are no contradictions in Scripture?
Yes, there are no contradictions in the intended meaning of scripture. The authors were inspired to write the Truth with capital "T". However, the authors of scripture rarely if ever were trying express the modern truths of lawyers, scientists and historians. And so they often didn't.
This is however not a "free for all" of interpretation. For this to be true, one has to claim that the author was writing then, rather than the reader eisegesing now, truth.
quote:
Originally posted by Jengie Jon:
There are two birth narratives one in Matthew and one in Luke. I would be grateful if you would mind taking them as separate stories and then try working out how the two fit together. Especially please explain how Mary and Joseph can return to living in Nazareth after Jesus' circumcision (Luke 2:39-40), yet flee from Bethlehem to Egypt after the visitation of the magi(Matthew 2:8-10, 13-15).
OK, I will deal with this one, just to show that often enough one can resolve such things on the "micro level". Then I will mention my general attitude, which should clarify my position sufficiently. I will then ignore any further attempts to make me explain this or that "prima facie" contradiction in scripture. Because I don't see whatever this could possibly have to do with mousethief rejecting St Paul plainly, which is what I commented on.
Matthew 2:16 says "Then Herod, when he saw that he had been tricked by the wise men, was in a furious rage, and he sent and killed all the male children in Bethlehem and in all that region who were two years old or under, according to the time which he had ascertained from the wise men." Clearly Herod did not expect to hear back from the magi immediately, SMS not having been invented, and most likely expected to host them on their return trip. For Herod's actions to make sense we can assume that up to two years had passed before he struck. Plenty of time for Christ's family to flee to Egypt.
Concerning my general attitude: While the synoptic gospels are particularly "historic", I think their authors intended to tell a spiritual story with pieces of true history, rather than a true history (in the modern sense) with pieces of spirituality. Furthermore, the material is arranged around the central fact of Jesus' death and resurrection, and with a particular audience in mind. In Matthew's case that audience was Jewish, so "fleeing to Egypt" with its obvious OT connotations does not necessarily mean that we can point to a physical place in Egypt where Jesus may have stayed. (Though I do no think that this has been excluded by the above.)
(*) Successfully, since too many people here post regardless of context.
--------------------
They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear
Posts: 12010 | From: Gone fishing | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
I forgot the lengths Thomists will go to, to win an argument, including redefining words.
I have been unable to find a definition of "plain" that includes "undeniable". The overwhelming majority just show it to mean "easy to see". As I used it.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
QLib
Bad Example
# 43
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
quote:
Originally posted by QLib:
No, the use of the term prima facie allows that further in-depth investigation may either confirm or deny the 'at first glance' appearance.
What is the 'No' at the beginning of your sentence referring to? I did not say anything that stands against that.
You said : "it is a contradiction (only) by first appearance (which is what prima facie means)". And I am saying, no, not "by" anything. And not "(only) by" either.
As for your assertion about the "intended meaning" of scripture - well, that just begs a whole lot of questions, and is unprovable anyway.
--------------------
Tradition is the handing down of the flame, not the worship of the ashes Gustav Mahler.
Posts: 8913 | From: Page 28 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
mousethief, are you not getting tired of the evasion shtick? I am not trying to teach you English here, actually. I'm trying to get you to commit to some clear statement concerning reason and God, and to explain your continued attack on Thomism in the light of scripture and Thomism's actual claims.
But since you insist:
plain ...
2. clear to the mind; evident, manifest, or obvious: to make one's meaning plain.
3. conveying the meaning clearly and simply; easily understood: plain talk.
4. downright; sheer; utter; self-evident: plain folly; plain stupidity.
5. free from ambiguity or evasion; candid; outspoken: the plain truth of the matter.
...
8. without intricacies or difficulties.
I think "evident", "manifest", "obvious" etc. are close enough to "undeniable by common sense", which is what I wrote.
quote:
Originally posted by QLib:
You said : "it is a contradiction (only) by first appearance (which is what prima facie means)". And I am saying, no, not "by" anything. And not "(only) by" either.
I'm not sure what your point is here, but since in fact I am not disagreeing with your own explanation, I see little point in further elaboration.
quote:
Originally posted by QLib:
As for your assertion about the "intended meaning" of scripture - well, that just begs a whole lot of questions, and is unprovable anyway.
I wouldn't dismiss exegesis as entirely impossible, but that would be a topic for another thread.
--------------------
They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear
Posts: 12010 | From: Gone fishing | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
