Thread: Purgatory: Question to Protestants Board: Limbo / Ship of Fools.
To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=11;t=001192
Posted by El Greco (# 9313) on
:
Many Protestants rightly criticize the ancient churches of various errors. Ancient bishops, priests, theologians, and laypeople, taught things that are considered today by many Protestants to be false. Those people made things up, and taught them as God's Truth.
Of course, they weren't wicked people who wanted to spread lies and oppose God's Truth. They were ordinary people who really believed that the things they thought were true, that they were following God's word and they gave their best self in pursuit of Christ.
My question to Protestants is how do you know you are not making things up like they did, how do you know that what you believe as true is not as false as those ancient ideas you reject?
In my understanding, various Protestant groups pop in and out of existence as the centuries pass. Many Protestant churches have vanished with the passage of time, others were born, some were changed, and this goes on and on. Ideas that Protestants of a few centuries ago held as dear are now forgotten, and new ideas keep appearing. There have been suggested various theories about what it means for Christ to be Savior, or what it means for Christ to be the Son of God, or what Church is supposed to be, or how man gets saved.
Why should anyone follow your ideas, why aren't they as made up as the ancient ideas you reject as erroneous?
I'm asking this question, because people sometimes say to me on the Ship: "the theories you once believed as real might have turned out to be wrong, but there are other theories that work. Why aren't you choosing them instead?"
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?
I'm laying my cards on the table, and I'd appreciate a civil discussion.
[ 29. December 2014, 22:16: Message edited by: Kelly Alves ]
Posted by fletcher christian (# 13919) on
:
What cards are you laying on the table?
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on
:
I've got to run, but here's my tuppence-worth.
Most evangelicals have their anchor in Apostolic Succession. Of course that has no reference to an office but to a message, the gospel message. The 'good deposit' of 2 Timothy 1: 14 which is then passed on in 2 Timothy 2:2.
This 'apostolic message' is found in the pages of the NT. Anything else is up for grabs. Therefore, as society changes, there is plenty of room for change ... indeed semper reformanda.
Posted by Custard (# 5402) on
:
I'm with Jonny here.
If it can be proved from the Bible, or seems overwhelmingly likely from the Bible, then it's worth hanging on to.
If it's genuinely ancient (like pre-Constantinian) and not in the Bible - threefold immersion, sign of the cross, etc, then it's probably worth hanging onto unless there's a very good reason to drop it.
If it only appears much later than that, chances are it's primarily a cultural response and can be dropped freely, though it's still worth understanding the reason for it and seeing if that's a good reason for doing something equivalent.
Posted by Sober Preacher's Kid (# 12699) on
:
"Eccelesia Reforma semper Reformanda", "The Reformed Church is always Reforming".
I don't believe that God's revelation to us of his Will ever truly complete. By that I mean that our understanding of it is always a work in progress. We learn new things, we encounter new experiences, we revisit old ideas in a new light, we debate and re-examine doctrine. It's never a case of "Do X, Say Y, and Get Saved."
Johnny S is correct is saying that the core deposit is the Gospel. The lens with which we see it though changes. That is life.
Most Protestant churches have no problem debating theology. The Reformation Fathers were serious scholars and that idea has continued to today. Churches like mine with Presbyterian polity are very democratic and conciliar. Debate is how we work things out. Dissent is part of the process.
Posted by QLib (# 43) on
:
If it's all just 'theory' to you, then there is no point even wondering if it's true. There is no proof of anything because faith is only logical if you accept certain a priori concepts as given. If you have no direct experience of the given, then you have no basis for discernment.
Seek out the truth in your own heart, not in other people's theories.
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by El Greco:
My question to Protestants is how do you know you are not making things up like they did, how do you know that what you believe as true is not as false as those ancient ideas you reject?
We don't. In fact, given what we believe to be true about human fallibility, we are most certainly wrong about something, the trick is figuring out what.
Protestants, just like Catholics and Orthodox, are struggling to discern truth. We do so using similar tools-- the Bible, reason, history, our experiences of God and the world. Through spiritual practices like prayer, contemplation, what the ancients call "indifference". Different groups w/in Christianity may give differing weights to these tools, most give greater weight of course to Scripture. We interpret and apply Scripture differently based on our assumptions about Scripture and the various weights we give to the other tools. But all of us are doing the same thing-- doing our best, prayerfully and, one hopes humbly, to discern truth and God's will. When we choose one tradition, none of us assume that tradition has gotten absolutely everything right. Rather, we choose the one we believe-- again, prayerfully, humbly-- that's got it "least wrong". The only reason to "switch" belief systems (and I hope no one is pressuring you to do so) is if you, through whatever combination of tools and spiritual practices are meaningful to you, come to believe that some other Christian tradition has gotten it "less wrong".
But ultimately we trust that our life in Christ is not dependent on the scrupulous infallibility of our knowledge and doctrine. We expect that in the final day we will find places where we were wrong and you (Catholic or Orthodox Christians) were right. Or where we were both wrong. God can be surprising that way. We place our allegiance in Christ, we do our best to discern his leading, and we trust his grace when we get it wrong.
Isn't that what you do as well?
Posted by Horseman Bree (# 5290) on
:
Custard: There's quite a bit in the OT that is "clearly a cultural comstruct" - almost anything relating to women, for instance.
We "Protestants" have managed to dump a lot of those as well, just as the RCs and Orthodox have.
Tangenting off, back to the OP: why were the Protestants separated out? ISTM that the RCs have changed some of their positions over the centuries as well, and I imagine it is possible that some Orthodox views aren't exactly as they were in the time of Constantine.
That's the problem with all that stuff that happened in the last few centuries - people travelling around, finding that their views aren't all perfectly acceptable wherever they go. Time we put a stop to actually meeting People Not Like Us, innit?
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
Most evangelicals have their anchor in Apostolic Succession.
How defined? That doesn't sound like "most Protestants" in my experience.
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by fletcher christian:
What cards are you laying on the table?
Well said. Laying one's cards on the table means admitting things that could be to one's detriment, especially as regards one's motives. All I see in the OP is attack and request for self-incriminating information.
Posted by Ender's Shadow (# 2272) on
:
On the whole I come at the question from the other end; having found God real within my own tradition, I have no doubt that He is at work in that tradition, and the evidence of changed lives that I see is the proof of that to me. Given that, as long as my own church doesn't crumble under my feet as a result of adopting beliefs that are wholly unacceptable, it is unlikely (never say never) that I will abandon it. On the other hand that doesn't mean that I am not willing to learn from the insights of other traditions... ![[Axe murder]](graemlins/lovedrops.gif)
Posted by Po (# 2456) on
:
El Greco, I think you are really asking about absolutes.
Heb 5:14 speaks of, “the mature, who because of practice have their senses trained to discern good and evil.” (NASB) The implication is that we should reach a point where we can discern right and wrong for ourselves—without need of dogma or church authority, or even Biblical authority.
If we have this discernment we can change with the times: the shifts in practice you have pointed out may well have been mature reactions to changing circumstances, rather than evidence of Protestant inconsistency.
This is a Christianity that knows what really matters—and what matters isn’t church dogma or doctrine or specific practices. What matters is love. That’s the one absolute that counts.
Posted by Patdys (# 9397) on
:
I am at a point where identifying all the weird shit people believe has made me question my faith. If what you believe is laughably wrong, then surely much of what I believe is bollocks as well. So many cultural interpretations and frankly elements of dishonesty, mental illness and sheer stupidity in both leaders and followers.
The church is a mockery of Christ.
The only thing I can hold onto is the personhood of Christ. And a relational understanding of the Gospel. At the end of the day I will tolerate your dishonest, frankly stupid freakiness and hope you will tolerate mine.
Posted by LutheranChik (# 9826) on
:
Do I believe that my own tradition has the capacity to be as wrong as any other Christian tradition with which we disagree? Certainly.
And the point is...?
Posted by MSHB (# 9228) on
:
"If you continue in my word you are my disciples indeed. And you will know the truth and the truth will make you free." - from somewhere in the gospels.
Buried in there is an epistemology that says your spiritual state enables or hinders your knowledge of the truth. Hence that other famous passage: "my sheep hear my voice".
Knowing God is the deepest, most all-encompassing personal knowledge there is. You yourself are the instrument through which you see God ... or not.
All that said, Protestants weigh what they hear elsewhere against what they hear while reading the scriptures.
Posted by Seeker963 (# 2066) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by El Greco:
My question to Protestants is how do you know you are not making things up like they did, how do you know that what you believe as true is not as false as those ancient ideas you reject
I was taken to a Protestant church from birth. Put it this was, I was baptized at 28 days old, so sometime close, anyway.
From my point of view, I could ask why you reject our way of thinking? Which is to say that assuming that someone else is 'rejecting' your way of being a Christian belies the fact that you think it's the Right Way to Be a Christian.
What I 'really' believe: we will all have a belly-laugh with God when we meet him about how wrong we all were. My way is made up. Your way is made up. God is a forgiving person and does not have OCD.
Posted by Latchkey Kid (# 12444) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Patdys:
I am at a point where identifying all the weird shit people believe has made me question my faith. If what you believe is laughably wrong, then surely much of what I believe is bollocks as well. So many cultural interpretations and frankly elements of dishonesty, mental illness and sheer stupidity in both leaders and followers.
The church is a mockery of Christ.
The only thing I can hold onto is the personhood of Christ. And a relational understanding of the Gospel. At the end of the day I will tolerate your dishonest, frankly stupid freakiness and hope you will tolerate mine.
Well said. Thanks for expressing it so well. I am going to plagiarise it.
Posted by duchess (# 2764) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by El Greco:
Many Protestants rightly criticize the ancient churches of various errors. Ancient bishops, priests, theologians, and laypeople, taught things that are considered today by many Protestants to be false. Those people made things up, and taught them as God's Truth.
Well, of course.
quote:
Of course, they weren't wicked people who wanted to spread lies and oppose God's Truth. They were ordinary people who really believed that the things they thought were true, that they were following God's word and they gave their best self in pursuit of Christ.]
Martin Luther, Zwingli and the rest of those beer guzzling fools for God.
quote:
My question to Protestants is how do you know you are not making things up like they did, how do you know that what you believe as true is not as false as those ancient ideas you reject?]
I make up quite a few truths for myself...like I am not fat but I look like Halle Berry and strut my stuff. I also tend to make up a bit of stuff about what Scripture says until I look deep enough. Sometimes I am right, sometimes I am wrong. Unless I am not shoving it down your throught, what does it matter? Just like thinking I am hot stuff even if the truth is that I am not, if I am happy, why are you stressing out over it? Or do you think I am not doing enough to be "saved" by the "church" (whatever church you deem that to be?)
quote:
In my understanding, various Protestant groups pop in and out of existence as the centuries pass. Many Protestant churches have vanished with the passage of time, others were born, some were changed, and this goes on and on. Ideas that Protestants of a few centuries ago held as dear are now forgotten, and new ideas keep appearing. There have been suggested various theories about what it means for Christ to be Savior, or what it means for Christ to be the Son of God, or what Church is supposed to be, or how man gets saved.?]
No shit Sherlock Holmes! It's elmentary Dr. Watson! Protest groups form and stay together sometimes even more than 30 years! Many split off and fight over petty things like are drums hindering people's worship? Are choruses the work of the devil? Are slideshows satan's tool or a useful one we'd better get used to? Is it okay to twitter or are those demon devices clicking away? Yes, I know of a church that encourages twitter use during it's sermons. Near Seattle.
quote:
Why should anyone follow your ideas, why aren't they as made up as the ancient ideas you reject as erroneous?]
Because they are the way God has revealed Himself to us (those He choose to be in Protest Groups) as opposed to those in the Plot of Orthodoxy. Or kissing the ring of the Mitre Tiara. I think my Protest Group is right and they are WRONG btw.
quote:
I'm asking this question, because people sometimes say to me on the Ship: "the theories you once believed as real might have turned out to be wrong, but there are other theories that work. Why aren't you choosing them instead?"]
I looked at the the Plot and I looked at Tiara lovers. I did consider this enough to freak out and almost walk away from my Protest Group as my fearless leaders had some quarrels amongst themselves and broke my heart. I really did. But I came back to my religion...after I found that what comforted me through my heavy trials was mainly God's Word and I read the writings of heretics like John MacArthuer Jr., Mark Driscoll, John Piper, Joshua Harris & Ray Stedman to name a few freaks. I just found a new Protest Group to join.
quote:
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 we think we have the truth since the Reformation. And yes, we sometimes even look at some writings before it. (Well, my particular Protest Group does anyway).
quote:
I'm laying my cards on the table, and I'd appreciate a civil discussion.
You think you have a full house but I just see a bunch of jokers here. So I made some jokes. But ah, my TRUTH is buried in here.
BTW, one of the Orthodox Plot took me to task on my own facebook for just casually talking about lent (that I am giving up social media for Lent). He actions came off so pious, one of my friends got really worked up over it wanting to kick his ass. I think he realized later I had actually peaked in to his very church (where he goes) and sat in the beginning's Ed class (where they teach you TRUTH = Tradition + Bible instead of TRUTH=Bible+youtube sermons and twitter files explaining the Bible. Fortunately, I have met enough of the Plot conspiracy people from the shp and also some of my friends converted to know that he was just being an ass...and later on he kind of halfheartedly apologized.
I think we all makes asses out of ourselves from time to time when it comes to the TRUTH as we see it. But the more wisdom and peace we get from what we believe, the more persuasive we become.
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
You were casually talking about Lent? OMG I thought I knew you. ![[Biased]](wink.gif)
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
The immediately obvious fallacy in the OP is equating the age of the group with the age of the idea.
In some cases, groups have appeared precisely because they are looking to go BACK to an idea that they think an established group has departed from.
Luther didn't pin his theses to the church door because he wanted to strike out on a consciously new path. He did it because he thought the church had lost sight of the old one.
Posted by Patdys (# 9397) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by duchess:
But the more wisdom and peace we get from what we believe, the more persuasive we become.
Nice screed Dutch, it was good to see your theological basis and thinking.
For me, I would change the last sentence to 'But the more wisdom and peace we get from what we believe, the less we try to persuade.'
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Patdys:
I am at a point where identifying all the weird shit people believe has made me question my faith. If what you believe is laughably wrong, then surely much of what I believe is bollocks as well. So many cultural interpretations and frankly elements of dishonesty, mental illness and sheer stupidity in both leaders and followers.
The church is a mockery of Christ.
The only thing I can hold onto is the personhood of Christ. And a relational understanding of the Gospel. At the end of the day I will tolerate your dishonest, frankly stupid freakiness and hope you will tolerate mine.
I was talking about the leg-lengthening thread to my long-time jogging partner yesterday. He helps run what passes for our church and is in full-time christian ministry™ with another organisation. His response was: "sometimes I worry that the whole of church is nothing more than a misunderstanding" ![[Ultra confused]](graemlins/confused2.gif)
Posted by Anselmina (# 3032) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
His response was: "sometimes I worry that the whole of church is nothing more than a misunderstanding"
A statement which probably more accurately assesses Church (whether one thinks one's 'it' or not), both institutionally and personally, than any number of doctrines and dogmas of the past 2,000 years. Seriously.
Posted by Ender's Shadow (# 2272) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Patdys:
'But the more wisdom and peace we get from what we believe, the less we try to persuade.'
After all, it's not like we care about the people around us enough to want to share the peace that we've found; it's just for us and the rest of the world is going to have to struggle on... ![[Projectile]](graemlins/puke2.gif)
Posted by kankucho (# 14318) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Patdys:
quote:
Originally posted by duchess:
But the more wisdom and peace we get from what we believe, the more persuasive we become.
Nice screed Dutch, it was good to see your theological basis and thinking.
For me, I would change the last sentence to 'But the more wisdom and peace we get from what we believe, the less we try to persuade.'
Both of those are good. May I offer a third variation...?
The more wisdom and peace we get from what we believe, the more people will come and ask us.
Posted by kankucho (# 14318) on
:
(Late addendum, noting the cross-post with Ender's Shadow)
ES: Does my above contribution resolve your objection to Patdys's at all?
[ 11. February 2010, 07:50: Message edited by: kankucho ]
Posted by Call me Numpty (# 3012) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by El Greco:
My question to Protestants is how do you know you are not making things up like they did, how do you know that what you believe as true is not as false as those ancient ideas you reject?
I believe in the one, holy, apostolic, heavenly church to which all true believers belong. As a Protestant minister in the Reformation tradition I will only believe and teach the doctrinal convictions which I - along with my brothers - hold to be self-evident from, or by good and necessary consequence derived from, Holy Scripture. This is because I believe in the supreme divine authority, inerrancy, sufficiency and consistency of Holy Scripture - which is the word of God who does not lie - in all matters of faith and conduct for salvation.
There are doctrines of the church, such as the perpetual virginity of Mary or purgatory or indulgences, which are neither self-evident from scripture nor of necessary consequence derived from Holy Scripture. I reject those doctrines 1) without fear of heresy, 2) for fear of error.
As has already been said on this thread, Protestants believe in the perpetual Reformation of the church by Spirit-empowered submission to God's word written and by fidelity to the unembellished or augmented gospel of Jesus Christ as we have it in those Scriptures. I would therefore reject any tradition of the church that stands either in direct contradiction to the scripture (indulgences, salvation by works) or cannot be proved as a necessary soteriological consequence from those Scriptures (the perpetual virginity of Mary the mother of Christ, sacramental confession).
Posted by Call me Numpty (# 3012) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Latchkey Kid:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Patdys:
[qb] The church is a mockery of Christ.
The only thing I can hold onto is the personhood of Christ. And a relational understanding of the Gospel.
But Christ didn't simply rise from the dead as a private person with whom Christians have a private personal relationship. He rose as teh public head of the church, so that in his rising all believers are joined to one another and together corporately participate in Christ's risen life. In this respect your first sentence is seriously, seriously erroneous.
[ 11. February 2010, 08:28: Message edited by: Call me Numpty ]
Posted by goperryrevs (# 13504) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by El Greco:
Why should anyone follow your ideas, why aren't they as made up as the ancient ideas you reject as erroneous?
Hi Andrew, been a while! ![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
Talking personally, I don't want people to follow my ideas, I want people to follow Jesus - and trust him that the rest of it will all be worked out.
I'd expect that your response to that would be that we barely know who Jesus was reliably. Which is fair enough if he was just a man from history. But if he really is still alive, and in some way God, then it's my opinion that being a Protestant, or a Catholic, a Muslim or whatever has very little to do with it, and that we can trust him to reveal who he is in his own way. He's the one who said "ask, seek, knock".
I don't think Christianity was ever meant to be a rigid set of beliefs - it's about reconciliation with God through his Son, about relationship. So individual doctrines can be debated, changed, and refined, but the whole remains.
Mr Nooma, Rob Bell, gives a helpful (in my view) illustration. The first is a theology which is a brick wall, with each doctrine an individual brick. Take one or two bricks out the bottom, and the wall falls down (which I'm sure you'll agree happened to you). The second is a theology which is a trampoline, with each doctrine one of the springs. Take one or two out, and the trampoline still works. I think a theology based on the second is much more realistic.
Oh, and what Custard said ![[Overused]](graemlins/notworthy.gif)
Posted by goperryrevs (# 13504) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
Most evangelicals have their anchor in Apostolic Succession.
How defined? That doesn't sound like "most Protestants" in my experience.
I think almost all Christian groups have their anchor in a Apostolic Succession, they just define it in very different ways. Very simply:
The Catholics define it through Rome,
The Orthodox define it through Tradition,
The Protestants define it through Scripture,
I think all three have merits, and maybe it's not a case of either/or (it's obviously much more nuanced than the above in reality anyhow). We're all working to the same goal, being true to what Jesus, then the Apostles taught. We're just getting there through different routes.
Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on
:
Custard, I'd be wary of regarding Constantine as some kind of seminal watershed moment in Church History and rejecting everything non-pre-Constantinian. What about the Trinity, for example?
Other than that, I agree with what the other Prots have said: for us, Scripture is the chief standard - if it contradicts Scripture, then it's wrong, if it ain't in Scripture then at best it's adiaphora and we can have lots of happy or not-so-happy speculative debates about it. That's not necessarily to discount Apostolic Tradition, just that that Tradition must pass the Vincentian test and that, ultimately, Scripture trumps that Tradition as and when push comes to shove.
Posted by Ender's Shadow (# 2272) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by kankucho:
The more wisdom and peace we get from what we believe, the more people will come and ask us.
Yes, but Jesus called us to be 'fishers of men' - which is not an image of people standing around waiting for the fish to come to them. And the image is the use of nets - not even just fishing lines. It's too easy to be willing to wait for people to come to you - at the margin there needs to be more active engagement.
Posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras (# 11274) on
:
Yet, the protestant churches have also given rise to a significant movement that doesn't see Scripture as authoritative in the same way that Numpty and Matt are talking about. The liberal tradition within these bodies view the canonical scriptures as containing essential truths but as being neither comprehensive as to all truth, nor as to be taken as prescriptive in regard to all practice and doctrine. Numpty would no doubt simply regard this liberal stream within protestantism (including Anglicanism) as heretical, but that doesn't negate the fact that this liberal tradition exists and has in some quarters been gaining ground since the C19. Hence, it's not as simple as characterising protestantism with a unique attitude regarding the primacy of canonical scripture.
Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on
:
But I don't think that was what the OP was asking.
Posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras (# 11274) on
:
Matt, I think the liberal tradition would reject the validity of the OP's question, IOW it's asking the wrong question. If the Church is a "prophetic" institution it is thus an adaptive, evolving one whose understandings of theology and praxis likewise evolve. Further, as pertains to Scripture, the Church created the Bible, not vice versa.
Posted by Erroneous Monk (# 10858) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Anselmina:
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
His response was: "sometimes I worry that the whole of church is nothing more than a misunderstanding"
A statement which probably more accurately assesses Church (whether one thinks one's 'it' or not), both institutionally and personally, than any number of doctrines and dogmas of the past 2,000 years. Seriously.
I've always had this permanent nagging doubt about the Church. I actually think that Jesus might be surprised to find us treating certain parts of the Gospels and Paul's letters as Holy Scripture. He might even be surprised that we're not all Jews. Reformed Jews, maybe, but...
Posted by El Greco (# 9313) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras:
Matt, I think the liberal tradition would reject the validity of the OP's question, IOW it's asking the wrong question. If the Church is a "prophetic" institution it is thus an adaptive, evolving one whose understandings of theology and praxis likewise evolve. Further, as pertains to Scripture, the Church created the Bible, not vice versa.
Why?
Let me explain what I mean.
The liberal tradition in Protestantism might see certain ideas of other traditions as made up. God punishes people? No, this is something some people made up, it's not true. God condemning the non-Christians simply because they are non-Christians? No, this is made up. The institution of the papacy? Sorry, not divinely ordained, but made up by humans. Demons? They don't really exist, but people made them up. Miracles? There is a huge metaphorical or even mythical importance in them, but they are not actual historical facts. And so on, and so forth.
Let's say that they are right. That all those ideas are made up by humans, pious humans of course, but who still made those things up, despite their good intentions.
The question is, and how do you know that your liberal tradition of Protestantism isn't equally made-up? How do you know that your claims about God are not the result of your pious imagination?
quote:
Originally posted by duchess:
Unless I am not shoving it down your throught, what does it matter?
You are right. It doesn't matter to me. Which is why you won't see me trying to dissuade people from their convictions IRL. However, since this is a discussion board, I thought I would initiate this discussion.
quote:
Originally posted by Call me Numpty:
I believe in...
[snip, long list of Numpty's beliefs]
My question remains. Why aren't your beliefs made up? Because you have the bible as your reference point? But history shows that different people interpret the bible differently.
You sound as if you hold some kind of infallibility for your beliefs, and you rationalize that because you assume you believe as the bible teaches, but this is just a big assumption on your part.
[ 11. February 2010, 12:06: Message edited by: El Greco ]
Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on
:
quote:
Straw-man parody of liberal Christian beliefs... You are right. It doesn't matter to me. Which is why you won't see me trying to dissuade people from their convictions IRL. However, since this is a discussion board, I thought I would initiate this discussion.
Wow, I almost believed for a short while that Sand-rew was interested in actual dialogue.
Zach
Posted by fletcher christian (# 13919) on
:
El Greco, apart from the fact that you seem to have quite an odd view of 'Protestants' (it might help to know something about 'protestants' before you assume what they think), but you also seem to be looking for a singular truth yourself. I very much doubt that you will find anyone here who can convince you of a singular truth, but maybe you just want an argument rather than to be convinced by someone (?). But there are also a number of problems in looking for a singular truth which 'Protestantism' doesn't actually have. I don't even think that science has it either, so I'm inclined to think that your quest is looking for an unattainable 'holy grail' that no one on this planet will be able to hand to you in the neat little package you seem to want.
Posted by Dinghy Sailor (# 8507) on
:
So Andrew, the people who believe the whole bible are arrogant and the people who don't believe it all are imagining things. Is there a third way? Are you the sole occupant of that enlightened third way?
Posted by Benny Diction 2 (# 14159) on
:
Can I throw the Wesleyan Quadrilateral in to the mix. In case you are not familiar with it, it is "tool" that assists with theological reflection. Wesleyan Quadrilateral
This recognises that
Scripture - the Holy Bible (Old and New Testaments)
Tradition - the two millennia history of the Christian Church
Reason - rational thinking and sensible interpretation
Experience - a Christian's personal and communal journey in Christ
all play a part.
Posted by QLib (# 43) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by El Greco:
The liberal tradition in Protestantism might see certain ideas of other traditions as made up. God punishes people? No, this is something some people made up, it's not true. God condemning the non-Christians simply because they are non-Christians? No, this is made up. The institution of the papacy? Sorry, not divinely ordained, but made up by humans. Demons? They don't really exist, but people made them up. Miracles? There is a huge metaphorical or even mythical importance in them, but they are not actual historical facts. And so on, and so forth.
The use of the term "made up" is not helpful. Rather, the point is that one is saying "that is the best understanding we had then, but now we have reason to think differently." Or maybe (as in the case of 7 days creation "this was never intended to be taken literally."
When I look at the Bible, it seems important to differentiate between what Jesus taught and what people in the early church wrote. Jesus could never have taught that people would go to Hell for not being Christian - this is the doctrine that the Church developed. If you look back at what Jesus taught, the validity of this teaching is questionable and, indeed, many prominent theologians, and not just Protestant ones, would argue that non-Christians will not automatically go to Hell.
Institution of the Papacy? The Protestant view is that Jesus' last(ish) words to Peter do not really constitute divine instigation of the Papacy as we have come to know and love it.
So, even if one stays with the Gospels, there are problems. The facts that accounts differ may actually prove a degree of authenticity - can we use other evidence to work out what really happened? Does it help if we consider what people in the first century CE may (or may not) have thought about the difference between literal and non-literal forms of truth?
And what about the dilemmas created by Jesus' status as fully human and fully divine - does that mean we make allowances for the fact that his knowledge and understanding must have the same limitations as any other person of that time?
Miracles? Not all Protestants deny miracles by any means. Like many, but by no means all, I think the healing miracles may be true, because I believe that the psychosomatic element of illness is underestimated by our culture. However, my guess is that Peter dreamt about Jesus walking on the water and someone somewhere got hold of the wrong end of the stick.
Finally, let's think about the Virgin Birth. If you believed, as people did then, that the mother's only contribution to the procreative process is to provide the womb, which is merely the ground in which the seed grows, then you are going to have a different understanding of the implications of Virgin Birth from someone who knows that humans are composed out of genetic material contibuted by both parents. This means our understanding of the Virgin Birth has changed - the difference is in how different groups have responded to that change.
So this is not abou tme saying that I am right and "they" are wrong. I am merely talking about what my best understanding is and reserving the right to follow my best understanding, rather than follow someone else's best understanding (which I may not understand) simply because they tell me they're right and tradition proves it. I believe the Holy Spirit is at work in the world, now and always, and that means tradition does not get to have the last word.
Posted by Call me Numpty (# 3012) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras:
Further, as pertains to Scripture, the Church created the Bible, not vice versa.
This statement places you outside of Protestantism. It also suggests to me that you are talking about the NT Scriptures, not the Bible, unless of course you are using the word "Church" to include ancient believing Israel. Either way I think you are using the word created in a very different way that I would as a Protestant. I would concur with you if you are using the word create in the sense that Christians - under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit - authored, promulgated and canonised the New Testament Scriptures. However, I would also suggest that Scripture creates the church inasmuch as the Spirit-empowerd proclamation of what Scripture says "creates" Christians (i.e. the Church).
Posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras (# 11274) on
:
I'm not sure if the OP is asking about the ultimate authority of teaching in protestant churches, i.e. what constitutes magisterium; or if El Greco is really posing a broader and more fundamental philosophical question as to what constitutes the basis for a level of confidence in perceived reality generally -- how we "know" what we "know" or how we "know" it to be true. I'd say that questions pertaining to religion are simply a subset of that broader question.
Posted by Leaf (# 14169) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras:
I'm not sure if the OP is asking about the ultimate authority of teaching in protestant churches, i.e. what constitutes magisterium; or if El Greco is really posing a broader and more fundamental philosophical question as to what constitutes the basis for a level of confidence in perceived reality generally -- how we "know" what we "know" or how we "know" it to be true. I'd say that questions pertaining to religion are simply a subset of that broader question.
Exactly. The OP presupposes an absolute divide between reason and revelation. Some Protestants - having used reason to conclude that some parts of tradition were unhelpful - yet continued to believe that there was a revealed faith worth preserving.
ISTM it is this fractal relationship between reason and revelation that bothers you, El Greco. Some Christians veer more toward revelation as authoritative, some toward reason, but it is never as neat a dividing line as might be wished. Yes, it is an awkward line, which is why Christians argue all the time about where it should be. But why should it be absolutist and binary - either one totally believes in revelation or utterly rejects it in favour of reason?
Posted by Isaac David (# 4671) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Call Me Numpty:
I believe in the supreme divine authority, inerrancy, sufficiency and consistency of Holy Scripture
That's a tradition too, created by a bunch of people in the 16th century. Historically speaking, all traditions, including Orthodox Tradition, were created by a bunch of people at some point. The problem is, how to choose the right one? It never ceases to amaze me how we try to justify the convictions we hold about our own choices, given that final proof remains as elusive as ever.
Posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras (# 11274) on
:
We choose a particular model, template or approximation based on a variety of individual proclivities and predispositions, including aesthetic preferences, superego factors, socialisation, adaptive functionality, etc (not to imply that these are mutually exclusive categories; indeed they're likely to be overlapping to varying degrees).
Posted by Isaac David (# 4671) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras:
We choose a particular model, etc
That is certainly one way of describing our thought processes in secular terms, but I was thinking more about they way we justify our choices publicly, as opposed to the personal, private reasons which may condition our choices.
For example, I may justify my choice of Orthodox Tradition on historical grounds, but it may have been an unexplainable experience during the Liturgy which clinched it for me - unexplainable to others, that is, and unlikely to convince them if I did reveal it.
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by El Greco:
The question is, and how do you know that your liberal tradition of Protestantism isn't equally made-up? How do you know that your claims about God are not the result of your pious imagination?
I don't.
So what?
Posted by Call me Numpty (# 3012) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by El Greco:
quote:
Originally posted by Call me Numpty:
I believe in...
[snip, long list of Numpty's beliefs]
My question remains. Why aren't your beliefs made up? Because you have the bible as your reference point? But history shows that different people interpret the bible differently.
You sound as if you hold some kind of infallibility for your beliefs, and you rationalize that because you assume you believe as the bible teaches, but this is just a big assumption on your part.
No, I believe in the infallibility of the Apostles' teaching as recorded in the NT Scriptures. I also believe that there is only one correct interpretation of those teachings. The church's task - when divergent interpretations arise - is to strive to find the correct interpretation, not settle for fatalism or relativism. People here seem to be struggling with the idea that there is only one correct interpretation. They prefer either to go for a fatalistic 'everyone is wrong' (El Greco) or a relativistic 'everyone is right' (random others).
Of course, my saying that there is only one correct interpretation will draw the accusation of arrogance. I know that. But it's worth remembering that I'm talking about a hermeneutic principle and not necessarily making a claim to have reached the correct interpretation in every respect. On the contrary, whay I'm saying that nothing other than Scripture - including 2000 years of tradition, the extrinsic fruit of human reason, or even personal religious experience - can have the deciding vote when it comes to doctrine in the church. The endeavour must begin and end with the text of Scripture, because the text of Scripture is what we have been given by the Apostles. And the church should not cease in her endeavour to discover the correct interpretation of Scripture.
Posted by Isaac David (# 4671) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Call Me Numpty:
The endeavour must begin and end with the text of Scripture, because the text of Scripture is what we have been given by the Apostles.
Is it? What if the Apostles passed on authoritative teachings which were not written down? What if they did write authoritative texts which were not read in church services? What if the Holy Spirit revealed authoritative teachings, entirely consistent with Scripture, but not explicitly mentioned in it?
Posted by Spiffy (# 5267) on
:
Issac David, then we just gotta trust that the Holy Spirit has more time on the prepaid calling card and can give the dropped revelation to a new generation.
quote:
Originally posted by Leaf:
ISTM it is this fractal relationship between reason and revelation that bothers you, El Greco. Some Christians veer more toward revelation as authoritative, some toward reason, but it is never as neat a dividing line as might be wished. Yes, it is an awkward line, which is why Christians argue all the time about where it should be. But why should it be absolutist and binary - either one totally believes in revelation or utterly rejects it in favour of reason?
And as was pointed out above, some traditions believe reason and revelation only make up a part of the picture, along with tradition and in some parts of the spectrum, personal experience.
Faith isn't a pre-built kit, after all, no matter how hard you try to swallow the whole of the Teachings of the Insert Name Here Church. It's more of a build-your-own taco stand. The base layer is always Christ, and the rest is just condiments.
[ 11. February 2010, 15:59: Message edited by: Spiffy ]
Posted by Call me Numpty (# 3012) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Isaac David:
quote:
Originally posted by Call Me Numpty:
The endeavour must begin and end with the text of Scripture, because the text of Scripture is what we have been given by the Apostles.
Is it? What if the Apostles passed on authoritative teachings which were not written down? What if they did write authoritative texts which were not read in church services? What if the Holy Spirit revealed authoritative teachings, entirely consistent with Scripture, but not explicitly mentioned in it?
I don't think God deals in what ifs; he deals in truth and Scripture is the means by which he makes that truth known.
Posted by Isaac David (# 4671) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Spiffy:
Faith isn't a pre-built kit, after all, no matter how hard you try to swallow the whole of the Teachings of the Insert Name Here Church. It's more of a build-your-own taco stand. The base layer is always Christ, and the rest is just condiments.
Here endeth the Teaching from the Church of Spiffy ![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
Posted by Isaac David (# 4671) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Call Me Numpty:
I don't think God deals in what ifs; he deals in truth and Scripture is the means by which he makes that truth known.
God deals in truth and Orthodox Tradition is the means by which he makes that truth known. See, I proved you wrong.
Posted by Spiffy (# 5267) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Isaac David:
quote:
Originally posted by Spiffy:
Faith isn't a pre-built kit, after all, no matter how hard you try to swallow the whole of the Teachings of the Insert Name Here Church. It's more of a build-your-own taco stand. The base layer is always Christ, and the rest is just condiments.
Here endeth the Teaching from the Church of Spiffy
I am working on the Mary Sue Revised Standard Version of the Bible.
It's got translations such as "Then Nathan said to David, 'Dude, I was talking about you, and God sent me to say, "That was really a dick move, David. I'm most seriously pissed off."'". (2Sam 12:7-10)
[ 11. February 2010, 16:12: Message edited by: Spiffy ]
Posted by Wm Duncan (# 3021) on
:
Amazing what a flurry a straw-man OP can set in motion. Let him (her?) who cast the first stone now define his (her?) own "theories" rather than defining other's faith with caricature.
Posted by El Greco (# 9313) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by fletcher christian:
El Greco, apart from the fact that you seem to have quite an odd view of 'Protestants' (it might help to know something about 'protestants' before you assume what they think), but you also seem to be looking for a singular truth yourself. I very much doubt that you will find anyone here who can convince you of a singular truth, but maybe you just want an argument rather than to be convinced by someone (?). But there are also a number of problems in looking for a singular truth which 'Protestantism' doesn't actually have. I don't even think that science has it either, so I'm inclined to think that your quest is looking for an unattainable 'holy grail' that no one on this planet will be able to hand to you in the neat little package you seem to want.
This is all nice and good. Except for one thing. That while you portray this image of intrinsic uncertainty, you go on and hold your own opinions about what God's existence means, or what it means for Christ to be the Son of God.
If you stopped there, I would have nothing to say to that. But you are not stopping there, and my question is why you don't.
From what I can see, it seems to boil down to "because we say so" or "because we want to believe so". Is this all there is?
quote:
Originally posted by QLib:
The use of the term "made up" is not helpful. Rather, the point is that one is saying "that is the best understanding we had then, but now we have reason to think differently." Or maybe (as in the case of 7 days creation "this was never intended to be taken literally."
Yet you go on explaining how certain views are mistaken. So, there are views you accept as mistaken. Why choose your views over them, though? Or, even better, why choose any of the various Christian theologies at all?
quote:
Originally posted by Dinghy Sailor:
So Andrew, the people who believe the whole bible are arrogant and the people who don't believe it all are imagining things.
It's not polite to put things in people's mouths.
What I said is that in my view people of good faith, people sincere, who want to follow God, ended up making things up, which today many Christians rightly reject as erroneous. Are today's Christians making things up as well?
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by El Greco:
The question is, and how do you know that your liberal tradition of Protestantism isn't equally made-up? How do you know that your claims about God are not the result of your pious imagination?
I don't.
So what?
This astonishes me. To me it's better to put aside made-up stuff rather than accept them as God's Truth for how to live one's life.
quote:
Originally posted by Call me Numpty:
But it's worth remembering that I'm talking about a hermeneutic principle and not necessarily making a claim to have reached the correct interpretation in every respect.
Noted. My question remains. If all those people made things up, why aren't you making things up as well?
Posted by fletcher christian (# 13919) on
:
quote:
This is all nice and good. Except for one thing. That while you portray this image of intrinsic uncertainty, you go on and hold your own opinions about what God's existence means, or what it means for Christ to be the Son of God.
If you stopped there, I would have nothing to say to that. But you are not stopping there, and my question is why you don't.
From what I can see, it seems to boil down to "because we say so" or "because we want to believe so". Is this all there is?
I'm not sure I can see this in what I wrote to be honest, and I can't see where you might have reflected on it or answered it.
Posted by Leaf (# 14169) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Spiffy:
And as was pointed out above, some traditions believe reason and revelation only make up a part of the picture, along with tradition and in some parts of the spectrum, personal experience.
True. And all of these can be conflated into revelation - "the Holy Spirit revealing through various means", including reason, tradition, and personal experience.
I was trying to get at the issue which I think (I may be wrong) is plaguing El Greco. If he sees Protestantism as having 'introduced' reason to faith - a questionable view, but anyway - then why not go all the way and overthrow revelation in favour of reason? It seems to have worked for him
Posted by Leaf (# 14169) on
:
El Greco: What you persistently refer to as "making stuff up" is what I would call "life". I live on the basis of many assumptions which are unproveable yet important. The love of my spouse, for example - I cannot prove it exists, but it is important for me to believe that it does. Reason plays a certain role in this; I could point to examples which reasonable people might agree indicate love. But no one can prove it. So it is with faith.
Posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras (# 11274) on
:
This is why I think the OP - if not being deliberately provocative and disingenuous about that - is really asking a question that goes far beyond the issue of why one believes the doctrines of one's own church to be true, valid and/or authentic.
Posted by fletcher christian (# 13919) on
:
Yes, LSK; hence why I phrased my answer in the terms I did earlier, but El Greco brought it back to the same idea of searching for a singular truth, so I'm not actually sure what he's trying to figure out
Posted by QLib (# 43) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by El Greco:
quote:
Originally posted by QLib:
The use of the term "made up" is not helpful. Rather, the point is that one is saying "that is the best understanding we had then, but now we have reason to think differently." Or maybe (as in the case of 7 days creation "this was never intended to be taken literally."
Yet you go on explaining how certain views are mistaken. So, there are views you accept as mistaken. Why choose your views over them, though? Or, even better, why choose any of the various Christian theologies at all?
I don't think I choose my views, really. You can't choose what you can or cannot believe. However, I 'chose' Quakerism' because when I heard that their witness is based on the faith that there is "that of God" in everyone, I knew that that formula of words expressed exactly a belief I had arrived at in my student days when I reflected on my experience working with people with severe and multiple learning difficulties. I know it's true.
Life doesn't offer the kind of certainty you seek (or that you appear to be seeking). There isn't any point in your asking people what they believe - it's time for you to answer George Fox: quote:
...Christ saith this and the apostles say this, but what canst thou say?
...because, in the end, what you can say is the only certainty you have.
Posted by El Greco (# 9313) on
:
Qlib, Leaf, et al:
I don't find that satisfactory.
Here's an example. I see the pain and suffering in the world, the cruelty of nature, and the indifference of the skies, and I come to the conclusion that there is no personal almighty deity that cares for us.
Then someone pops up and says: ah, but God exists, and he has a Son, and he was crucified for us, and all things will be made right in the end, and I have faith in him.
And then I ask, are you making these things up? I mean, others made stuff up, and painted many metaphysical canvases that had little relation with reality, are you doing the same thing? And the answers I get, they are, well, astonishing! Perhaps I should leave it at that. This discussion has been a real eye-opener.
Posted by Jengie Jon (# 273) on
:
El Greco
Rationality was seen as the ideal within my tradition at the end of 19th century, it went along with a belief in the superior rationality of Western man and that evolution would eventually lead us a newer perfect human being, who would naturally arrive in Western civilisation if they had not done so already. Rationality was seen to go with moral superiority.
It fell, not by logical argument but by the experience of two world wars. We certainly could not after both of them really claim moral superiority for Western civilisation. They demonstrated rather effectively the dark side of western civilisation and where such reasoning could lead one.
What I put in the first paragraph looks egocentric but not particular yucky until you faced with the way it was used by Hitler.
Since then we have faced the slow realisation that our "rationality" was often no more than a cover for our own biases. That technological superiority is not the same a moral superiority or religious superiority. We have become post-colonial, listened to the feminist stances and allowed voice to be heard that would never have been heard in the late nineteenth century when Old man Europe knew best.
Now let me tell you the cruel twist from your perspective. Just at the end of 19th Century, Durkheim wrote a book on Religion. It bought into the western myth of rationality leading to superior man, with Protestant Christianity as the least superstitious, except for one important point. Durkheim was an Atheist Jew, he put above Protestant Christianity, rational atheism. The rest of the development cycle was left intact. He assumed that primitive technological societies had primitive religions as well. This is not the case. His evidence for his beliefs of this development pattern just don't add up.
The snag is that rational atheism bought in a lot to this, even more than Protestant Christianity. The assumption that rationalism brings only light is false, it brings darkness as well, the ability to cause more hurt, the ability to justify hurting others in more ways.
If reason is your custodian of truth who guards reason?
Jengie
p.s. If you are wondering why you have not heard major outcry over this, then go back to SPK's post and think how that minimizes the damage done by this.
Posted by Full Circle (# 15398) on
:
Origionally posted by El Greco
quote:
My question to Protestants is how do you know you are not making things up like they did, how do you know that what you believe as true is not as false as those ancient ideas you reject? quote:
Firstly I believe in a God who forgives theological error. I also assume that I personally, the church tradition to which I belong, and every other branch of Christ's church believes & teaches theological errors. Furthermore I am not convinced that it is possible to fully understand an omniscient God. Nor do I think it is the prime duty of a Christian to believe the correct thing. Rather I think it is to follow Christ: For instance, I don't think we are primarily called to understand the reasons for pain, suffering and evil - but to be Christ's people on earth who are working towards redeeming the pain, suffering and evil that they encounter.
I think you will find people who are trying to do this in every tradition
As for tradition changing with time - I think that is right & proper. Surely all real relationships change with time as you get to know one another. As a relationships develops, you show more of yourself to another and relate differently. Even if God is not changing, how I relate to him may well do so with time. Similarly with the community of believers that Christ will call to himself: the people, times, science and a whole lot of other things will change - This allows us to relate to his unchanging nature differently
Or to sum it up - I think we are primarily called to a relationship not a body of knowledge.
Posted by Jessie Phillips (# 13048) on
:
Jengie Jon says quote:
It fell, not by logical argument but by the experience of two world wars. We certainly could not after both of them really claim moral superiority for Western civilisation. They demonstrated rather effectively the dark side of western civilisation and where such reasoning could lead one.
Thanks for that. In my opinion, to say that reasoning is bad because it led to two wars is a sophistic argument.
Yes, reasoning can lead to wars, but that doesn't necessarily mean that there's anything wrong with the reasoning process itself. It could just as easily be that the starting premises were wrong.
I would agree with you that rationality does not confer moral superiority on a person - but that's not a reason to abandon reason. Indeed, can there be such a thing as a "reason to abandon reason"?
I still see rationality as the ideal. However, I don't believe that atheists are inherently more rational than Christians. Most atheists, when asked why they don't believe in God, tend to use straw man arguments; they define "God" and "god" very narrowly, and they fail to take into account any of the ancient Jewish, Greek, Roman or Christian literature that might shed some light on how the concept of "god" may have developed in the first place, or the spectrum of thought on what "god" might mean, or on what things, phenomena or concepts may be rightfully or wrongfully called "god".
Then again, if Christians dogmatically insist that there's only one correct way of understanding what "God" means, then perhaps you can't blame the atheists for being equally dogmatic about their own straw men.
Posted by Horseman Bree (# 5290) on
:
Browsing the book pile at Costco, I happened upon the title "Why is God Laughing?" (Deepak Chopra, I think)
My comment to my browsing companion: "Because He has heard all the stuff we talk about Him".
I'll second the "relationship not a body of knowledge" statement.
Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by El Greco:
This is all nice and good. Except for one thing. That while you portray this image of intrinsic uncertainty, you go on and hold your own opinions about what God's existence means, or what it means for Christ to be the Son of God.
So are you saying that no-one should hold an opinion unless they are certain?
AIUI your objection is that Protestants - especially liberal Protestants - simultaneously believe that a.) God is of a certain nature and b.) any statement about God may be wrong.
How is that different from believing (for example) a.) certain behaviour is morally wrong and b.) any statement about morality may be wrong?
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras:
This is why I think the OP - if not being deliberately provocative and disingenuous about that - is really asking a question that goes far beyond the issue of why one believes the doctrines of one's own church to be true, valid and/or authentic.
I agree. And to be honest, El Greco, right now I'm a bit worried for your sanity if you start doubting all the things that you only know about because someone thought about it, passed it on to someone else, who passed it on... all the way down to you sitting in the classroom or being told it by your parents.
We rely on assumptions when we get out of bed in the morning and don't hold on for dear life in case gravity isn't working or the house hasn't rearranged itself while we were sleeping.
Posted by El Greco (# 9313) on
:
I find it disturbing that there are attempts to shift the meaning of what I'm saying. The issue is not whether my wife really loves me, or whether rationality means morality, or whether we should only have opinions about things we know for sure, but whether religious theories made-up by people should be presented (and accepted) as God's Truth.
Such ideas affect many people's lives (and not necessarily only those that believe them) which makes these concerns even more important.
Posted by Jengie Jon (# 273) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Jessie Phillips:
Jengie Jon says quote:
It fell, not by logical argument but by the experience of two world wars. We certainly could not after both of them really claim moral superiority for Western civilisation. They demonstrated rather effectively the dark side of western civilisation and where such reasoning could lead one.
Thanks for that. In my opinion, to say that reasoning is bad because it led to two wars is a sophistic argument.
That is to misread, I am saying that reason is not the guarantee of moral goodness that the enlightenment thought it was.
Even in a modern society supposedly governed by rationality we can still make a big mess of it.
Jengie
[ 11. February 2010, 20:35: Message edited by: Jengie Jon ]
Posted by Spiffy (# 5267) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by El Greco:
Qlib, Leaf, et al:
I don't find that satisfactory.
Who said life gets to be satisfactory? Where's it promised you'll ever get the chance to understand everything before you die? Who promised you life is like a bowl of cherries? 'Cause they lied, yo.
Sit down, hang on, and enjoy the ride of this wild and wonderful thing called life, and stop looking for the Secret Rulebook That Explains Everything Perfectly and Seamlessly.
[ 11. February 2010, 20:37: Message edited by: Spiffy ]
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by El Greco:
I find it disturbing that there are attempts to shift the meaning of what I'm saying.
I don't see it. There are attempts to try to figure out what you're saying. I don't see anybody trying to shift your meaning. You're talking like somebody with a persecution complex here.
Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by El Greco:
I find it disturbing that there are attempts to shift the meaning of what I'm saying.
I'm trying to work out what you are saying. So far you haven't presented an objection to Protestant epistemology that can't also be presented against, among other things, humanist ethics. quote:
The issue is not whether my wife really loves me, or whether rationality means morality, or whether we should only have opinions about things we know for sure, but whether religious theories made-up by people should be presented (and accepted) as God's Truth.
You are failing to distinguish between "This is God's truth" and "We think this is God's truth but we may be wrong". Most Protestants on this thread are saying the latter.
[ 11. February 2010, 20:46: Message edited by: Ricardus ]
Posted by El Greco (# 9313) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Spiffy:
Sit down, hang on, and enjoy the ride of this wild and wonderful thing called life, and stop looking for the Secret Rulebook That Explains Everything Perfectly and Seamlessly.
I don't have a problem with life. It's certain beliefs I'm challenging. And those beliefs are not to be confused for Life, Reality, or whatever!
quote:
You are failing to distinguish between "This is God's truth" and "We think this is God's truth but we may be wrong". Most Protestants on this thread are saying the latter.
Well, from what I have experienced, people would say "we believe this is God's Truth" rather than "we speculate, and this is our speculation, and it comes from us, and not from God, whose mind we don't really know". And my question is "how do you know you are not making things up, just like other people did, whose views you won't even consider for that very fact".
If the line was neatly drawn between reality and human speculation, I would have raised no concerns about it!
Posted by Jessie Phillips (# 13048) on
:
El Greco says
quote:
but whether religious theories made-up by people should be presented (and accepted) as God's Truth
I suppose that depends how you define God.
It also depends how you define "Truth". Some would say that to make a distinction between "God's Truth" and any other sort of "truth" is meaningless. In binary logic, the only distinction is between "truth" and "falsehood". A proposition which is not true is false, and a proposition which is not false is true.
However, if you were to say that "God's Truth" is different to ordinary "truth", then it looks like a form of ternary logic - however, ternary logic usually means "true", "false" and "unknown". So if we add "God's Truth" to this set of truth values, we end up with a type of four-state logic. And you have to think up new rules for what "AND", "OR" and "NOT" might mean when applied to such logic.
quote:
Such ideas affect many people's lives (and not necessarily only those that believe them) which makes these concerns even more important.
Well sure they do. But it's not just ideas that affect people's lives. Governments often affect people's lives too. But that's not a reason for not having them.
Personally, I think there's a danger in being too perfectionist about getting your ideas right. Good enough is good enough; it doesn't have to be absolutely spot on.
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by El Greco:
Well, from what I have experienced, people would say "we believe this is God's Truth" rather than "we speculate, and this is our speculation, and it comes from us, and not from God, whose mind we don't really know".
...and do you have a problem with that?
Why?
'We believe' pretty much sums it up nicely.
Posted by Horseman Bree (# 5290) on
:
Just to say I've opened a thread which may have some bearing on this discussion, albeit tangentially.
Posted by Spiffy (# 5267) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by El Greco:
quote:
Originally posted by Spiffy:
Sit down, hang on, and enjoy the ride of this wild and wonderful thing called life, and stop looking for the Secret Rulebook That Explains Everything Perfectly and Seamlessly.
I don't have a problem with life. It's certain beliefs I'm challenging. And those beliefs are not to be confused for Life, Reality, or whatever!
I believe things about reality. You believe things about reality. Apparently, the things you believe about reality are different than the things I believe about reality.
I don't get all het up about what you believe about reality, but you sure as shootin' appear to be het up about what I believe about reality. Why?
(Also? I'm totes changing my .sig to my favorite Mythbusters quote ever thanks to this thread.)
[ 11. February 2010, 21:13: Message edited by: Spiffy ]
Posted by El Greco (# 9313) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Full Circle:
Or to sum it up - I think we are primarily called to a relationship not a body of knowledge.
Yet it's not friendship circles that we get, but churches... I think this underestimates the volume of knowledge each theological system claims it has...
quote:
Originally posted by Jessie Phillips:
Personally, I think there's a danger in being too perfectionist about getting your ideas right. Good enough is good enough; it doesn't have to be absolutely spot on.
Well, it's not only about whether it's truth coming from God that you must make the sign of the cross with three or with two fingers, but it's also about whether Jesus was more than a mere human, or about whether a personal God exists.
Imagine this scenario:
There is no personal God. Jesus didn't rise from the dead. There is no resurrection, no after life, no one caring for us from above.
Andrew says to Christians: Are you making things up? How do you know you aren't?
Christians reply to Andrew: We might be wrong, but don't get too worked up with that! You shouldn't focus on getting all your ideas perfectly correct. It doesn't have to be actually spot on!
This presupposes that the core of their theological system isn't made up. And they won't answer my question about how they know that it isn't!
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:
Originally posted by El Greco:
Well, from what I have experienced, people would say "we believe this is God's Truth" rather than "we speculate, and this is our speculation, and it comes from us, and not from God, whose mind we don't really know".
...and do you have a problem with that?
Why?
'We believe' pretty much sums it up nicely.
I beg to differ. Even a cursory reading of these boards would be sufficient for one to realize that many people here do more than just speculate and offer their speculations as thoughts of their own making. To believe means something different than to speculate.
Posted by QLib (# 43) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by El Greco:
I see the pain and suffering in the world, the cruelty of nature, and the indifference of the skies, and I come to the conclusion that there is no personal almighty deity that cares for us.
You know that parable of the blind guys and the elephant? Well, you're the one at the back going: "There is no elephant, it's all just a giant heap of shit." Fine - that's your truth. Stick with it. Your experience is a true experience. Go do buddhist meditation or something that doesn't require you to believe in a deity.
FYI, I am not peddling any truth as "God's truth". My truth is mine. I may be mistaken, so might you. Think on.
Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by El Greco:
To believe means something different than to speculate.
But it also means something different from "to know". And this is the point you are not acknowledging.
Posted by Spiffy (# 5267) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by El Greco:
This presupposes that the core of their theological system isn't made up. And they won't answer my question about how they know that it isn't!
Because.
There, you happy now?
Why I believe in God and specifically Jesus is, in my world, one of those questions like "What color are your underpants today?" You know, one of those questions I don't post on open Internet forums and you have to develop some form of trust with me to get an answer.
Frankly, Andrew El Greco, I trust you about as far as I can throw you, and I don't think you're particuarly aerodynamic. Therefore, you're either going to have to accept the answer as given or deal with the suspense.
[ 11. February 2010, 22:07: Message edited by: Spiffy ]
Posted by Wm Duncan (# 3021) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by El Greco:
This presupposes that the core of their theological system isn't made up. And they won't answer my question about how they know that it isn't!
Which, if true, would put them on at least the same level as the questioner, who has not described his own theological system's origins and how he knows.
[ 11. February 2010, 22:24: Message edited by: Wm Duncan ]
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
quote:
Originally posted by El Greco:
To believe means something different than to speculate.
But it also means something different from "to know". And this is the point you are not acknowledging.
I believe you've understood my point perfectly.
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by El Greco:
[QUOTE]
This presupposes that the core of their theological system isn't made up. And they won't answer my question about how they know that it isn't!
Actually I believe I and several others have answered that question several times already, clearly and directly. You simply are, as you stated, "unsatisfied" with our answers. Which is your right.
Posted by Custard (# 5402) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
Custard, I'd be wary of regarding Constantine as some kind of seminal watershed moment in Church History and rejecting everything non-pre-Constantinian. What about the Trinity, for example?
I'm not taking Constantine as a hard-and-fast watershed. Simply that post-Constantine, it's much easier for societal practice to get codified as tradition.
The Trinity is quite clearly pre-Constantinian. Well, the Trinity is eternal and pre-existent, of course, but even the doctrine is pre-Constantinian. It's not like those folks at Nicea (or Constantinople) made it up. It's clearly there in the NT; it's clearly there in Tertullian and Origen.
Important stuff like the Chalcedonian explanation of the two natures of Christ is either fairly clearly in accord with Scripture (in which case, let's keep it) or people arguing about metaphysics and precisely which set of language to use (in which case, let's read it then not really bother with it again).
Posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras (# 11274) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by El Greco:
I find it disturbing that there are attempts to shift the meaning of what I'm saying. The issue is not whether my wife really loves me, or whether rationality means morality, or whether we should only have opinions about things we know for sure, but whether religious theories made-up by people should be presented (and accepted) as God's Truth.
Such ideas affect many people's lives (and not necessarily only those that believe them) which makes these concerns even more important.
Don't you get it? You've asked a question about the ability of humans to determine or decide upon reality. Religious belief is only one specific and rather small subset of that field. And I bet you know enough about contemporary philosophy of science that it's disingenuous for you to be even asking the question stated in your OP.
Posted by El Greco (# 9313) on
:
Spiffy, I have no interest in becoming personal. I'm more interested for the reasons your school of theology gives as to why their theology isn't made up, rather than for the private reasons that led you to Christianity.
quote:
Originally posted by Wm Duncan:
Which, if true, would put them on at least the same level as the questioner, who has not described his own theological system's origins and how he knows.
Not at all. You can say that something is not true, and that to be valid, without having to propose an alternative explanation. It's a logical fallacy to assume that one needs to suggest a whole new explanation before an old one gets rejected. If something is problematic, it's problematic and that doesn't depend on other explanations.
Let me put it this way.
I suggest a proof for a conjecture. A professional mathematician finds a mistake in that proof, and the mathematical community does not accept my proof. I can't say "but you have to suggest another proof if you are to reject mine as erroneous". No they don't.
Posted by Spiffy (# 5267) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by El Greco:
Spiffy, I have no interest in becoming personal. I'm more interested for the reasons your school of theology
I have a school, now? Since when?
Faith is personal, buddy. Anyone who tells you different is lyin'.
Posted by Sober Preacher's Kid (# 12699) on
:
Hmm, let me put it this way. When I walk into the church, I believe a few things. That God exists, that Christ is the Son of God, in the essential nature of the Trinity, and that the Lord's Supper is our communion in and with the Body of Christ.
I may have lots of questions on these beliefs, and often do. I deal with them. My faith is my own. It is not an assent to a list, nor a recitation of words, nor the performance of ceremonies. It is my response to God's love.
El Greco, you see Faith like a gate, a bar you must be on one side of, inside or out. I see Faith as a journey, a road whose path is marked by the love of Christ and our constant growth in understanding of His truth.
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
Greco appears to see faith as the result of a mathematical proof.
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
^ Maths is in fact one of the few areas where that kind of notion of 'proof' works. Because it's built on a small set of defined axioms and is entirely abstract, mathematics is capable of that kind of proof.
Years ago I was involved in a maths school where we looked at some of the axioms and explored what happens when you use different axioms from the 'normal' ones. The results can be a little mind-bending.
Posted by Call me Numpty (# 3012) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Isaac David:
quote:
Originally posted by Call Me Numpty:
I don't think God deals in what ifs; he deals in truth and Scripture is the means by which he makes that truth known.
God deals in truth and Orthodox Tradition is the means by which he makes that truth known. See, I proved you wrong.
Insofar as Orthodox Tradition is congruent with Scripture, I agree. Where it departs from Scripture, it is mere idiosyncrasy, vain speculation or outright error.
Posted by Call me Numpty (# 3012) on
:
Some think that having a level of certainty about the truth of Christianity makes “belief” unnecessary or irrelevant. But I think that that kind of knowledge actually undermines genuine faith and offends God.
The reasoning goes something like this. God wants us to have faith. In fact, without faith, it’s impossible to please Him (Hebrews 11:6). However, gathering evidence for God and Christianity leaves little room for faith. After all, how can one have faith in something he knows is true? Faith, then (so the false reasoning goes), is opposed to knowledge. Therefore, apologetics undermines the faith project and thus displeases the Lord.
On this view, faith is believing the unbelievable, clinging to your convictions when all the evidence is against you. I see a lot of that on the ship. I've done it myself more that once. According to this epistemology, faith is a “leap,” a blind, desperate lunge in the darkness. When doubts or troubles beset us we’re told to “just have faith,” as if we could squeeze out spiritual hope by intense acts of sheer will.
This view of faith reduces Christian conviction to religious wishful thinking. We can hope, but we can never know. El Greco is right when he says that this will never work. Someone once said, “The heart cannot believe that which the mind rejects.” If you are not confident the message of Scripture is actually true, you can’t believe it even if you tried.
I believe that the “I just take Christianity on faith” attitude cannot be the right approach. It leaves the Bible without defense, yet the Apostle Peter directs us to make a defense for the hope that is in us. I take that to mean that what I believe that faith can be objectively defended because there is something objective about faith. In this respect El Greco is right again. Many people settle for having faith in faith, but I don't think that works either.
The biblical word for faith, pistis, doesn’t mean wishing. It means active trust; the type of trust that cannot be conjured up or manufactured. You can’t exercise the kind of faith the Bible speaks of unless you’re reasonably sure that some particular things are true. It seems to me that El Greco's question is,"How do you know what is true? In other words what can you trust and why do you trust it?"
Biblical faith is based on knowledge, not wishing or blind leaps. Knowledge builds confidence and confidence leads to trust. The kind of faith God is interested in is not wishing. It’s trust based on knowing, a sure confidence grounded in evidence. I believe that ultimately Scripture is the only admissible evidence when it comes to the formation of rejection of doctrines. So, I would answer El Greco's OP like this: Scripture Alone. That's all I have to help me decide if a doctrine is true.
Posted by Patdys (# 9397) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Ender's Shadow:
quote:
Originally posted by Patdys:
'But the more wisdom and peace we get from what we believe, the less we try to persuade.'
After all, it's not like we care about the people around us enough to want to share the peace that we've found; it's just for us and the rest of the world is going to have to struggle on...
Kankucho has probably described it better than I. If the Gospel is relational, then it is displayed through relationship. Crapping on merely makes you a pain in the arse.
Posted by Patdys (# 9397) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Call me Numpty:
quote:
Originally posted by Latchkey Kid:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Patdys:
[qb] The church is a mockery of Christ.
The only thing I can hold onto is the personhood of Christ. And a relational understanding of the Gospel.
But Christ didn't simply rise from the dead as a private person with whom Christians have a private personal relationship. He rose as the public head of the church, so that in his rising all believers are joined to one another and together corporately participate in Christ's risen life. In this respect your first sentence is seriously, seriously erroneous.
Says You.
I disagree entirely.
But, At the end of the day I will tolerate your dishonest, frankly stupid freakiness and hope you will tolerate mine.
The church is a tool for relationship. It is good in that it encourages realtionship between each individual and Christ, each other and the environment. But is flawed. Seriously flawed. And worshipping the Church is idolatorous in my opinion.
But, At the end of the day I will tolerate your dishonest, frankly stupid freakiness and hope you will tolerate mine.
[ 12. February 2010, 06:59: Message edited by: Patdys ]
Posted by QLib (# 43) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Call me Numpty: Biblical faith is based on knowledge, not wishing or blind leaps. Knowledge builds confidence and confidence leads to trust. The kind of faith God is interested in is not wishing. It’s trust based on knowing, a sure confidence grounded in evidence. I believe that ultimately Scripture is the only admissible evidence when it comes to the formation of rejection of doctrines. So, I would answer El Greco's OP like this: Scripture Alone. That's all I have to help me decide if a doctrine is true.
But your answer isn't really "Scripture alone" - your answer is your faith that scripture is True. You call it 'knowledge' but really it is simply an experience, and act of recognition. My act of recognition led me to another path (btw, El G, Quakers don't have a theological system) and El Greco's led him to another.
How can those experiences all be 'true'? Well they can be partially true or relatively true, for starters. No one person, or even faith system can encompass the whole Truth about the whatever-it-is we call 'God'. What is required of us to navigate the path of truth? Respect for others' experience, humility and a mind which is 'grounded' but also open.
El Greco - your problem, as I see it, is that you have no respect for others and no concept of humility. You were the world expert on Orthodoxy and now you seem to think that you're the first person who ever discovered atheism. Do you think that people never had the experience that "there is no God"? I suggest you go away and do some reading, if that's the case. And yet some people persist in Faith. Why is that? You don't know, and nobody can tell you, because seemingly the only voice you really hear is your own.
eta: misplaced apostrophe ![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
[ 12. February 2010, 07:41: Message edited by: QLib ]
Posted by Call me Numpty (# 3012) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by QLib:
quote:
Originally posted by Call me Numpty: Biblical faith is based on knowledge, not wishing or blind leaps. Knowledge builds confidence and confidence leads to trust. The kind of faith God is interested in is not wishing. It’s trust based on knowing, a sure confidence grounded in evidence. I believe that ultimately Scripture is the only admissible evidence when it comes to the formation of rejection of doctrines. So, I would answer El Greco's OP like this: Scripture Alone. That's all I have to help me decide if a doctrine is true.
But your answer isn't really "Scripture alone" - your answer is your faith that scripture is True.
In a sense what you say is correct. However, I think it's wrong to assert a completely subjectivist epistemology as if all evidence is of equal validity and authority and is therefore equally admissible with regard to the formation of doctrine. For example, you seem to be suggesting that scripture is no more or indeed no less authoritative for the formation of Christian doctrine than subjective spiritual experience, the fruit of human reason, or inherited non-written tradition. The problem with this, it seems to me, is that the final arbiter simply becomes the opinion that all evidence is equal. In other words, you opinion that all evidence is equal - which is simply not true - becomes the final authority when doctrinal differences are being discussed.
However, when one takes Scripture as the ultimate authority by which experience, reason, and tradition are to be tested, verified, validated, or indeed rejected one has an objective authority to which one's ideas can be submitted. Now, of course, the come back to this will be the idea of relativistic interpretation - the idea that my interpretation is just a valid as yours despite the fact that they may totally contradict each other. I don't think this works and here's why: there really is only one correct interpretation of Scripture and the goal of theology is to reach that interpretation. Merely settling for relativism is to fall way short of the aim of theology. The hard work starts when the truth gets hammered out in Scripture-centred debate and theological enterprise.
[ 12. February 2010, 08:14: Message edited by: Call me Numpty ]
Posted by QLib (# 43) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Call me Numpty:
However, I think it's wrong to assert a completely subjectivist epistemology as if all evidence is of equal validity and authority and is therefore equally admissible with regard to the formation of doctrine...
Only if your subjectivity includes the ignorant and extremely stupid assumption that all evidence is equally valid. If I experience God telling me to go and slaughter prostitutes, I need to check that out by asking others who I know are experienced in the area of listening to Him. If I see rainbows exploding out of trees, I might want to reflect on what I have been drinking and whether anyone could have slipped something in it.
quote:
.. there really is only one correct interpretation of Scripture and the goal of theology is to reach that interpretation.
That's still your belief though, isn't it? IMHO we will never know the full, complete and perfect interpretation of Scripture until we reach the point when we no longer need to know it, because we are staring God in the face (if we dare) and even then we won't be able to encompass our experience, though maybe it will be fun to spend eternity trying (certainly hope so, as I have a very low boredom threshold).
More seriously, I don't really understand why you would think no-one has had anything interesting or valid to say about God since the Bible was, as it were, published (but I suppose you think theologians are saying valid things if there comments are rooted in scripture). Equally I don't understand why some other churches think that no new understanding of God can be arrived at when, to my way of thinking, science (etc.) must have changed the way we understand what we understood before.
In my view, you have chosen, and people in certain other churches have chosen, to place the locus of ultimate authority outside yourself. I think it's inside and that's why I'm a Protestant because, as I understand it, the primary thing that separates Protestants from other churches is the insistence on the primacy of the individual conscience. I'm not quite sure where sola scriptura fits in to that. Is it (as I suspect) just a disguised version of the primacy of individual conscience, or is it a third way?
El Greco affects to disagree with Protesants because they are just making it all up, but in effect, he is doing what we do, making his individual conscience his guiding light.
How is this not simply massive egotism and idolatry? Well, I believe it's because our "inner Light" is the Light of Christ. And if if it's all just "made up" well, that's OK to becasue real, hard science will tell us that we can only experience the world subjectively - but, as I said above, that doesn't mean we have to be stupid about it and it doesn't mean that we can't arrive at a very good approximation of reality. In fact we already know that our perceptual systems represent reality with a very high degree of accuracy, except when perceptual scientists are playing clever tricks on us in contrived and highly artifical experimental conditions.
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
Call me Numpty, I'm afraid I rather think that your version of what El Greco is saying is a good deal more sophisticated and interesting than what El Greco is actually saying or meant.
I've been away from the ship for quite a number of months, and as far as I can see El Greco hasn't progressed in any way shape or form. As has been said, he has a tendency to speak as if he's the world's great expert on Orthodoxy and/or atheism, and is therefore going to be able to make Protestants (or some other target group) have a moment of revelation. It tends to come across not so much as an argument, but as a case of Messiah complex.
Posted by opaWim (# 11137) on
:
Am I seriously to accept that
a leap of faith based on anything other than the authority of the Bible is just wishful thinking,
while a leap of faith based on the authority of the Bible is not?
Am I really supposed to miss, or even ignore, the fact that it requires a leap of faith to attribute authority to the Bible?
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by QLib:
If I experience God telling me to go and slaughter prostitutes, I need to check that out by asking others who I know are experienced in the area of listening to Him.
How do you know that? (Presumably it would be very easy to find people from all religious faiths who are 'experienced in listening to God'. They might all disagree though.)
Serious question.
Posted by Ender's Shadow (# 2272) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by QLib:
I don't really understand why you would think no-one has had anything interesting or valid to say about God since the Bible was, as it were, published (but I suppose you think theologians are saying valid things if there comments are rooted in scripture). Equally I don't understand why some other churches think that no new understanding of God can be arrived at when, to my way of thinking, science (etc.) must have changed the way we understand what we understood before.
Titus 2 v 1 tells us to 'teach what is consistent with sound doctrine'(NRSV by memory). There is therefore no limit on 'interesting or valid [things] to say about God' - AS LONG AS THEY ARE CONSISTENT WITH THE BIBLE. The problem comes when the new line of teaching starts to diverge, and ends up pointing in the opposite direction, as is so often the case when a single biblical idea is allowed to overcome what the bible actually says. The classic example of this is universalism, where a belief in the love of God gets so emphasised that the doctrine of judgement gets lost. I would argue that the gay issue is a similar case, but let's not pursue morbid equines. ![[Devil]](graemlins/devil.gif)
Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on
:
If the ultimate authority lies inside me, we're all well and truly stuffed...
Posted by El Greco (# 9313) on
:
Some notes regarding faith.
Again, some of you are changing the subject and attacking arguments I did not make. My issue is not with faith (let alone with an individual's faith) but with beliefs. I'm asking about beliefs here, not faith.
Also, the way this is heading, some of you are suggesting that faith can exist only because one is uncertain. So the Apostles themselves, according to your way of thinking, are not supposed to have faith because they knew Jesus resurrected or whatever. I'm thinking that you are justifying your own doubts by calling them faith.
I was always surprised with Hollywood movies that touched on spiritual issues when they named something that made no sense, and had no justification for, "a leap of faith". Now I realize that this approach is actually what many Christians think of their faith. The debunking of Christian beliefs has progressed to such an extent that many Christians themselves recognize that what they are doing is to jump away from reason and empirical facts into the world of imagination, hopes that are not subject to (or even enlightened by) reason which they call faith.
Also, Qlib et al, I didn't turn atheist, but don't let that prevent you from labeling people and attacking straw-men. I'm arrogant, you are people of faith, Numpty is a fundamentalist. Another... irregular verb.
[ 12. February 2010, 11:06: Message edited by: El Greco ]
Posted by Call me Numpty (# 3012) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
quote:
Originally posted by QLib:
If I experience God telling me to go and slaughter prostitutes, I need to check that out by asking others who I know are experienced in the area of listening to Him.
How do you know that? (Presumably it would be very easy to find people from all religious faiths who are 'experienced in listening to God'. They might all disagree though.)
Serious question.
The whole idea that killing people is wrong is rooted in the decalogue. In other words, it's supportable by scripture. You don't need to seek the advice of others on the issue, although it would - no doubt - be wise if you did. I would have to say that the sense of wrongness regarding the killing of prostitutes is - at least in part - due to the fact that you are thinking in accordance with a moral paradigm that has it's origins in the authority of the Christian scriptures.
Posted by Call me Numpty (# 3012) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
If the ultimate authority lies inside me, we're all well and truly stuffed...
Speak for yourself Matt, speak for yourself.
Posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras (# 11274) on
:
El Greco, ISTM that there are multiple levels of this thing. I can't intellectually fathom a universe that doesn't originate from an agency that we call God, and I can in turn reason that this Agency has a certain few characteristics. That puts my intellectual appraisal at least at a level of reasoned deism. I find the story of the revelation of God in Christ compelling and accept the core of the Christian religion - the Risen Christ who historically is one Jesus of Nazareth - albeit with somewhat less certainty than a belief in an All-Pervading-and-Creating Deity. The acceptance of the Incarnation and Resurrection could be based on a greater emotional input and much less intellectual reason. Then there's all the rest of the Christian religion beyond - or surrounding - the central core of the GodMan Jesus. I'm less certain about various elements of all that, in varying degrees. Unlike some others arguing here, I don't accept the infallability of writings like the canonical Christian scriptures, though I obviously agree that these serve to transmit the "facts" (or essential details) of the putative revelation of an Incarnate God presenting Himself amongst humanity. As to the claims for the inherent superior authenticity of one version of Christianity over another, for me it's a "by their fruits ye shall know them" matter of discrimination. Hence, there are various hate-groups around the fringes of Christianity that I don't accept as authentic expressions of Christian doctrine and praxis (of course, the Fred Phelps klan springs to mind as one of the more egregious examples). As to the rest - the bulk of those who profess and call themselves Christians - I reckon those various institutional bodies are all on equally shakey ground; thus, one may base acceptance of a particular church any number of considerations that one reckons to be important and compelling.
[ 12. February 2010, 11:34: Message edited by: Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras ]
Posted by El Greco (# 9313) on
:
Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras, your explanation is fine and good by doesn't answer my question. Could you explain why this isn't made up? Why you aren't the one making things up about God and Christ?
Take the Arians for example. They thought and taught that Christ was the greatest and first of angels, who became man etc etc. You don't accept that. They made this stuff up. It was their pious imagination rather than truth. Why aren't you making the same thing?
quote:
Originally posted by Call me Numpty:
The whole idea that killing people is wrong is rooted in the decalogue.
Yet "God" goes on commanding people to kill others a few chapters later.
Numpty, you are not answering my question. I'm asking about your theology, and you reply "the Scriptures". But how do you know you are not making up your theology of the Scriptures and what's in them?
In a sense, Qlib sees the mistake in your theology, and you see the mistake in Qlib's theology, but what happens when someone sees the mistakes in both your theologies? That's what I'm talking about here.
Posted by Call me Numpty (# 3012) on
:
Firstly, I am answering your question. I'm just not answering it by saying what you want me to say.
Secondly, that's a very good question. Let me get this straight. You see Qlib's mistake as placing the locus of final authority concerning the formation of doctrine in human reason and experience (i.e. final authority is intrinsic to the theologising subject). My mistake is placing the locus of final authority concerning the formation of doctrine in Scripture (i.e. final authority is extrinsic to the theologising subject).
My answer is this; the final authority has to lie somewhere and - knowing that human beings are sinful by what scripture says and through reason, experience and tradition -I think that God has assigned final authority to his word. In this sense other evidence is useful, but it is never to finally convincing. God has given Scripture - to his creatures through his creatures - as an extrinsic authority by which those creatures as theologising subjects are to check we what they teach and believe about who God is, what God is like, and how they should respond to God.
[ 12. February 2010, 12:03: Message edited by: Call me Numpty ]
Posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras (# 11274) on
:
El Greco, to use a rather hackneyed expression I "can't relate to" the way you pose your question, in terms of "making things up". I accept that there are some official parameters of small-o orthodox Christian theology and I accept these as marks of the historical Christian Church. By analogy I suppose I subscribe to them in the same way that I subscribe to the Constitution of the United States of America. In the case of the latter, I reckon that some of its provisions haven't served very efficiently over the long run but represent the best that the original framers could agree to at the time. Big changes in it are impractical and so we are left with a Constitution that can be amended in small bits (with difficulty)and which is open to interpretation, about which there is tremendous argument over "original intent", the proper parameters of interpretation (is it a "living" document that should be interpreted in light of modern circumstances and social change/progress?, etc). Likewise with regard to the basic corpus of the historical Christian religion established by the Councils. They worked out official positions, but there was a great deal of politics and power struggle involved, wasn't there? Hence, the official orthodoxy is as made-up as anything else, viewed from an objective, exterior position as an historian.
Posted by Call me Numpty (# 3012) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by opaWim:
Am I seriously to accept that
a leap of faith based on anything other than the authority of the Bible is just wishful thinking,
while a leap of faith based on the authority of the Bible is not?
Am I really supposed to miss, or even ignore, the fact that it requires a leap of faith to attribute authority to the Bible?
No, I'm saying that you need to drop the idea of faith as leap into - or off of - anything as an unbiblical category of thought. Nowhere in scripture is faith described or defined as antithetical to reason. On the contrary, the writers of scripture consistently appeal to reason in order to communicate truth. I'm not suggesting that you take a leap of faith concerning the authority of the bible because I do not think that the bible warrants such a concept of faith; I'm suggesting that you take reasonable and reasoned approach to engaging with the text of Scripture until you come to a reasoned and reasonable position concerning the things that scripture has to say about who God is, what God is like, and how you should respond to God.
Posted by opaWim (# 11137) on
:
My questions still stand.
Posted by El Greco (# 9313) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Call me Numpty:
Secondly, that's a very good question. Let me get this straight. You see Qlib's mistake as placing the locus of final authority concerning the formation of doctrine in human reason and experience (i.e. final authority is intrinsic to the theologising subject). My mistake is placing the locus of final authority concerning the formation of doctrine in Scripture (i.e. final authority is extrinsic to the theologising subject).
No no, my problem with your theology and the concerns I raise about it is not that you accept the Scriptures as the locus for your theology! I raise two issues different issues about your approach. Let me explain.
Issue number one:
There are many people who read the Scriptures, accept their authority and arrive at conclusions from their reading of the Scriptures. Many such beliefs you reject. But when I ask you why you aren't making things up like they are, your reply is "but it's in the Scripture!" What you fail to realize is that this answer could be used by others the theology of whom you reject.
You might really think the things you say are Scriptural, but that's not enough proof that they actually are. That's what other people think about their own beliefs as well! What makes your beliefs special?
The way I see it, your beliefs aren't special, which is why my question about why you aren't making things up applies to you as well.
To sum up:
Someone, let's call him Fred: The Scripture says....
Numpty: No, this is not what the Scripture says. You are making things up. The Scripture really says...
Fred: No, you are making things up! The Scripture is not saying what you think it says, but what I think it says!
If Fred is making things up, then why aren't you making things up as well?
Issue number two:
Your thoughts led you to arrive to the conclusion that the locus of authority on religious matters is the Scripture. Other people arrive at different conclusions. Why do your thoughts have to correspond to God's Truth on the matter? I mean, why aren't you making up in a creative -yet not in accordance with actual truth- way this theology that leads to the conclusion that the locus of authority on religious matters is the Scripture?
quote:
Originally posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras:
Hence, the official orthodoxy is as made-up as anything else, viewed from an objective, exterior position as an historian.
This is nice and good, but you, as a believer in what you assume small o orthodox christianity is, you actually accept that those claims correspond to reality and they are not solely the result of the creative imagination of the people that suggested them. Why is that so?
[ 12. February 2010, 12:40: Message edited by: El Greco ]
Posted by Call me Numpty (# 3012) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by opaWim:
My questions still stand.
And my answer is sufficient to say that I'm not advocating a "leap" of faith.
Posted by beachpsalms (# 4979) on
:
originally posted by El Greco (emphasis mine) quote:
This is nice and good, but you, as a believer in what you assume small o orthodox christianity is, you actually accept that those claims correspond to reality and they are not solely the result of the creative imagination of the people that suggested them. Why is that so?
I think you've answered your own question here. It's a matter of faith, not reason. And furthermore, for many of us, the emphasis is not on intellectual assent to a set of theological precepts, but on how one lives out the discerned path. An emphasis on orthopraxis rather than orthodoxy.
Posted by QLib (# 43) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Ender's Shadow:
The problem comes when the new line of teaching starts to diverge, and ends up pointing in the opposite direction, as is so often the case when a single biblical idea is allowed to overcome what the bible actually says.
Yes - the Bible contradicts itself then you go with whatever is "sound" doctrine. Which is....?
Johnny S - there is a surprising amount of agreement about the "Golden Rule" - 'That which you would not wish done to you, do not do unto others', or various word formats to the same effect, which is good guidance on matters practical.
Posted by Call me Numpty (# 3012) on
:
quote:
El Greco said:
Issue number one:
There are many people who read the Scriptures, accept their authority and arrive at conclusions from their reading of the Scriptures. Many such beliefs you reject. But when I ask you why you aren't making things up like they are, your reply is "but it's in the Scripture!"
I don't think I am doing that. This thread started, I think, as a tangent out of the Mother of God thread. On that thread I was arguing against certain doctrines that cannot be directly established, or even reasonably deduced, from scripture. In other words, the issue wasn't that someone else was arguing that a particular doctrine was biblical but rather that they were arguing that the doctrine in question doesn't need to be biblical for it to be valid.
quote:
You might really think the things you say are Scriptural, but that's not enough proof that they actually are. That's what other people think about their own beliefs as well! What makes your beliefs special?
Again, that simply isn't what people are saying even on this thread. They are saying quite the opposite in fact. They are saying that they don't think that their doctrines have to be self-evident from, or by good and necessary consequence derived from, Holy Scripture whereas I'm saying that they do. However, if I was arguing with someone who did happen to think that doctrine should be self-evident from, or by good and necessary consequence derived from scripture, then I would appeal directly to Scripture in order to establish my case. We would conduct the conversation - as it were - on the level playing field of our mutual submission to Scripture as our ultimate authority. That doesn't mean that we'd agree with each other because it is possible to argue strong cases directly from scripture that do not accord with one another - paedobaptism and credobaptism being strong cases in point.
quote:
The way I see it, your beliefs aren't special, which is why my question about why you aren't making things up applies to you as well.
That's fine, the best I say to this is that as least use the bible to make up my beliefs rather than anything else!
quote:
To sum up:
Someone, let's call him Fred: The Scripture says....
Numpty: No, this is not what the Scripture says. You are making things up. The Scripture really says...
Fred: No, you are making things up! The Scripture is not saying what you think it says, but what I think it says!
If Fred is making things up, then why aren't you making things up as well?[b][quote]Yes, this happens, but what's important is that the debate takes place according to a commonly held regard for the ultimate authority of Scripture.
[quote][b]Issue number two:
Your thoughts led you to arrive to the conclusion that the locus of authority on religious matters is the Scripture. Other people arrive at different conclusions. Why do your thoughts have to correspond to God's Truth on the matter? I mean, why aren't you making up in a creative -yet not in accordance with actual truth- way this theology that leads to the conclusion that the locus of authority on religious matters is the Scripture?
You're right in the sense that you've identified a circularity in the argument. But that doesn't actually invalidate the argument because all arguments for an absolute authority must ultimately appeal to the authority for proof: otherwise the authority (in my case scripture) would not be an absolute or highest authority. This problem doesn't exist only for me because just happen to be arguing for the bible as the ultimate authority. Everyone uses some kind of circular argument when defending his or her ultimate authority for belief. Qlib for example has opted for subjectivism because it is more difficult for people to argue against what he/she feels or experiences to be true.
I, on the other hand, have committed myself to a public body of testable documents (i.e. Scripture) as the ultimate authority in the formation of doctrine. That means that anyone can argue against what I say using the Scripture as their criteria and if they show me that I am mistaken I can recant and change my mind. I may be emotionally invested in my doctrinal position and will naturally experience discomfort if that position is challenged on the basis of the authority to which I am submitted, but at least I haven't attempted to protect my views behind a smokescreen of infallibility, tradition or subjectivism.
[ 12. February 2010, 13:24: Message edited by: Call me Numpty ]
Posted by QLib (# 43) on
:
Firtly, El G, I apologise if I have mistaken labelled you as an atheist, but you have to admit that, given a lot of things that you've posted in recent times, it's easy to understand why I took this quote:
I see the pain and suffering in the world, the cruelty of nature, and the indifference of the skies, and I come to the conclusion that there is no personal almighty deity that cares for us
to be an indication of your position. And, if you're not an atheist, I think maybe you're being a tad disingenuous in this debate in not declaring where you are coming from. Now this... quote:
Originally posted by El Greco (to Call me Numpty):
Qlib sees the mistake in your theology, and you see the mistake in Qlib's theology, but what happens when someone sees the mistakes in both your theologies? That's what I'm talking about here.
At the risk of repeating myself - I don't really have a theology in that sense. I think theologies, beliefs, whatever are interesting speculations which may or may not be helpful to us as we attempt to integrate our Faith with our Practice. So, I know why I think Numpty's stance is wrong, or weak, or indefensible, but I don't claim to have the last word on what is right. I don't accept the validity of a credal basis of faith.
Although I don't care for your phraseology in terms of accusing people of "making things up", I do think that our creeds are the product of honest, intelligent and, yes, creative, speculations about God based on the knowledge of the early church. I think it's entirely legitimate to think creatively about God. But that still makes the thoughts human constructs, albeit Spirit-inspired, and they cannot, therefore (in my view) be infallible, because the Spirit can only inspire us up to (and maybe just occasionally a little bit beyond) the limits of our understanding. Therefore, as our understanding changes, so we need new guidance.
Posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras (# 11274) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by El Greco:
quote:
Originally posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras:
Hence, the official orthodoxy is as made-up as anything else, viewed from an objective, exterior position as an historian.
This is nice and good, but you, as a believer in what you assume small o orthodox christianity is, you actually accept that those claims correspond to reality and they are not solely the result of the creative imagination of the people that suggested them. Why is that so?
There seems to be some sort of communication impasse here. I am saying that these doctrines represent a model, perhaps in some ways a truth-bearing mythology, of aspects of reality. Was the creative imagination of the Fathers involved in the working-out of this particular model of reality? Of course; just as Freud's model of mental structure and dynamisms is a useful approximation to certain facts, worked-out by Sigmund Freud on the basis a combination of empirical observation, available science, and creative "imagination".
However, I have the feeling that what I'm trying to say isn't meeting what you are trying to ask.
Posted by opaWim (# 11137) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Call me Numpty:
quote:
Originally posted by opaWim:
My questions still stand.
And my answer is sufficient to say that I'm not advocating a "leap" of faith.
It is not, and you are.
Unless you are retracting what you wrote 8 hours ago.
Posted by Call me Numpty (# 3012) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by opaWim:
quote:
Originally posted by Call me Numpty:
quote:
Originally posted by opaWim:
My questions still stand.
And my answer is sufficient to say that I'm not advocating a "leap" of faith.
It is not, and you are.
Unless you are retracting what you wrote 8 hours ago.
Please show me where I said that accepting the authority of scripture requires a "leap of faith".
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by El Greco:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by El Greco:
The question is, and how do you know that your liberal tradition of Protestantism isn't equally made-up? How do you know that your claims about God are not the result of your pious imagination?
I don't.
So what?
This astonishes me. To me it's better to put aside made-up stuff rather than accept them as God's Truth for how to live one's life.
I don't know that they're made up either. There's a whole world of grey area between "definitely the truth" and "all made-up", which I don't think you even realise exists. Everything's either completely true or completely false to you, isn't it?
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Call me Numpty:
Firstly, I am answering your question. I'm just not answering it by saying what you want me to say.
Exactly.
I'm beginning to suspect that the OP was a set-up for a (in his own mind) well-crafted denouncement of Protestant faith, we've foiled his beautiful argument by failing to provide the "correct" response according to the script. So now he's whining and prodding and trying to get us to say what he wants us to say so he can unveil his "masterpiece".
Posted by opaWim (# 11137) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Call me Numpty:
Please show me where I said that accepting the authority of scripture requires a "leap of faith".
You don't.
And that's exactly my objection.
You are calling your particular leap of faith (i.e. attributing exclusive authority to the Bible) "knowledge", and categorically dismiss every other leap of faith as "wishful thinking".
Posted by El Greco (# 9313) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by beachpsalms:
I think you've answered your own question here. It's a matter of faith, not reason.
Numpty explained why this is problematic. Does it all boil down to blind faith? If it's not blind, then how is it enlightened by reason?
The problem with your approach is that it doesn't stand on firm ground, it's castles built on air! One can by faith believe imaginative but not true position X while another can believe equally imaginative and not true position Y and they will both feel OK with that, but it won't hold when examined reasonably.
One can't shut down reasonable questions and arguments against one position simply by claiming it's a matter of faith and reason doesn't have something to do with it.
quote:
Originally posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras:
However, I have the feeling that what I'm trying to say isn't meeting what you are trying to ask.
Yes, which is why I added "solely" when I spoke of the ancients' imagination. Man's creative powers are definitely in play here. My question is how can you tell one's ideas actually represent reality and it's not just "castles built on air". Is there a mythical element in claiming Christ to be the Son of God? Sure. But is he actually the Son of God? Or is that claim only the result of the creative imagination of some people?
quote:
Originally posted by QLib:
At the risk of repeating myself - I don't really have a theology in that sense. [snip]
Although I don't care for your phraseology in terms of accusing people of "making things up", I do think that our creeds are the product of honest, intelligent and, yes, creative, speculations about God based on the knowledge of the early church. I think it's entirely legitimate to think creatively about God. But that still makes the thoughts human constructs, albeit Spirit-inspired, and they cannot, therefore (in my view) be infallible, because the Spirit can only inspire us up to (and maybe just occasionally a little bit beyond) the limits of our understanding.
You don't have a theology, yet there is a "Spirit" that inspires us?
This is what I mean when I say your approach is equally problematic with Numpty's. Both of you won't accept to a theology other than "what the Scriptures say" in the case of Numpty, or "attempting to make sense of reality" in your case perhaps.
Note that the issue is not if it's legitimate to think creative about God, but whether certain creative thinking about God actually corresponds to reality, i.e. if those claims about God are actually true.
quote:
Originally posted by Call me Numpty:
However, if I was arguing with someone who did happen to think that doctrine should be self-evident from, or by good and necessary consequence derived from scripture, then I would appeal directly to Scripture in order to establish my case. We would conduct the conversation - as it were - on the level playing field of our mutual submission to Scripture as our ultimate authority. That doesn't mean that we'd agree with each other because it is possible to argue strong cases directly from scripture that do not accord with one another
Like I said, if we hold a firm historical perspective, we will see people debating "on the same field" with each side convinced that the other side's claims are not true. How do you know your side's claims aren't equally "not true"?
Plus the whole discussion of the theology behind the "scripture as the sole authority on religious matters", which I think is as important to this discussion as the other issues that were raised.
Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by El Greco:
Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras, your explanation is fine and good by doesn't answer my question. Could you explain why this isn't made up? Why you aren't the one making things up about God and Christ?
Take the Arians for example. They thought and taught that Christ was the greatest and first of angels, who became man etc etc. You don't accept that. They made this stuff up. It was their pious imagination rather than truth. Why aren't you making the same thing?
Speaking personally: because orthodox Christianity appears more plausible. In other words, it may be wrong but it's less likely to be wrong than Arianism.
To my mind Arianism has the same problems as "orthodox" Christianity (because it's an extraordinary claim) and none of the advantages (because at least orthodox Christianity makes God suffer (in some way) with his creat whereas Ariaism has Him palming it off to a third person).
Posted by Call me Numpty (# 3012) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by opaWim:
quote:
Originally posted by Call me Numpty:
Please show me where I said that accepting the authority of scripture requires a "leap of faith".
You don't.
And that's exactly my objection.
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
quote:
You are calling your particular leap of faith (i.e. attributing exclusive authority to the Bible) "knowledge", and categorically dismiss every other leap of faith as "wishful thinking".
OK, I'll try again. I'm arguing that the bible doesn't talk about faith as a leap. I am not therefore advocating a leap of faith with regard to the authority of scripture. I am advocating an understanding of Scripture's authority that can be likened to a spiral in which increasing knowledge of scripture - by reasonable and reasoned engagement - and increasingly accurate and experiential understanding of God and creation tend to supplement one another in a harmonious way, each tending to confirm the accuracy of the other. I'm not saying that experience and reason are therefore equal authorities but rather that such knowledge and experience - when it is congruent with what scripture says about reality - continues to give greater and greater assurance and deeper conviction that the bible truly is the ultimate authority.
Posted by Spiffy (# 5267) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by El Greco:
Again, some of you are changing the subject and attacking arguments I did not make. My issue is not with faith (let alone with an individual's faith) but with beliefs. I'm asking about beliefs here, not faith.
Wrong again, pumpkin. Belief is a part of faith. Therefore faith is a part of belief. Therefore you cannot part the two, no matter how much sharp-edged sophistry you apply.
It's very similar to those hard clamshell plastic packaging they like to put small electronics in these days. If you try to part the two halves, even with really sharp scissors, you usually wind up twisting and destroying it.
Posted by duchess (# 2764) on
:
Start @ :18
Posted by Isaac David (# 4671) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Call Me Numpty:
Insofar as Orthodox Tradition is congruent with Scripture, I agree [that Orthodox Tradition is the means by which God makes truth known]. Where it departs from Scripture, it is mere idiosyncrasy, vain speculation or outright error.
Orthodox Tradition is congruent with Scripture, including the things you label 'mere idiosyncrasy, vain speculation or outright error'.
Posted by opaWim (# 11137) on
:
I'm sure that others can substitute "magisterium of the RCC" or the "Koran" (and a lot in between) for the "Bible" with the same result.
So why is it "knowledge" in your case, and "wishful thinking" if it is done with something other than the Bible?
How is this "spiral" different from a persistent form of wishful thinking?
How is your "spiral" essentially different from a "leap of faith" other than that it takes longer?
Posted by Call me Numpty (# 3012) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by opaWim:
I'm sure that others can substitute "magisterium of the RCC" or the "Koran" (and a lot in between) for the "Bible" with the same result.
So why is it "knowledge" in your case, and "wishful thinking" if it is done with something other than the Bible?
How is this "spiral" different from a persistent form of wishful thinking?
How is your "spiral" essentially different from a "leap of faith" other than that it takes longer?
Why don't you say something substantial rather than demonstrating that you only half-understand everything I say?
Posted by El Greco (# 9313) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by opaWim:
I'm sure that others can substitute "magisterium of the RCC" or the "Koran" (and a lot in between) for the "Bible" with the same result.
So why is it "knowledge" in your case, and "wishful thinking" if it is done with something other than the Bible?
How is this "spiral" different from a persistent form of wishful thinking?
How is your "spiral" essentially different from a "leap of faith" other than that it takes longer?
Exactly.
And here's what I find interesting:
quote:
Originally posted by Call me Numpty:
Everyone uses some kind of circular argument when defending his or her ultimate authority for belief.
So, it is "a leap of faith" after all. Or "blind faith" as Numpty called it.
You know, after centuries of erudite and robust theological debate it's a bit sad that it came to this, and I speak as a former Christian. Modernity seems indeed to have broken down irreparably all the reasoning behind Christian faith.
Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by El Greco:
You know, after centuries of erudite and robust theological debate it's a bit sad that it came to this, and I speak as a former Christian. Modernity seems indeed to have broken down irreparably all the reasoning behind Christian faith.
Modernity has broken down the reasoning behind every philosophical system.
"Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent." -- Ludwig Wittgenstein.
Posted by Isaac David (# 4671) on
:
"Silence is the sacrament of the world to come." -- St Isaac the Syrian
Posted by El Greco (# 9313) on
:
Silence can also be used in an attempt to defend what is indefensible. I wouldn't make an issue out of it if Christianity was a religion of silence. But it's not. Using silence when it suits you while making all kinds of claims isn't OK in my books.
Posted by opaWim (# 11137) on
:
quote:
Why don't you say something substantial rather than demonstrating that you only half-understand everything I say?
By now I think I've probably understood what you say all along. The questions were meant to make sure that I did. Not getting relevant answers will suffice.
Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by El Greco:
Silence can also be used in an attempt to defend what is indefensible. I wouldn't make an issue out of it if Christianity was a religion of silence. But it's not. Using silence when it suits you while making all kinds of claims isn't OK in my books.
Yes, but attacking Christianity because it requires a leap of faith when any philosophical position requires a leap of faith isn't OK either. It's like complaining that Christianity doesn't make you grow wings.
The question which I think we are skating round is "Is Christianity a better leap of faith than the alternatives?"
Posted by Call me Numpty (# 3012) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by El Greco:
quote:
Originally posted by opaWim:
I'm sure that others can substitute "magisterium of the RCC" or the "Koran" (and a lot in between) for the "Bible" with the same result.
So why is it "knowledge" in your case, and "wishful thinking" if it is done with something other than the Bible?
How is this "spiral" different from a persistent form of wishful thinking?
How is your "spiral" essentially different from a "leap of faith" other than that it takes longer?
Exactly.
And here's what I find interesting:
quote:
Originally posted by Call me Numpty:
Everyone uses some kind of circular argument when defending his or her ultimate authority for belief.
So, it is "a leap of faith" after all. Or "blind faith" as Numpty called it.
Not blind, but reasonable and reasoned. The presence of circular arguments is inevitable when ultimate authority is the subject of investigation. Even the conclusion that there is no ultimate source of authority commits logical suicide because it must immediately become an ultimate postulation in order to make sense. In this respect accepting Scripture - which is a public written document - as an ultimate authority is the position of greatest integrity because it ascribes authority to something that can engage the reason and speaks directly testable propositions about the reality in which we exist in a way that tradition and subjective experience cannot do.
[ 12. February 2010, 16:10: Message edited by: Call me Numpty ]
Posted by Call me Numpty (# 3012) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by opaWim:
quote:
Why don't you say something substantial rather than demonstrating that you only half-understand everything I say?
By now I think I've probably understood what you say all along. The questions were meant to make sure that I did. Not getting relevant answers will suffice.
That's fine, but may I suggest that you stop contributing to the thread then, because you're taking up space that could be used more intelligently.
Posted by Call me Numpty (# 3012) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Isaac David:
quote:
Originally posted by Call Me Numpty:
Insofar as Orthodox Tradition is congruent with Scripture, I agree [that Orthodox Tradition is the means by which God makes truth known]. Where it departs from Scripture, it is mere idiosyncrasy, vain speculation or outright error.
Orthodox Tradition is congruent with Scripture, including the things you label 'mere idiosyncrasy, vain speculation or outright error'.
I disagree as have greater theologians than myself, including the ones who founded the Church of England and wrote the 39 Articles. Let's not pretend that this is simply a matter of personal opinion, it's a matter of ecclesiology, soteriology and lots of other ologies as well.
Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
Christianity doesn't make you grow wings.
Well, apart from St Tekle Haymanot, that is.
Posted by El Greco (# 9313) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
Yes, but attacking Christianity because it requires a leap of faith when any philosophical position requires a leap of faith isn't OK either.
Oh yes it is. Two wrongs don't make one right. You are arguing that they do!
Just because other systems of thought might face the same problem, it doesn't mean your system of thought is any less problematic, or that this makes it OK that it is problematic!
quote:
Originally posted by Call me Numpty:
Not blind, but reasonable and reasoned. The presence of circular arguments is inevitable when ultimate authority is the subject of investigation.
Numpty, what's reasonable and reasoned in circular arguments? Come on!
Posted by Call me Numpty (# 3012) on
:
Think, man.
Posted by Full Circle (# 15398) on
:
I know the conversation has moved on abit - but here is my tuppence worth FWIW
Origionally posted by El Greco
quote:
This presupposes that the core of their theological system isn't made up. And they won't answer my question about how they know that it isn't! quote:
My answer is that I don’t know that it isn’t made up. That I genuinely suspect that some (not all) of what my tradition teaches is made up – or at least misinterpreted.
Also, I have not a single recollection of anyone within the church telling me that it was ‘true’ in the sense that you are using the word. Rather they explained why they believed it – and left me to make up my own mind.
How did I do it - time, a little bit of experience, conscience, some reasoning (but not nearly as much as I think you would expect), some trust, some hope and joy, a bit of bible study. Actually, thinking about it I was more met by Christ than choosing to believe - and have happily changed another Christian faith tradition (within Protestantism): not because of any difference in beliefs but because of physically moving home. The difference between the belief structures are much less than the similarities
quote:
Originally posted by Full Circle:
Or to sum it up - I think we are primarily called to a relationship not a body of knowledge.
________________________________________
Originally posted by El Greco
Yet it's not friendship circles that we get, but churches... I think this underestimates the volume of knowledge each theological system claims it has...
quote:
Actually I have had many friendship circles from going to church - and so much else besides ...
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by El Greco:
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
Yes, but attacking Christianity because it requires a leap of faith when any philosophical position requires a leap of faith isn't OK either.
Oh yes it is. Two wrongs don't make one right. You are arguing that they do!
Just because other systems of thought might face the same problem, it doesn't mean your system of thought is any less problematic, or that this makes it OK that it is problematic!
We don't see it as problematic. We see it as simply inherent to the field of inquiry, which is why it is found in all philosophies.
Posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras (# 11274) on
:
El Greco, how can we escape the logical conclusion that what all of this discussion really goes to is the basis of "knowledge" generally, whether in any of the various forms of working assumptions, accepted social consensus, empirical and scientific observations, aesthetic prejudices, opinion, etc? I've got to run, but let me just say that always retaining a critical scepticism about the accuracy and validity of any form of knowledge should be an operating principle.
Posted by Leaf (# 14169) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Call me Numpty:
I believe that the “I just take Christianity on faith” attitude cannot be the right approach. It leaves the Bible without defense, yet the Apostle Peter directs us to make a defense for the hope that is in us.
Well, Peter would say that, wouldn't he? Wasn't he the guy with a sword in his hand, a slave's ear on the ground, while Jesus yelled, "Stop that, you idiot!"* (*MarySueRSV)
I am wary of those who wish to mount "a spirited defense of the faith" because, like Peter, they generally wind up swinging at the wrong things and otherwise doing more harm than good.
I can defend the hope that is within me, but such defense is only necessary from one's own inner demons.
Posted by opaWim (# 11137) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Call me Numpty:
That's fine, but may I suggest that you stop contributing to the thread then, because you're taking up space that could be used more intelligently.
Fine by me.
May I suggest you consider taking your own advice?
Your doomed attempts to prove the exclusive authority of the Bible by circular argument are not only embarrassing, they are taking up far more space than I ever could.
[ 12. February 2010, 17:33: Message edited by: opaWim ]
Posted by Call me Numpty (# 3012) on
:
Again, you utterly and spectacularly fail to understand my point. I said that there will be circularity in any argument for any ultimate authority precisely because there can be no other higher authority than the one that is being argued for. At least fletcher christian understands, and has asked for, scriptural evidence for the authority of scripture. In other words he wants self-evidential proof from scripture that scripture is finally authoritative in the formation of doctrine. The fact that fletcher christian has asked me for evidence of scriptural self-authentication is evidence that he actually wants to understand how sola scriptura functions as a hermeneutical principle. It also suggest that he is fairly confident that such evidence does not exist. I can respect that. However, your engagement is just irritating because you can't even be bothered to demonstrate a basic understanding of the issues under debate.
Posted by fletcher christian (# 13919) on
:
I wouldn't say I'm that confident.... yet.
Posted by El Greco (# 9313) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Spiffy:
Wrong again, pumpkin. Belief is a part of faith. Therefore faith is a part of belief. Therefore you cannot part the two, no matter how much sharp-edged sophistry you apply.
Actually, it is you who engages in sophistry. If some beliefs are made up, or if they are shown to be mistaken, you don't get to salvage them by placing the blanket of "faith" over them. Faith does not magically make OK what is problematic.
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
We don't see it as problematic.
Well, that's obvious. But this is, and pardon me for saying so, your problem.
Take the discussion Numpty and others are having here for example. Numpty doesn't see the problem behind his approach. But the others do. They, however, don't see the problem behind their approach. But Numpty does.
If one takes all those debates, both the ancient and the modern ones, into account, then the questions I posed here turn out to be rather pressing.
Posted by opaWim (# 11137) on
:
Take away the packaging and you end up with "The Bible is true, because the Bible says so.".
Well, this unintelligent space-waster is foolishly wondering whether that gem of circular logic is worth more than, for example, "Roman-Catholic magisterium is true because it teaches about itself that it is true".
Even if you would consider circular logic to be valid logic, there is still the problem that from "there will be circularity in any argument for any ultimate authority" unavoidably follows that you cannot prove anything to have ultimate authority.
So why fool yourself into believing you can?
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Call me Numpty:
Again, you utterly and spectacularly fail to understand my point.
When that happens, it could be the fault of the listener. But it usually isn't.
Posted by Isaac David (# 4671) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Call Me Numpty:
I disagree as have greater theologians than myself, including the ones who founded the Church of England and wrote the 39 Articles.
And the theologians of the first millenium were even greater. Anyway, theologians didn't found the Church, the Church found them.
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by El Greco:
Faith does not magically make OK what is problematic.
Depends on what your "problematic" is concealing. You're selectively ignoring what is being said. We ALL (again for emphasis ALL) depend on faith for our worldviews in a post-modern age. Instead of pointing fingers at religious people and saying "you depend on faith and I depend on reason alone nyah nyah" you could admit that that's all eggs in moonshine and we could look together at schemes for comparing and evaluating belief systems that acknowledges that they are all an amalgam of faith and reason.
Posted by QLib (# 43) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by El Greco:
I wouldn't make an issue out of it if Christianity was a religion of silence. But it's not.
Ahem... ![[Cool]](cool.gif)
As regards my ideas about Spirit - just my best explanation of experience, not a fixed theology. But I don't feel that what's happening here is genuine dialogue, as far as you're concerned, El Greco. If you find that hurtful, then you may like to try and work out what it is about the content or style of your posting that leads people to believe you're playing games.
I think I'm done here.
Posted by Call me Numpty (# 3012) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by opaWim:
Take away the packaging and you end up with "The Bible is true, because the Bible says so."
In essence yes. If, of course, 1) it can proved that the bible actually says that about itself (cf. fletcher christian), and 2) that what the bible says actually accords with reality as it really is (cf. El Greco).
quote:
Well, this unintelligent space-waster is foolishly wondering whether that gem of circular logic is worth more than, for example, "Roman-Catholic magisterium is true because it teaches about itself that it is true".
No, not foolish. It's a perfectly valid question and one that's been asked before.
quote:
Even if you would consider circular logic to be valid logic, there is still the problem that from "there will be circularity in any argument for any ultimate authority" unavoidably follows that you cannot prove anything to have ultimate authority.
So the ultimate authority turns out to be an apophatic denial of authority and ultimacy? That won't work either because it commits logical suicide. By seeking to establish the disprovability of authority your have created an ultimate authority!
[quote[So why fool yourself into believing you can? [/QUOTE]On the basis of what I've just said I could ask, why fool yourself into thinking that you can't?
Posted by opaWim (# 11137) on
:
Forgive me if I take this somewhat out of context.
quote:
Originally posted by El Greco:
Faith does not magically make OK what is problematic
You are absolutely right.
But it does however make it tolerable.
For instance, I believe the Bible to be the most authoritative way God reveals himself to me, but I can't help but notice a lot of discrepancies, inconsistencies, whatever, that can not all be explained away using honest means. Faith, surrender to God if you will, and trust in what the Holy Ghost is doing in me, enables me to live with those uncertainties.
Likewise I have my problems with a number of teachings of my church. I could of course leave and try to find a church I have no problems with, but faith enables me to find peace in the church where God placed me.
Given the choice between synthesizing absolute truths by using faulty logic and accepting that a creature can't hope to ever fully understand his Maker, I gladly choose the latter.
That doesn't mean I don't enjoy making sense out of what God does/is (what lover -however imperfect- wouldn't want to understand/know his/her Loved One) but I am -and always will be- limited in my ability to fully do so.
Bottom line:
If eliminating uncertainties involves dishonesty by fooling myself, I prefer to live with the uncertainties.
[ 12. February 2010, 19:04: Message edited by: opaWim ]
Posted by opaWim (# 11137) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Call me Numpty:
quote:
So why fool yourself into believing you can?
On the basis of what I've just said I could ask, why fool yourself into thinking that you can't?
You could.
I would then ask why you think those two are complements.
Being unable to prove something does not necessitate being able to disprove it.
There is -at least- the third possibility that you can neither prove nor disprove it.
[ 12. February 2010, 20:21: Message edited by: opaWim ]
Posted by Makepiece (# 10454) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by El Greco:
My question to Protestants is how do you know you are not making things up like they did, how do you know that what you believe as true is not as false as those ancient ideas you reject?
Hmmm, if you're satisfied with why I find what I believe very compelling to the extent that I can't doubt it's truth then I would answer as follows: my faith is the only thing which has given me definitive and authoritative answers to the questions with which I have been pre-occupied throughout most of my life. Those questions are
1. Who am I?
2. What purpose do I have?
Finally and most importantly-
3. How can I become worthy of love?
If, however, you require an answer as to how I can objectively prove this then I'm afraid that is above my paygrade but I do confidently believe that if you were able to study my soul you would find compelling evidence to believe in God; not because it is good but because it is contrite.
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras:
El Greco, how can we escape the logical conclusion that what all of this discussion really goes to is the basis of "knowledge" generally, whether in any of the various forms of working assumptions, accepted social consensus, empirical and scientific observations, aesthetic prejudices, opinion, etc?
We can't.
For El Greco to keep presenting this as a problem peculiar to Protestants is wilfully strange. One could just as easily have the same debate about climate change, if one wanted to be current. Why is it that we believe, or don't believe, information that comes to us from scientists that spend their time studying the subject?
One could just as easily have the same debate about ANY topic where we rely on information not derived directly from personal experience. Which is effectively everything. Even where we DO have personal experience of something, we interpret that experience through the body of information/knowledge we have picked up along the way. We were doomed to do so from the moment we started learning.
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by El Greco:
quote:
Originally posted by Spiffy:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by cliffdweller:
We don't see it as problematic.
Well, that's obvious. But this is, and pardon me for saying so, your problem..
Perhaps if you would read the rest of my post, about WHY it is not a problem for us-- and for most everyone else here-- you'd see what I was getting at. Maybe you'd even see what YOUR problem is, and why you think no one is answering a question that's been answered many times over now.
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:
Originally posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras:
El Greco, how can we escape the logical conclusion that what all of this discussion really goes to is the basis of "knowledge" generally, whether in any of the various forms of working assumptions, accepted social consensus, empirical and scientific observations, aesthetic prejudices, opinion, etc?
We can't.
For El Greco to keep presenting this as a problem peculiar to Protestants is wilfully strange. One could just as easily have the same debate about climate change, if one wanted to be current. Why is it that we believe, or don't believe, information that comes to us from scientists that spend their time studying the subject?
One could just as easily have the same debate about ANY topic where we rely on information not derived directly from personal experience. Which is effectively everything. Even where we DO have personal experience of something, we interpret that experience through the body of information/knowledge we have picked up along the way. We were doomed to do so from the moment we started learning.
Well said.
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by QLib:
Johnny S - there is a surprising amount of agreement about the "Golden Rule" - 'That which you would not wish done to you, do not do unto others', or various word formats to the same effect, which is good guidance on matters practical.
[RL and time zones means I struggle to keep up with this. Feel free to ignore this if things have moved on too much.]
Actually I meant 'how do you know that your friends are experienced in hearing from God?'
Likewise, golden rule - suprising amount of agreement on it as a rule, suprising amount of disagreement on what it means in practice.
Posted by QLib (# 43) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
Actually I meant 'how do you know that your friends are experienced in hearing from God?'
Not specifically talking about my friends, or even "Friends". First of all, I think people can recognise spiritual authority in varying degrees - that's why so many recognised Jesus. Secondly, most serious religions have structures an/or systems for sorting this out: priests, spiritual directors, prayer groups, bible study groups and so on. The only thing I would say is that you need wide-angle vision, because if your usual group seems to have pretty unique leadings from "God", you might just want to check it out with a broader range of folk. If you can't recognise spiritual authority in people of different faith traditions, then you really are in trouble, IMHO. quote:
Likewise, golden rule - surprising amount of agreement on it as a rule, surprising amount of disagreement on what it means in practice.
I'm not sure that I agree with that. Of course, as ?Oscar Wilde? said, you need to take account of the fact that others may not have the same tastes. In general, though, I think there is very good understanding of what the rule means. It's just that some folk think that their duty to a Higher Power/Cause often requires them to pass by on the other side of the road. They are, of course, wrong. At least, it seems clear to me that the implicit message of the story of the Good Samaritan is that the Priest and the Levite were wrong.
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by QLib:
First of all, I think people can recognise spiritual authority in varying degrees - that's why so many recognised Jesus.
You're still not answering the 'how' question. What was it about Jesus?
quote:
Originally posted by QLib:
In general, though, I think there is very good understanding of what the rule means. It's just that some folk think that their duty to a Higher Power/Cause often requires them to pass by on the other side of the road. They are, of course, wrong.
Right. So everyone agrees apart from those who don't.
Posted by QLib (# 43) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
quote:
Originally posted by QLib:
First of all, I think people can recognise spiritual authority in varying degrees - that's why so many recognised Jesus.
You're still not answering the 'how' question. What was it about Jesus?
This is essentially the same question as El Greco's, isn't it? I would say that you just 'know'. It may be that it's not an absolute scale but a question of what meets your need. My explanation of the mechanism would be that the light in you answers to the light in them. But this is just groping for words to explain a phenomenon that I've experienced. And, if you haven't experienced it, I find that very worrying - what kind of a pastor are you, that you don't recognise spiritual authority? quote:
quote:
Originally posted by QLib:
In general, though, I think there is very good understanding of what the rule means. It's just that some folk think that their duty to a Higher Power/Cause often requires them to pass by on the other side of the road. They are, of course, wrong.
Right. So everyone agrees apart from those who don't.
Now you're just being obtuse. My point is that people know darn well what the Golden Rule means, it's just that some of us seem to think there's a higher rule, some kind of Platinum Rule, which excuses shit like burning people at the stake, or high-jacking planes and flying them into buildings packed with people.
Posted by El Greco (# 9313) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by QLib:
This is essentially the same question as El Greco's, isn't it?
Of course it is the same question. When you disagree with each other, you bring up the same question I asked, because the other side's views are not based on firm ground and you realize that. What you don't realize is that your side's views are equally problematic as theirs.
In other words, each side says to the other side what I'm saying here, the difference being that I'm asking that question to both sides, instead of just ignoring one for the sake of polarization.
See below:
quote:
Originally posted by opaWim:
Take away the packaging and you end up with "The Bible is true, because the Bible says so.".
Of course he does. You realize well his problem, and he realizes well your problem. But each side refuses to accept the problem is with them as well!
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
For El Greco to keep presenting this as a problem peculiar to Protestants is wilfully strange.
This is putting words in my mouth. I didn't examine whether it's peculiar to Protestants or not. I don't care about that issue. It wouldn't make a difference in what I'm asking here.
It's like saying "but Fred cheats on his wife as well." That isn't justification for you to cheat on Anne. If your ideas are problematic, then other people's ideas being problematic as well (which is something I'm not examining here) doesn't make yours any less problematic. You are not off the hook even if everyone did it.
And even if all other religions did it, why choose one and not say "thanks I'll pass" to all of them? You don't have to choose one over the others you know.
I think you are changing the subject by making philosophical issues about other religions in an attempt to obscure the problems in your own ideas. Which seems to work, as those who are saying the same thing you are in this thread seem to feel OK with their position and assume that my questions do not apply to them.
quote:
Originally posted by opaWim:
Bottom line:
If eliminating uncertainties involves dishonesty by fooling myself, I prefer to live with the uncertainties.
You are right. You can't work out the problem and keep the Christian religion coherent. It's admirable that you are not engaging in dishonesty to present with a shiny version of your religion. But "living with uncertainties", especially when arguments against that faith are made which are left without counter-arguments, is equally problematic.
Over the course of different threads people are saying: it might not make sense but I believe it anyway. Or, the argument against what I believe might be reasonable, but I won't accept it even though I have nothing to reply to it. This attitude, to me, is unreasonable and not admirable. This is not faith, but blind faith that stands contrary to reason.
quote:
Originally posted by QLib:
I would say that you just 'know'.
But this isn't much of an answer, is it! People "know" all kind of mutually exclusive things. So, when it comes to objective truth, this doesn't work. It might feel right, but it may well be wrong.
[ 13. February 2010, 13:12: Message edited by: El Greco ]
Posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras (# 11274) on
:
What I see as problematic is assuming that "protestants" form a sufficiently homogenous group that you can get any meaningful answer to the question raised by the OP that would reflect a generalised attitude amongst protestants. This is really just a bunch of individuals who aren't Romish Papist or Orthodox giving their individual views.
Posted by kempis3 (# 9792) on
:
There's a lot of truth in the above post.
Protestantism tends to be personally committed Christianity rather than organised hierarchical church -- committed Christians meeting together or mutual support rather than obeying a priesthood.
Except of course the CofE, which is hierarchical and with close links to the political elites.
Posted by opaWim (# 11137) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by El Greco:
Over the course of different threads people are saying: it might not make sense but I believe it anyway. Or, the argument against what I believe might be reasonable, but I won't accept it even though I have nothing to reply to it. This attitude, to me, is unreasonable and not admirable. This is not faith, but blind faith that stands contrary to reason.
That may be a problem, but since there is no solution, I can live with it.
My beliefs are the result of my RC-upbringing, study, talks with fellow-RCs and an extensive range of nonRC Christians, searching, and some wishful thinking.
None of it constitutes definitive and or conclusive proof, but I see no reason to abandon it for an opposite that can't be proven either.
I'm not expecting anybody else to be convinced by it, but I am.
Posted by El Greco (# 9313) on
:
First my question doesn't apply to you. But then you get to ask that same question to your fellow Protestants with whom you disagree.
So, is the question not to be applied to you only when I get to ask it?
Anyway.
quote:
Originally posted by opaWim:
That may be a problem, but since there is no solution, I can live with it.
Ah, but there is a solution. Don't accept those ideas. It's as simple as that, and it's as difficult as that, because people have invested much on their religion, they have given great parts of their lives for it, and it's not easy to let it all go. This doesn't mean that there is no solution though.
quote:
Originally posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras:
This is really just a bunch of individuals who aren't Romish Papist or Orthodox giving their individual views.
It's not just a bunch of individuals. It's churches and schools of theology. But even if it were a couple of millions of different theologies, my question could still be asked to each one of them.
To change the focus of discussion from "why aren't you making things up as well" to "let's consider other religions" or "Protestantism is not a uniform body with one single official theology" is a distraction technique from the issue at hand. Raising a different issue to confuse, obfuscate or avoid answering an inconvenient question won't work, because not all will be confused by the attempt of subject change.
Posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras (# 11274) on
:
El Greco, if you want to know the official positions of various bodies, you can search denominational websites and find that material in those. What we have here on SoF, however, is a bunch of individuals who are responding in largely in terms of how they see things, not in terms of official doctrine. It's not a distraction technique.
Posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras (# 11274) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by kempis3:
There's a lot of truth in the above post.
Protestantism tends to be personally committed Christianity rather than organised hierarchical church -- committed Christians meeting together or mutual support rather than obeying a priesthood.
Except of course the CofE, which is hierarchical and with close links to the political elites.
This isn't at all what I meant, if you are referring to my earlier post immediately before yours. As church bodies, Anglicans, Presbyterians, Lutherans and other magisterial "protestant" churches have plenty of official doctrine. I was talking simply of the individuals who have been posting on this thread -- they are expressing their own views. Frankly, I doubt that it would be all that different for RCs and Orthodox responding to the particular question posed by the OP, as other posters have tried to point out.
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by El Greco:
quote:
Originally posted by opaWim:
That may be a problem, but since there is no solution, I can live with it.
Ah, but there is a solution. Don't accept those ideas. It's as simple as that, and it's as difficult as that, because people have invested much on their religion, they have given great parts of their lives for it, and it's not easy to let it all go. This doesn't mean that there is no solution though.
You're missing the point that has been made many times already: it's not just "religion" that "makes stuff up"-- or relies on unproven sources of truth. As has been noted repeatedly, ALL philosophies, ALL worldviews, including naturalism, atheism, skepticism, nihilism, whatever-- ALL rely on unproven sources of truth. Whether it's the assumption that what you perceive is real (empiricism) or whether it's the assumption that the Bible is God's divine revelation, either way you are relying on an unproven source of truth, with all the inherent "problematic" elements you have already pointed out.
The only difference between your position and ours is that we have (repeatedly) accepted & acknowledged the unproven, speculative nature of our a priori assumptions, you have not.
Posted by Dave Marshall (# 7533) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
ALL philosophies, ALL worldviews, including naturalism, atheism, skepticism, nihilism, whatever-- ALL rely on unproven sources of truth.
Not quite true. It's probably correct if you were to insist on mathematical or logical proof. But for most practical purposes all that is required is that the likelyhood of being wrong is negligable. The physical universe provides that level proof. A philosophy or world view that limits its assumptions to that seems to me as close to being truth based as makes no difference.
[ 13. February 2010, 18:06: Message edited by: Dave Marshall ]
Posted by QLib (# 43) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Dave Marshall:
A philosophy or world view that limits its assumptions to that seems to me as close to being truth based as makes no difference.
True, but very limited.
Let us consider the question of sanity. Although there is considerable argument about what, exactly mental illness is, we probably all think we can recognise clear-cut cases of mental illness as against clear-cut examples of mental health. But there are a lot of grey area, some of which are culturally determined. For example, homosexuality used to be listed as a 'disorder'.
When diagnosing mental illness, doctors use a range of methods, but there are very few objective criteria; I doubt if there are any measurable criteria. Does that mean that there is no such thing as sanity, or insanity? One might argue about whether there is such an illness as schizophrenia, but I don't think that anyone would deny that a person exhibiting the symptoms classically associated with schizophrenia is in need of care and support.
Someone close to me has had bi-polar disorder for many years. He's quite stable now, but I used to watch people talking to him at parties when they'd first met him. You could see them go through the stages: "Here's an interesting chap." "Bit talkative." "Bit obsessional perhaps?" "Oh-oh, something a bit dodgy here." "Oh my God, this guy is nuts - somebody come and rescue me." They knew he was ill - and not a tape measure in sight.
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Dave Marshall:
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
ALL philosophies, ALL worldviews, including naturalism, atheism, skepticism, nihilism, whatever-- ALL rely on unproven sources of truth.
Not quite true. It's probably correct if you were to insist on mathematical or logical proof. But for most practical purposes all that is required is that the likelyhood of being wrong is negligable. The physical universe provides that level proof. A philosophy or world view that limits its assumptions to that seems to me as close to being truth based as makes no difference.
The worldview you're proposing assumes that what we can observe through our senses is "real". true. I and most people share that assumption. Yet we know of people who share that assumption but are delusional, what they perceive with their senses is not real or true. So empiricism is based on an unproven assumption that our senses, our observations are a valid source of truth.
Your statement "for most practical purposes all that is required is that the likelyhood of being wrong is negligable. The physical universe provides that level proof" is based on the same circular reasoning that Christians use when they use the Bible to prove that the Bible is true. You are using empirical evidence to demonstrate that the likelihood of empiricism being wrong is negligible. Circular.
Which, again, is going to be true of every philosophy when it comes to "proving" their source of authority.
[ 13. February 2010, 19:06: Message edited by: cliffdweller ]
Posted by opaWim (# 11137) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by El Greco:
quote:
Originally posted by opaWim:
That may be a problem, but since there is no solution, I can live with it.
Ah, but there is a solution. Don't accept those ideas. It's as simple as that, and it's as difficult as that, because people have invested much on their religion, they have given great parts of their lives for it, and it's not easy to let it all go. This doesn't mean that there is no solution though.
Maybe I'm wandering into irrelevancy, but you have just helped me realize that over the years the choice to be a follower of Jesus has been changing from a challenge into something I would not want to live without.
Thank you for that. ![[Hot and Hormonal]](icon_redface.gif)
Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Dave Marshall:
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
ALL philosophies, ALL worldviews, including naturalism, atheism, skepticism, nihilism, whatever-- ALL rely on unproven sources of truth.
Not quite true. It's probably correct if you were to insist on mathematical or logical proof. But for most practical purposes all that is required is that the likelyhood of being wrong is negligable. The physical universe provides that level proof. A philosophy or world view that limits its assumptions to that seems to me as close to being truth based as makes no difference.
You yourself invest a considerable amount of time and effort on these boards into arguing that traditional Christianity provides an unreasonable worldview.
It makes no practical difference to you what we believe. So why do it - unless you accept that things can be important even if they don't make a practical difference?
Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by El Greco:
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
Yes, but attacking Christianity because it requires a leap of faith when any philosophical position requires a leap of faith isn't OK either.
Oh yes it is. Two wrongs don't make one right. You are arguing that they do!
Just because other systems of thought might face the same problem, it doesn't mean your system of thought is any less problematic, or that this makes it OK that it is problematic!
OK then. Tell us how to live in a way that doesn't involve a leap of faith.
I notice you skilfully ignored the second half of my post, by the way.
Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by El Greco:
It's like saying "but Fred cheats on his wife as well." That isn't justification for you to cheat on Anne. If your ideas are problematic, then other people's ideas being problematic as well (which is something I'm not examining here) doesn't make yours any less problematic. You are not off the hook even if everyone did it.
This is why proof by analogy is no proof at all.
To me the discussion sounds like someone looking at a car and saying, "This car's rubbish - you have to keep refuelling it!" As there's no such thing as a car that doesn't need refuelling, this is not a reasonable objection to raise against the car in question.
Posted by El Greco (# 9313) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
You're missing the point that has been made many times already: it's not just "religion" that "makes stuff up"-- or relies on unproven sources of truth. As has been noted repeatedly, ALL philosophies, ALL worldviews, including naturalism, atheism, skepticism, nihilism, whatever-- ALL rely on unproven sources of truth.
I'm not missing that point. It is you that do not acknowledge my counter-arguments.
First of all, I do not know for sure whether this question applies to all philosophical systems, because I have not examined that issue. It doesn't matter for the issue I'm addressing here. My question does not depend on what happens in other philosophical systems.
Secondly, and most importantly, I didn't suggest an alternative philosophical system in the place of your theology. What I think is that it is better to do away with ideas that are made up. Not believing something is not a belief in itself. Not accepting a certain theology does not constitute a theology in itself.
This means that you can do away with a certain theology and not be "making things up" in doing so.
Thirdly, why the fuss about other philosophical systems? It's not as if Stoicism or Existentialism competes with Christianity any more. Perhaps there is a reason why the average person on the streets of London or Athens is no longer concerned with such theories.
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by El Greco:
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
You're missing the point that has been made many times already: it's not just "religion" that "makes stuff up"-- or relies on unproven sources of truth. As has been noted repeatedly, ALL philosophies, ALL worldviews, including naturalism, atheism, skepticism, nihilism, whatever-- ALL rely on unproven sources of truth.
I'm not missing that point. It is you that do not acknowledge my counter-arguments.
First of all, I do not know for sure whether this question applies to all philosophical systems, because I have not examined that issue. It doesn't matter for the issue I'm addressing here. My question does not depend on what happens in other philosophical systems.
Secondly, and most importantly, I didn't suggest an alternative philosophical system in the place of your theology. What I think is that it is better to do away with ideas that are made up. Not believing something is not a belief in itself. Not accepting a certain theology does not constitute a theology in itself.
This means that you can do away with a certain theology and not be "making things up" in doing so.
Thirdly, why the fuss about other philosophical systems? It's not as if Stoicism or Existentialism competes with Christianity any more. Perhaps there is a reason why the average person on the streets of London or Athens is no longer concerned with such theories.
Your response shows that you ARE missing my point.
My point is that it is impossible NOT to rely on unproven sources-- i.e. "things that are made up". You are objecting to one set of sources of truth, and explicitly suggesting another in it's place (empiricism). I am demonstrating that empricism is equally based on an unproven source of authority. The point was made well by the "car" example in the previous post.
All of us have some sort of worldview or philosophy-- yes, even the "average person on the streets of London or Athens". They might not give it some fancy philosophical name, but everyone on the face of the earth has some sort of basis for deciding what's "real" or not. You have to, simply to operate. You have to decide if the chair you see is real before you sit on it (even though most of us have seen illusions where you think something like a chair is real, but it turns out to be a hologram or some other sort of illusion). We operate within that mechanism even though those sources of truth cannot be proven. There simply is no other way around it. You may claim that empiricism is a superior source of authority, but you have only been able to offer the circular validation of empiricism to support that-- just as Christians who claim the Bible is a better source of authority have only the Bible to prove that.
The "problem" is one inherent to the human condition. You may decry it all you wish, but there is no point asking us to "stop believing in made up things", when all you're really saying is that we should trade on set of unproven assumptions for another set of unproven assumptions.
Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by El Greco:
First of all, I do not know for sure whether this question applies to all philosophical systems, because I have not examined that issue. It doesn't matter for the issue I'm addressing here.
But it does matter! You can't discuss Christian epistemology without discussing epistemology in general.
You are like someone asking "How does the Sun work?" and, when the scientist starts talking about nuclear fission, replies "I'm not asking about nuclear fission! I'm asking about the Sun! You're changing the subject to hide your inability to answer the question! You're blurring the issue!" quote:
Secondly, and most importantly, I didn't suggest an alternative philosophical system in the place of your theology. What I think is that it is better to do away with ideas that are made up. Not believing something is not a belief in itself. Not accepting a certain theology does not constitute a theology in itself.
This means that you can do away with a certain theology and not be "making things up" in doing so.
Only if you want to be a solipsist.
Or at least (accepting Dave Marshall's earlier comments), only if you don't mind having no beliefs about ethics, truth or beauty. quote:
Thirdly, why the fuss about other philosophical systems? It's not as if Stoicism or Existentialism competes with Christianity any more. Perhaps there is a reason why the average person on the streets of London or Athens is no longer concerned with such theories.
Really? People in London or Athens have no beliefs about truth, ethics, beauty? All of these are philosophical beliefs. Just because someone doesn't consciously identify themself as a Utilitarian or a Kantian Deontologist doesn't mean they don't have beliefs about ethics.
Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
You are like someone asking "How does the Sun work?" and, when the scientist starts talking about nuclear fission, replies "I'm not asking about nuclear fission! I'm asking about the Sun! You're changing the subject to hide your inability to answer the question! You're blurring the issue!"
Bugger, that should say "nuclear fusion".
Posted by Dave Marshall (# 7533) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
The worldview you're proposing assumes that what we can observe through our senses is "real".
No. I'm proposing that it is reasonable to assume the physical universe is real. Our perceptions are inherently fallible in any particular instance, but aggregated over time and the comparable experiences of others, errors in perception can if we choose to allow for that fallibility be made (for most practical purposes) vanishingly small.
That some people prefer to draw conclusions about what is real based on, say, experiences interpreted as having religious significance, or that mental illness causes others to be unable to to reliably adjust for their perceptual errors, does not affect the effectively absolute consistency of the physical universe. That is our reality.
Circularity occurs if we act as we had any more reliable reality than the fabric of our humanity.
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
why [argue that traditional Christianity provides an unreasonable worldview] - unless you accept that things can be important even if they don't make a practical difference?
Who said anything about what was important? I thought we were talking about how best to establish what was real.
Posted by El Greco (# 9313) on
:
@ Ricardus & cliffdweller
People on the streets of London and Athens work out things for themselves, yes. The difference is that they do not believe their ideas equate with God's Truth or Revelation to Mankind or whatever.
You are right that uncertainty exists as part of life. This does not justify however equating made-up stories with God's Truth.
Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Dave Marshall:
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
why [argue that traditional Christianity provides an unreasonable worldview] - unless you accept that things can be important even if they don't make a practical difference?
Who said anything about what was important? I thought we were talking about how best to establish what was real.
I thought we were arguing about whether it's possible to have a philosophy that doesn't depend on a leap of faith.
Your response was to supply a philosphy that works "for all practical purposes". My point was that philosophy tends to go beyond merely "practical purposes", as evidenced by your own contributions to these boards.
Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by El Greco:
You are right that uncertainty exists as part of life. This does not justify however equating made-up stories with God's Truth.
But it also means you can't use "But you can't be sure of that!" as an argument against Christianity, especially when Christians themselves are explicitly acknowledging it.
Posted by El Greco (# 9313) on
:
Ricardus, there are all kinds of things that are made up. Just because they are made up, it doesn't mean we are not to use them.
Right now I'm watching a movie with stuff that is made up. I know it's made up, its creators know it's made up, but I'm still enjoying it as a movie.
The other day I read a great work of literature. I know it's made up, its author knows its made up, but this doesn't mean I'm not to enjoy it!
While on the street, I will abide by rules that are made up. That they are made up doesn't prevent our life from becoming easier by following the State's rules when we are driving our cars.
This is one thing.
I don't deny the role of made-up stuff in our lives. The problem with the Christian theories is that you won't get "sure it's all made up but I use it because I get some benefit for my life" or whatever, but you will find people actually believing Jesus is the Son of God, or that God intervenes in history to guide people towards one direction or another.
You won't find people saying "yes, I could just as easily follow Islam, or Orthodox Judaism, but I chose to follow liberal Christianity instead" or "I might be a conservative Protestant today, but tomorrow I'll be a Bahai" or whatever. Instead, they will claim that what they believe, is actually true, although it's highly probable that it's made up.
My question doesn't apply to people who think the story with Jesus being the Messiah and the Son of God is made-up but they follow some ideas from Christianity because they find some value or another in them, but it does apply to those who still believe the essentials of the traditional story (or at least, what they think as the essentials), and keep believing them as true even though they can't answer why it's not as made up as all the other stories they themselves reject for that very reason!
Posted by Dave Marshall (# 7533) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
My point was that philosophy tends to go beyond merely "practical purposes", as evidenced by your own contributions to these boards.
I'd have thought self-expression was a practical purpose. But as for the philosophy, I'm not arguing against leaps of faith, only for starting from somewhere that won't collapse when we jump.
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by El Greco:
@ Ricardus & cliffdweller
People on the streets of London and Athens work out things for themselves, yes. The difference is that they do not believe their ideas equate with God's Truth or Revelation to Mankind or whatever.
You are right that uncertainty exists as part of life. This does not justify however equating made-up stories with God's Truth.
The things that "work out for themselves" entail a source of authority, or truth. They have some means by which they decide what's "real" or "true". That means-- whether it's scientific observation, gut intuition, or some form of religious authority-- is unproven. You can't prove that any of those things really IS true w/o resorting to a circular argument whereby it is true because it says it is true.
Christians, like every other person on the planet, have a source of authority, or truth, one that is based on unproven assumptions. You don't like our source of authority. We get that. We're not trying to convince you to adopt ours. We simply ask that you recognize that you, and people in London and Athens and everywhere else, all have a source of authority, and they're all based on unproven assumptions.
I don't think they're all the same in terms of reasonableness, so if you wanted to argue that the Christian assumptions are not as reasonable as, say, empiricism, then fine, have at it. But you must first acknowledge that empiricism does still rest on unproven assumptions.
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by El Greco:
[ quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
For El Greco to keep presenting this as a problem peculiar to Protestants is wilfully strange.
This is putting words in my mouth. I didn't examine whether it's peculiar to Protestants or not. I don't care about that issue. It wouldn't make a difference in what I'm asking here.
It's like saying "but Fred cheats on his wife as well." That isn't justification for you to cheat on Anne. If your ideas are problematic, then other people's ideas being problematic as well (which is something I'm not examining here) doesn't make yours any less problematic. You are not off the hook even if everyone did it.
And even if all other religions did it, why choose one and not say "thanks I'll pass" to all of them? You don't have to choose one over the others you know.
I think you are changing the subject by making philosophical issues about other religions in an attempt to obscure the problems in your own ideas. Which seems to work, as those who are saying the same thing you are in this thread seem to feel OK with their position and assume that my questions do not apply to them.
As cliffdweller already said, you really ARE missing the point.
Your counter to what I said is all about other religions. I wasn't even talking about religions, or philosophy. I was talking about all areas of knowledge.
Unless you yourself have studied atoms with electron microscopes, you take someone else's word for it when you say anything about molecular chemistry. Unless you yourself have an intimate knowledge of genetics, you take someone else's word for it about how it works.
Unless you have studied everything there is to know about physics, biology, geology, psychology, psychiatry, sociology, ecology, nutrition, law, mechanical engineering... and about 50,000 other things, you spend your days assuming that what someone else told you on a subject was true.
So, my answer to you is that it's not any MORE of a problem for Protestants than it is for scientists or receptionists or waiters or beekeepers. The rest of succeed in getting on with our lives, while occasionally considering whether something was true after all.
But if we spent our whole lives in the sort of navel-gazing you're keen on having, it would be miserable.
I speak from personal experience. I spent many, many years of my life believing that homosexuality was wrong, and particularly believing the Bible said it was wrong. I no longer believe that. I have changed my opinion.
But you know what? The time spent agonising over whether I was believing the correct thing was no fun. And more to the point, spending all my time trying to get OTHER people to change THEIR mind would be exhausting for both them and me.
So don't be surprised when people think you are incredibly annoying. You go on and on expecting the 'correct' answer to a question that is no more answerable than you explaining why you accept the periodic table. You won't get it.
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by El Greco:
I don't deny the role of made-up stuff in our lives. The problem with the Christian theories is that you won't get "sure it's all made up but I use it because I get some benefit for my life" or whatever, but you will find people actually believing Jesus is the Son of God, or that God intervenes in history to guide people towards one direction or another.
You won't find people saying "yes, I could just as easily follow Islam, or Orthodox Judaism, but I chose to follow liberal Christianity instead" or "I might be a conservative Protestant today, but tomorrow I'll be a Bahai" or whatever. Instead, they will claim that what they believe, is actually true, although it's highly probable that it's made up.
My question doesn't apply to people who think the story with Jesus being the Messiah and the Son of God is made-up but they follow some ideas from Christianity because they find some value or another in them, but it does apply to those who still believe the essentials of the traditional story (or at least, what they think as the essentials), and keep believing them as true even though they can't answer why it's not as made up as all the other stories they themselves reject for that very reason!
In order to criticise treating some things as made up and some things as not, you yourself have to make an assessment of whether or not these things are, in fact made up.
What makes your assessment of that any better than my own?
What makes your assessment of that any WORSE than my own?
What are the things that you think are true? How do you know they are true? Did you check them all?
Have you verified the material that your teeth are made out of? Have you confirmed all the things that you think you got from your mother in fact came from her genetically, or whether they're just a result of environment? Do you understand exactly how your television works? How does posting on this forum work? Is your doctor telling you the right things? Your car mechanic? When you listen to music, do you understand the recording process or how the vibrations of the instruments created sound?
Why do you tie your shoelaces the way you do?
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
By the way, El Greco, picking "Fred cheats on his wife as well" as an analogy was a rather interesting tactic. It presupposes that we are talking about a negative thing that needs to be either justified or rejected.
Rather begging the question, I think.
Posted by opaWim (# 11137) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by El Greco:
You won't find people saying "yes, I could just as easily follow Islam, or Orthodox Judaism, but I chose to follow liberal Christianity instead" or "I might be a conservative Protestant today, but tomorrow I'll be a Bahai" or whatever.
If you rephrased that to remove the embedded ridicule, you could very well find -even quite dedicated- Christians who would not a priori exclude the possibility that they might change in their convictions/assumptions.
People do convert, even along the lines you describe, and sometimes they saw that conversion coming while still firmly rooted in their former beliefs/convictions.
Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by El Greco:
I don't deny the role of made-up stuff in our lives. The problem with the Christian theories is that you won't get "sure it's all made up but I use it because I get some benefit for my life" or whatever, but you will find people actually believing Jesus is the Son of God, or that God intervenes in history to guide people towards one direction or another.
You won't find people saying "yes, I could just as easily follow Islam, or Orthodox Judaism, but I chose to follow liberal Christianity instead" or "I might be a conservative Protestant today, but tomorrow I'll be a Bahai" or whatever. Instead, they will claim that what they believe, is actually true, although it's highly probable that it's made up.
You are still presenting the question as a dichotomoy - either "Christianity is definitely true, God says so" or "Christianity is made up". What people are repeatedly saying on this thread is "I believe Christianity is true, but I may be mistaken".
The problem is that two separate questions are being conflated:
- Is Christianity coherent if we can't be certain about it?
- Granted all worldviews require a leap of faith: why is the Christian leap of faith better than the alternatives?
I think (1) has been done to death. As for (2), I suspect this would be different for every poster and would really require an entire board to discuss properly, but the basic structure of my response would be:
- 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;
- Christianity, in my judgment, is a more coherent account of theism than the alternatives.
Stage 1 is, as acknowledged, a leap of faith. Stage 2 has been done to death on these boards already. I am not trying to persuade you of anything here, only to show the direction in which my mind works.
Posted by El Greco (# 9313) on
:
That you confuse religious claims with scientific claims is rather telling.
Just as it is that you assume the ancient skeptics were involved in yet another -ism....
To question or even reject one particular thesis does not require of one to know absolute truth. This is what you are not seeing. To ask the question "what will we put in its place, once Christianity is rejected as fables" while a practical issue is no argument in favor for not rejecting what is made up.
Especially when you refuse to accept that "Jesus is the true and only-begoten Son of God" or "he has truly risen" are made-up, but you believe they are true.
Again, the subject is not "what next?" or "OK, why are not sure", but "why isn't this made-up?"
So far some of you granted that you don't know if it's made up or not. What I'm doing is to raise the issue that you already reject some theologies as made up, yet you refuse to put your theologies in that process. When you "know" that other ideas are fables, your "not knowing" whether there is something wrong with your ideas, is a bit suspect. That's all.
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by El Greco:
To question or even reject one particular thesis does not require of one to know absolute truth.
No.
And neither does accepting it.
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by El Greco:
Again, the subject is not "what next?" or "OK, why are not sure", but "why isn't this made-up?"
You could just as easily ask "why IS this made up".
Either form of question presupposes an answer. And therein lies the real problem with your approach. The neutral from of the question is to ask "IS this made up?". And each of us looks at the evidence on that, and comes to our conclusion. At times we may re-examine the evidence, and re-examine the conclusion.
You appear to be arguing from the position that you already know it IS made up, and can't understand why anyone else would ever come to a different conclusion. That, my friend, is entirely your problem.
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by El Greco:
That you confuse religious claims with scientific claims is rather telling.
Who is this directed at, please?
If it's me, then all I can say is I have a science degree. I know how science works. It's based on assessing evidence, making hypotheses, testing hypotheses.
And rejecting old ones and replacing them new ones. Which... golly, which sounds an awful lot like YOUR description of Protestantism.
How does the author of a new hypothesis know it's correct? He doesn't. Not for sure. It's only considered 'correct' until someone disproves it with new evidence that doesn't fit.
So, yeah, comparing religious claims with scientific claims IS very telling. It tells that I'm actually aware of the similarities in the way human beings work across all fields. It's got nothing to do with confusing the two, and everything to do with being able to see the wood, not just the particular tree that you're hammering into like a woodpecker.
Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by El Greco:
To question or even reject one particular thesis does not require of one to know absolute truth. This is what you are not seeing. To ask the question "what will we put in its place, once Christianity is rejected as fables" while a practical issue is no argument in favor for not rejecting what is made up.
If the grounds for rejecting Christianity can be raised against any possible worldview whatsoever, then those grounds are not reasonable.
This point has been made many, many, many times to you already, and you have still refused to address it. quote:
You already reject some theologies as made up, yet you refuse to put your theologies in that process. When you "know" that other ideas are fables, your "not knowing" whether there is something wrong with your ideas, is a bit suspect.
Addressed by me here and here.
(Probably addressed by other people as well, but I only care about myself.)
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by QLib:
My explanation of the mechanism would be that the light in you answers to the light in them. But this is just groping for words to explain a phenomenon that I've experienced. And, if you haven't experienced it, I find that very worrying - what kind of a pastor are you, that you don't recognise spiritual authority?
There is a technical label for religious groups that follow a leader because 'they just know he/she' is right. It is called a cult.
I wonder, is there any other area of life where you would leave a definition of authority to be entirely subjective. (Note that I'm happy that there are subjective elements in this.)
quote:
Originally posted by QLib:
Now you're just being obtuse. My point is that people know darn well what the Golden Rule means, it's just that some of us seem to think there's a higher rule, some kind of Platinum Rule, which excuses shit like burning people at the stake, or high-jacking planes and flying them into buildings packed with people.
No I'm not just being obtuse. ![[Two face]](graemlins/scot_twoface.gif)
Most people know what the Golden Rule means but pretty much everyone disagrees with what it means in practice. There are a million and one ethical dilemmas where everyone wants to do the most loving thing but there is debate over what that actually is.
Let's take a hot topic like parenting: Parents argue over what discipline to use on their children. Now, I'm sure that some in the smacking brigade are not implementing the Golden Rule in their parenting philosophy, but it is quite possible that some are. The Golden Rule is more like the beginning of a complex discussion rather than the end of it.
Posted by QLib (# 43) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
quote:
Originally posted by QLib:
My explanation of the mechanism would be that the light in you answers to the light in them. But this is just groping for words to explain a phenomenon that I've experienced. And, if you haven't experienced it, I find that very worrying - what kind of a pastor are you, that you don't recognise spiritual authority?
There is a technical label for religious groups that follow a leader because 'they just know he/she' is right. It is called a cult.
I wonder, is there any other area of life where you would leave a definition of authority to be entirely subjective. (Note that I'm happy that there are subjective elements in this.)
All religions start out as cults. The fact that it sometimes goes horribly wrong merely highlights the point that most of the time it turns out OK. Even "cults" of which you or I might disapprove (scientology, for example?) seem to be answering some kind of need - and one just has to hope that once that need is filled, people will eventually grow and move on.
And I wouldn't want to suggest that the response to 'spiritual authority' is entirely subjective. I apologise for not making it more explicit that my post (above) about recognising sanity/ insanity was related to this point. Instinct has, I think, long been established as, in fact, a response to all kinds of processing going on in parts of the brain, processes of which the conscious mind (whatever that is) is rarely aware. So yes, you get the early instinctive reaction, but if that isn't later bolstered by factors of which you are consciously aware (Is s/he rational? Compassionate? Intelligent?) then you're going to realise you were mistaken.
As regards the Golden Rule - well maybe we'll just have to agree to differ on that. Your example with children shows how much culture determines what we think of as an acceptable way to behave to others. However, we live in a multi-cultural world and I would suggest that ideas about human rights evidence a broad measure of agreement about decent behaviour.
Posted by El Greco (# 9313) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
No. And neither does accepting it.
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
So, yeah, comparing religious claims with scientific claims IS very telling.
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
You could just as easily ask "why IS this made up".
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
If the grounds for rejecting Christianity can be raised against any possible worldview whatsoever, then those grounds are not reasonable.
Right.
Sigh.
I feel that this discussion won't go much further. Over and over again you deflect by changing the subject and addressing different issues than the one of the OP.
What I said is very simple actually.
You already reject other Christian theological views as erroneous. You already think some people made up stuff about God and Christ which are not true.
But when your own beliefs are asked to be put under the same test, suddenly this question can't apply to you.
It's fascinating how you won't put your beliefs under the same examination process you use for other people's beliefs. So, you may argue with each other and reject each other's views as false (the liberals vs the conservatives debate is very telling), but you are firm that the very same issue cannot be raised about your beliefs.
I don't think I have anything more to say on this issue.
Posted by fletcher christian (# 13919) on
:
This news just in: God really does answer prayer.
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by El Greco:
[QUOTE]
Sigh.
I feel that this discussion won't go much further. Over and over again you deflect by changing the subject and addressing different issues than the one of the OP.
What I said is very simple actually.
You already reject other Christian theological views as erroneous. You already think some people made up stuff about God and Christ which are not true.
But when your own beliefs are asked to be put under the same test, suddenly this question can't apply to you.
It's fascinating how you won't put your beliefs under the same examination process you use for other people's beliefs. So, you may argue with each other and reject each other's views as false (the liberals vs the conservatives debate is very telling), but you are firm that the very same issue cannot be raised about your beliefs.
I don't think I have anything more to say on this issue.
I think you are right that we have reached a dead end, but (not surprisingly) I find the problem to lie with you.
Contrary to your assertion above, posters on this thread have acknowledged over and over again that our beliefs are based on unproven assumptions ("made up" in your parlance). However, when we demonstrate that your beliefs-- and the beliefs of "people in Rome and Athens" and everywhere else-- are similarly based on unproven assumptions (i.e. "made up") you won't/can't accept that. "It's fascinating how you won't put your beliefs under the same examination process you use for other people's beliefs" seems to best apply to you.
The one thing we can indeed agree on is that we are at an impasse. Which often happens when we are arguing worldviews/ sources of authority.
Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by El Greco:
You already reject other Christian theological views as erroneous. You already think some people made up stuff about God and Christ which are not true.
But when your own beliefs are asked to be put under the same test, suddenly this question can't apply to you.
It's fascinating how you won't put your beliefs under the same examination process you use for other people's beliefs. So, you may argue with each other and reject each other's views as false (the liberals vs the conservatives debate is very telling), but you are firm that the very same issue cannot be raised about your beliefs.
![[brick wall]](graemlins/brick_wall.gif)
I have repeatedly said that, though all worldviews rest on a leap of faith, we can still argue about which leap of faith is better. I have made several posts inviting discussion on that point.
That you choose to ignore them, and instead carry on attacking a strawman, says quite a lot about your approach to seeking the truth.
Posted by Dave Marshall (# 7533) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
though all worldviews rest on a leap of faith, we can still argue about which leap of faith is better.
While El Greco doesn't seem able explain why he disagrees with you, I suspect he has a point that you and others are missing.
Going back to my earlier post about the reliability of the physical universe, unless you're contesting that, the leap of faith required to adopt what I'd call critical realism (belief that the physical universe is in fact real but that our understanding of it must always be open to criticism) is so trivial as to be no leap at all. That 'faith' is simply the baseline for what being human is. Not making it would leave us mindlessly sub-human.
Any faith in a supreme being requires an additional belief that a secular world view can reasonably and legitimately reject. I don't think that requires any leap of faith.
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by El Greco:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
No. And neither does accepting it.
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
So, yeah, comparing religious claims with scientific claims IS very telling.
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
You could just as easily ask "why IS this made up".
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
If the grounds for rejecting Christianity can be raised against any possible worldview whatsoever, then those grounds are not reasonable.
Right.
Sigh.
I feel that this discussion won't go much further. Over and over again you deflect by changing the subject and addressing different issues than the one of the OP.
What I said is very simple actually.
You already reject other Christian theological views as erroneous. You already think some people made up stuff about God and Christ which are not true.
But when your own beliefs are asked to be put under the same test, suddenly this question can't apply to you.
It's fascinating how you won't put your beliefs under the same examination process you use for other people's beliefs. So, you may argue with each other and reject each other's views as false (the liberals vs the conservatives debate is very telling), but you are firm that the very same issue cannot be raised about your beliefs.
I don't think I have anything more to say on this issue.
I'm not addressing a different issue at all. I am trying to explain to you, that the process of coming to a Protestant point of view is remarkably similar to the process of coming to any other point of view. It's no more defensible than any other point of view, on a 'why isn't it made up' level. But neither is it any LESS defensible.
I'm fully aware the question applies to me. Just as it applies to everyone else. How do I KNOW what I believe is true? I don't. I happily acknowledge that. All I can do is test it, see if it works, if it doesn't work then it needs adjusting.
Posted by Leaf (# 14169) on
:
Unless you eat the whole cake, you cannot be said to be having dessert! Who do you think you are? You must eat the entire cake, or reject cake-eating completely. Why do you think you can just cut a piece, or pick out the raisins, or scrape off the icing? At least those who find they can eat the whole cake, raisins and all, are being consistent: they are truly cake-eaters. The rest of you must choose - either eat the whole cake or leave the table. Because nothing else makes sense to me.
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
To be honest, half the problem here is this sentence of yours:
"You already reject other Christian theological views as erroneous. You already think some people made up stuff about God and Christ which are not true."
How do you know I think this?
If there's one thing I pride myself on, it's that I DON'T assume what I believe is always right, or that when other people believe something different that it's wrong. So your premise doesn't work. I examine what I believe from time to time, and if someone offers up an alternative view I consider it.
I already explained this to you when I talked about homosexuality, which apparently was another instance of where you thought I was 'changing the subject'. I really wasn't. It was a specific example of something where I changed my original view on a topic. I grew up believing that homosexuality was wrong and that the Bible said it was wrong. I no longer believe it's wrong, I also no longer believe that it's correct to interpret the Bible that way. Because that viewpoint didn't work.
Posted by Amazing Grace (# 95) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
To be honest, half the problem here is this sentence of yours:
"You already reject other Christian theological views as erroneous. You already think some people made up stuff about God and Christ which are not true."
How do you know I think this?
There seems to be some Protestant monolith in the OP's mind. It's a bad habit in discussion groups because it's 1) inaccurate and 2) not conducive to easy discussion leaving asides the 3) rudely loaded question.
Charlotte
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
It just occurred to me that the only way to comply with El Greco's demand to treat all worldviews equally is to believe nothing. To be eternally disbelieving of anything not sensed directly. Although even trusting one's senses is seriously problematic (optical illusions, for starters), so perhaps one would be reduced to not believing anything at all.
Alternatively, to believe everything. To be utterly credulous.
Neither seems like a very workable option. It's far more USEFUL to make choices. And to, on occasion, consider changing those choices.
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
It just occurred to me that the only way to comply with El Greco's demand to treat all worldviews equally is to believe nothing.
Exactamundo. He's not after a discussion of what is reasonable belief, he's after a bunch of converts to his own brand of (dis)belief.
I imagine his ideal for this thread was for us to say "my god, you're right! It's all made up! I no longer believe!"...
Posted by El Greco (# 9313) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
It just occurred to me that the only way to comply with El Greco's demand to treat all worldviews equally is to believe nothing. To be eternally disbelieving of anything not sensed directly. Although even trusting one's senses is seriously problematic (optical illusions, for starters), so perhaps one would be reduced to not believing anything at all.
You say that as if it's a bad thing. Actually, that's what the ancient Skeptikoi suggested. The rejection of all dogma.
That said, and while I do think their position makes sense (and I'd like to note that till now you mistook that approach for a new dogma, which actually isn't!) it was not me who made general philosophical points about the criterion for knowledge. I was asking the far simpler question "if you already think other people are making things up, why aren't you making things up as well?"
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
It's far more USEFUL to make choices.
Again, you are shifting the subject from religious beliefs, to choices in general, as if the belief that Jesus was risen was similar to choosing to have a steak for dinner.
Also, usefulness isn't to be confused with truth. And it is the latter that I'm interested in, not the former.
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by El Greco:
I don't think I have anything more to say on this issue.
Andreas, do you admit that you were mistaken when you wrote this?
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by El Greco:
]You say that as if it's a bad thing. Actually, that's what the ancient Skeptikoi suggested. The rejection of all dogma.
That said, and while I do think their position makes sense (and I'd like to note that till now you mistook that approach for a new dogma, which actually isn't!) it was not me who made general philosophical points about the criterion for knowledge.
I'm not convinced. Your assertion that empirical observations are real, and in fact are the only things that are real, is, in fact, dogma, by any meaningful definition of the term. It is based on the same principles, the same process of building on unproven assumptions to create a framework for understanding reality, that religious dogma is.
And, again, the essence of your OP is indeed a philosophical one about the nature of knowledge. Yes, you have resisted that all along, wanting only to talk about the ridiculousness of Christianity and its basis in unproven assumptions, but the reality is, that is the essence of your question-- the unknowable nature of reality.
quote:
Originally posted by El Greco:
I was asking the far simpler question "if you already think other people are making things up, why aren't you making things up as well?".
Yes, we heard you the first 10 or 12 times you asked that. And we answered. Over and over again. And yet you mostly ignored our answers because they didn't fit your paradigm-- your unproven assumptions-- about Christians and our belief structure. They didn't set up the neat little argument you had constructed in your own mind that you were so sure would topple our whole system of belief.
quote:
Originally posted by El Greco:
Also, usefulness isn't to be confused with truth. And it is the latter that I'm interested in, not the former.
Believe it or not, that's what we're interested in too.
Posted by El Greco (# 9313) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
I'm not convinced. Your assertion that empirical observations are real, and in fact are the only things that are real, is, in fact, dogma, by any meaningful definition of the term.
Where did I say that? Why are you so eager to make me appear to believe in dogmas as Christianity does?
I did not posit any new dogma, or any alternative dogma to the Christian ones. Not positing an alternative dogma is not a dogma in itself.
If you want to speak in philosophical terms, and you seem to love that since you have tried many times now to shift that discussion from what you believe to how one has access to and assesses truth, I'd reply that you are confusing skepticism with empiricism.
quote:
Yes, we heard you the first 10 or 12 times you asked that. And we answered. Over and over again. And yet you mostly ignored our answers because they didn't fit your paradigm-- your unproven assumptions-- about Christians and our belief structure. They didn't set up the neat little argument you had constructed in your own mind that you were so sure would topple our whole system of belief.
You have heard me the first 10 or 12 times I asked that, and you answered by asserting what you assert above.
I see that I cannot get an actual answer. To which you will probably assert (for the umpteen time) that your "answer" just doesn't fit my paradigm (I suspect by "my paradigm" you mean that I expected an actual answer to a question rather than following bizarre philosophical tangents about how people make choices and what would be more useful).
Incidentally, the issues of choices, morality and usefulness were raised during antiquity with regards to skepticism. I think the most characteristic response towards skepticism by people whose ideals were debunked by the skeptics was the expulsion of Carneades from Rome. Apparently Cato thought that raising questions on the Roman virtues was poisonous to Roman society. Thankfully, times have changed, and I'm not being expelled from the Ship for raising similar questions (although some people have indeed asked for my expulsion because they feel my questions are poisonous to the community's workings).
Having said this, I understand that this thread has gone way beyond the intentions of the OP, and I only hope it was as interesting a dialog to you as it was to me.
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by El Greco:
I was asking the far simpler question "if you already think other people are making things up, why aren't you making things up as well?"
This is hilarious.
I keep answering this question by agreeing that I'm doing exactly the same thing as everybody else. And you keep telling me that when I do this, I am changing the subject.
Posted by Russ (# 120) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by El Greco:
Those people made things up, and taught them as God's Truth...
Of course, they weren't wicked people who wanted to spread lies and oppose God's Truth. They were ordinary people who really believed that the things they thought were true, that they were following God's word and they gave their best self in pursuit of Christ.
My question to Protestants is how do you know you are not making things up like they did, how do you know that what you believe as true is not as false as those ancient ideas you reject?
"Making things up" suggests a dichotomy between deliberate invention and passing on received truth that doesn't bear much resemblance at all to the messy and confusing reality that we live in.
All who are honestly seeking truth are honestly seeking truth. We give different levels of credence to ideas from different traditions because of the way that these ideas fit our experience and our upbringing and our character. Your sentence above shows that at one level you know this.
Seems to me that the difference is that some of us know and accept and live with the fact that we and everyone else are probably wrong about quite a lot of things (in general, but seldom this thing in particular...).
While others seem to have a need for certainty, a need to believe that the doctrines that they have found within their tradition (the tradition they have chosen or been brought up in - doesn't matter which) have been passed down with total accuracy from the mouth of Christ himself with no possibility of misunderstanding or misplaced emphasis.
Some of us believe that all of everybody's words are fallible human attempts at truth, even those of the greatest saints.
And it feels like a more mature attitude...
Best wishes,
Russ
Posted by Eliab (# 9153) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by El Greco:
You already reject other Christian theological views as erroneous. You already think some people made up stuff about God and Christ which are not true.
I think "made up" needs unpacking. The phrase can suggest something which is a deliberate deceit, or a pure fantasy, and I don't think you mean to suggest that (for example) Arianism is "made up" in this sense. Would the word "conjecture" be a better one for what you think the Arians and the Orthodox were both doing? They both had a common ground of ‘facts' (the existence of God, the importance of Jesus, a commitment to at least a nominal monotheism, the apparent claims of Jesus to at least quasi-divinity or kinship with God...) which they were trying to reconcile. One conjecture prevailed over the other - but neither was a pure invention which its proponents thought that they were free to make as they liked. Both sides accepted some doctrines as already established, and thought that their account of the was the best (or even the only) way to express truths which they already believed?
If you mean that, then I think that I do accept that I am doing the same thing. I'm not inventing or fantasising, still less trying to deceive, when I express an opinion about God. I am theorising from what I already know or believe to opinions that fit well with those beliefs.
How do I know that I'm right? I believe what my reason and conscience approve. That's my ultimate authority. I must not believe as true anything which is irrational or immoral. If (being already convinced of the truth and goodness of God and Jesus his Son) Trinitarianism seems to me more reasonable and more moral than Arianism, I'll prefer it.
That doesn't mean that I believe that my reason and conscience are infallible. They aren't - but they are the best guides I have. I can't rightly set them aside in favour of another authority without disabling the only faculty which allows me to grant that authority any status. If I believe the Bible (and I do) it is because my reason and conscience have been persuaded by it.
It follows that I will be much more sure of some beliefs than others. I am more sure that God is good than that he is personal. I am more sure that he is personal than that he is a trinity. I am more sure that he is a trinity than I am that Mohammed was (in some sense) a prophet. I am more sure that Mohammed had a real revelation from God than I am that Joseph Smith did. And so on.
In all of this I am looking for truth. Conjecture is a tool in the truth-seeking process. Some conjectures (‘Scripture as we have it is authoritative') are great unifying principles connecting all sorts of more or less certain truth claims - and are arrived at or abandoned only with difficulty. Others (‘the sacrament of the eucharist is effective because of the receiver's faith') are, for me, a sort of provisional scaffolding to more solid beliefs that are still being worked out.
I'm not a relativist in principle - I don't think that everyone's honest opinions are equally valid - but in practice the only beliefs that I can validate are my own, and I only have my own faculties to do it with. Yes, I can see very clearly that other people, who I judge to be holier and wiser than me, disagree with things I believe, but I don't have direct access to either their holiness and wisdom, only my own. I can't borrow the zeal of Ulfilas the Goth, and find out what he loved about Arianism - I can only say that on the premises I shared with him, my reason rejects it. Of course I might be wrong. I certainly am wrong about lots of things. That doesn't excuse me in the least from following what, to the best of my ability, appears to me to be true.
I should add, of course, that there is a sense in which I have access to a wisdom and holiness beyond my own - I believe in the indwelling of the Holy Spirit. However since the Spirit demonstrably does not work by dictating a unaminous doctrine into the ears of all believers, I conclude that he probably works by us starting to follow the light we are given in search of more.
That is, I think that the Holy Spirit made the Christian Church trinitarian, not in spite of the Arians doing their own thing, but (in part) through the agency of both Arians and Orthodox following their own best judgements. It was because both those that were right and those that were wrong fought their corners with conviction, that the Church could discern something new about God.
I believe (pretty high up my scale of belief) that many people who were utterly wrong in this world will be honoured in the next because they followed their mistaken reason and conscience as best they could. I would aspire to be one of them.
Posted by El Greco (# 9313) on
:
Regarding making things up:
If you take centuries of Christian theology into account, you will see prominent theologians teaching from the pulpit their conjecture as God's Truth. This is what I mean when I say they made stuff up.
It's not as if they said "I speculate that we should make the sign of the cross with three fingers" or that "pain and death entered the world when man sinned" or that "baptism is essential for salvation" or that Christ is uncreated or created or whatever.
Instead of admitting they speculated, they spoke as if their speculation was God's Truth.
So, we have one serious mistake here: to equate speculation and creative imagination with truth.
And then, we get a second serious mistake:
When those theologians and the believers that followed them opposed each other, they rejected the other person's (or theological school's) speculation as speculation, but they didn't put their own speculation to the same test.
This is what we see in this very thread, when the conservatives debate with the liberals. "You are wrong, because of reasons A, B and C" (all valid reasons, by the way!), "No, you are wrong, because of reasons a, b and c" (valid reasons as well).
Instead of both sides dropping their opinions, they merely fight with each other as to who is right.
And when I intervene and point that they already reject the other's views as speculation and they don't accept it as truth, and ask why their opinions aren't speculation that isn't truth as well, I get responses like "we don't know what truth is", "we have faith in our opinions", "our opinions sound OK to us" and "let's talk about philosophy".
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
I keep answering this question by agreeing that I'm doing exactly the same thing as everybody else.
Does this mean you use your imagination to posit things that are not true as true like others do?
Or does this mean that you arbitrarily choose to believe one set of speculation over another set of speculation?
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
Some of us believe that all of everybody's words are fallible human attempts at truth, even those of the greatest saints.
So, if you believe that "Christ has risen" is as fallible as "Mohammad is the Prophet", why does your church accept one while they reject the other?
quote:
Originally posted by Eliab:
How do I know that I'm right? I believe what my reason and conscience approve. That's my ultimate authority.
Well, this doesn't say much, does it? Like you said, other people's reason and conscience approves different things, yet you get to reject the conclusions they reach. Your conclusions aren't special. So, why believe them?
I mean, if you already do not accept other people's reason and conscience, why accept yours? Could it be more of a visceral response than a reasonable one? Could it be that your justification for why you believe what you believe is actually no objective justification at all?
Posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras (# 11274) on
:
I also don't think El Greco's use of the expression "made up" applies suitably to artistic creations (El Greco described fictional literature as "made up"). Possibly this is a failure on El Greco's part to grasp the connotations of the expression in English. Literature encapsulates authentic human experience and both expresses and represents real human experience - both interior and exterior - along a continuum of artistic expression ranging from more or less literal representations to more highly symbolic, allegorical ones. Characterising such creations as "made up" is quite missing the point; likewise the characterisation doesn't fit appropriately with religious systems.
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by El Greco:
So, if you believe that "Christ has risen" is as fallible as "Mohammad is the Prophet", why does your church accept one while they reject the other?
Because we choose to.
Posted by Eliab (# 9153) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by El Greco:
quote:
Originally posted by Eliab:
How do I know that I'm right? I believe what my reason and conscience approve. That's my ultimate authority.
Well, this doesn't say much, does it? Like you said, other people's reason and conscience approves different things, yet you get to reject the conclusions they reach. Your conclusions aren't special. So, why believe them?
I mean, if you already do not accept other people's reason and conscience, why accept yours? Could it be more of a visceral response than a reasonable one? Could it be that your justification for why you believe what you believe is actually no objective justification at all?
Because my reason and conscience are the only faculties I have to reach conclusions at all.
It is both sensible and humble (ie. in accordance with reason and conscience) to form my conclusions tentatively - in the awareness that my faculties are not infallible and I may be wrong. That is a sensible use of reason and conscience - to tell me what my limitations are. It would be quite another thing to say that my reason and conscience are utterly unreliable and no sort of conclusion can be based on them at all. That would be be disable all intellectual activity whatever. There would be no basis for setting up any sort of authority to make decisions for me, because the only part of mye with standing to approve any authority has been judged incapable.
That isn't an argument that my opinions or abilities are special. They aren't. Or rather, they are, only because they are mine. I have been given (or lent) a mind, with all its abilities, blind-spots, neuroses, insights, good and bad impulses, and everything else that goes to make up a personality, and my job is to do the best I can with it. To get as close to the truth as I can. Everyone else must do what they can with what they have.
I can (I hope) give objective justifications for most of what I believe. I think that I really am right about certain things. What I don't think is that there is some special reason why I'm more likely to be right than anyone else of comparable knowledge, intelligence and virtue. That is, I'll happily argue with you on specifics, such as that on objective grounds that my ecclesiology is better (more rational, more moral) than yours - but I can't properly maintain a general argument that all my opinions are true and yours false, and I don't seek to. You are right that there is no objective defence for "my opinions" just because they are mine.
But even so, I have to work on the basis that what seems to me to be solidly establshed is true, because I have nothing better than my own judgement to go on.
Posted by fletcher christian (# 13919) on
:
posted by LSK:
quote:
I also don't think El Greco's use of the expression "made up" applies suitably to artistic creations (El Greco described fictional literature as "made up"). Possibly this is a failure on El Greco's part to grasp the connotations of the expression in English. Literature encapsulates authentic human experience and both expresses and represents real human experience - both interior and exterior - along a continuum of artistic expression ranging from more or less literal representations to more highly symbolic, allegorical ones. Characterising such creations as "made up" is quite missing the point; likewise the characterisation doesn't fit appropriately with religious systems.
I wonder though, if this is a common experience for many Orthodox. Recently I read some of the work of Fr Sophrony . He uses religious language and symbolism to get to the heart of the spiritual experience in a very powerful way, but blends metaphor and symbol with fairly straight forward descriptions in such a way as to confuse the reader. Now, for me it was a positive experience - a sense of the Divine light being reflected through their thoughts and actions, but if you read it all in a very black and white way and took everything they said literally, it could be very confusing. I've read other Orthodox Saints who employ the same style of writing - once I get my head in that particular 'mode' I find it very rewarding reading, but I can see why some might take it all literally and end up really quite confused.
I'm sure some Ortho will come along and tell me I've been reading it all wrong
[ 17. February 2010, 13:57: Message edited by: fletcher christian ]
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
Eliab:
Posted by El Greco (# 9313) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Eliab:
But even so, I have to work on the basis that what seems to me to be solidly establshed is true, because I have nothing better than my own judgement to go on.
I think this lies at the core of the problem. Others have expressed similar sentiments.
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.
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.
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.
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by El Greco:
my questions have to do with its truth rather than its practicality.
That's your problem - you're looking for absolute truth and therefore rejecting anything and everything that can't be proved.
Is there any room in your thinking for something to be "probably true", or even "almost certainly true"? Both of those leave open the possibility that the thing believed isn't actually true, but that doesn't mean said thing is therefore "made up".
Posted by fletcher christian (# 13919) on
:
Maybe faith isn't meant to be 'logical' - it's certainly a stumbling block to the Greek
But joking aside, there is a long history of rejection of the pursuit of absolute truth (Carmelites for example), and not only in Christianity.
Posted by El Greco (# 9313) on
:
Marvin, again, one might see Christianity as "more plausible" than Islam, but another might see Islam as "more plausible" than Christianity. What makes your sense of what's more plausible special?
It seems to boil down to there is nothing that makes one's sense of truth more special than another's, yet some people make choices as if that were true!
fletcher christians, it seems to me that the Greeks were right all along. Christianity's claims are not true.
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by El Greco:
Regarding making things up:
If you take centuries of Christian theology into account, you will see prominent theologians teaching from the pulpit their conjecture as God's Truth. This is what I mean when I say they made stuff up.
It's not as if they said "I speculate that we should make the sign of the cross with three fingers" or that "pain and death entered the world when man sinned" or that "baptism is essential for salvation" or that Christ is uncreated or created or whatever.
Instead of admitting they speculated, they spoke as if their speculation was God's Truth.
Really? All of them do that, huh? Every single one of them?
Like, for example, this quote:
“But some may say I have mistaken the way myself, although I take upon me to teach it to others. It is probably many will think this; and it is very possible that I have. But I trust, whereinsoever I have mistaken, my mind is open to conviction. I sincerely desire to be better informed. I say to God and man, ‘What I know not, teach thou me.’” –John Wesley, Sermons on Several Occasions
quote:
Originally posted by El Greco:
And then, we get a second serious mistake:
When those theologians and the believers that followed them opposed each other, they rejected the other person's (or theological school's) speculation as speculation, but they didn't put their own speculation to the same test.
This is what we see in this very thread, when the conservatives debate with the liberals. "You are wrong, because of reasons A, B and C" (all valid reasons, by the way!), "No, you are wrong, because of reasons a, b and c" (valid reasons as well).
Instead of both sides dropping their opinions, they merely fight with each other as to who is right.
And when I intervene and point that they already reject the other's views as speculation and they don't accept it as truth, and ask why their opinions aren't speculation that isn't truth as well, I get responses like "we don't know what truth is", "we have faith in our opinions", "our opinions sound OK to us" and "let's talk about philosophy".
Certainly I can't argue that that does happen and has happened. People can be jerks, including Christians. However, that's not the whole story. You are way over-generalizing. And your depiction of what has occurred or been said on this thread simply isn't accurate. It's not what I said, it's not what anyone said. It's what you decided from day 1 we were going to say when you set up the OP.
Posted by El Greco (# 9313) on
:
Dear cliffdweller
I have re-read all your posts in this thread.
The way I see it, your posts fall under three categories: The "all do it" category, the "I have answered your question" category, and the bizarre "your empiricism is as unfounded as our faith" category.
First of all let me repeat that I am not propounding a theology alternative to yours. I'm not an empiricist either.
Secondly, you said that there is no way out of it. Yes there is. By not accepting it, one solves the issue without actually falling in the same error. I have said that already many times, but you have not taken this thought into account.
What I want to emphasize is that "the others do it as well" is no argument in favor of the truth of one's beliefs, which is what I asked. Which is why I say you have not answered my question.
My question is not "set up" to elicit a specific answer. If you had a reason as to why your beliefs are not as far from truth as the other person's across the street of religion, then you would have given an answer to my question. It happens that you don't have one. That's not the question's fault.
P.S. Wesley's comment is not as open-minded as you assume. He presumes that a personal God exists in the first place ("I say to God... teach thou me"), so he does not put everything into question. But since he was so eager to have a honest discussion, I would tell him the same things I say to you here, were he to be alive in our days.
[ 17. February 2010, 21:49: Message edited by: El Greco ]
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by El Greco:
Marvin, again, one might see Christianity as "more plausible" than Islam, but another might see Islam as "more plausible" than Christianity. What makes your sense of what's more plausible special?
Who says that's the case? "special"? Who said that? Or is that something you drew from someplace unmentionable?
Maybe you don't understand what "faith" means. It doesn't mean I think my sense of what's more plausible is special, or, especially, more special that some random muslim. No wonder you don't understand us.
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by El Greco:
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.
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.
If you think you have let go of speculation altogether, you are absolutely, supremely kidding yourself.
Posted by El Greco (# 9313) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
Maybe you don't understand what "faith" means. It doesn't mean I think my sense of what's more plausible is special, or, especially, more special that some random muslim.
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.
It's interesting that you feel OK with saying I don't understand faith, even though I was a person of faith for almost all my life. You prefer to say I might not understand faith, rather than criticizing the randomness of it all!
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
If you think you have let go of speculation altogether, you are absolutely, supremely kidding yourself.
I abandoned Christian speculation. What's wrong with you people? Why do you need to turn discussion away from the particular subject and speak about general philosophical issues?
Since you want to talk about general philosophical issues, I'll say that I let go of speculation posing as truth, not of speculation altogether. You guys keep missing the point I make about imagination posing as truth (or making claims of truth), rather than what it actually is.
I wouldn't have a question to raise here if your holy texts and services and teachings said "we speculate that a personal God exists", "we speculate that Christ made a sacrifice on the Cross", instead of assuming it's the truth because your creative imagination says so!
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on
:
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.
No, that would be the whole "because we find it to be more plausible" thing.
quote:
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.
Again with the "all-or-nothing"s. Adknowledging the possibility of error is not the same as saying all faiths are as arbitrary as each other. And believing in the faith one considers to be the most plausible does not equal a random choice.
And, most importantly, saying that something may not be true does not mean it's definitely false!
quote:
I was a person of faith for almost all my life.
No you weren't. You were always a person of certainty. That's why you dumped the whole religion as soon as you discovered something that cast doubts upon it.
Faith is when you choose to believe something without proof. You know, like what all of us are doing with our decision to believe in Christ even though we freely adknowledge that we may be wrong.
quote:
I wouldn't have a question to raise here if your holy texts and services and teachings said "we speculate that a personal God exists", "we speculate that Christ made a sacrifice on the Cross", instead of assuming it's the truth because your creative imagination says so!
Funny, because every creed I've ever said starts with the words "we believe...". As opposed to, say, "we know..." or "it is true that..."
Until you can grasp the difference between someone saying "I believe that a personal God exists" and "I know that a personal God exists", you're not going to grasp what faith is about.
Posted by El Greco (# 9313) on
:
Marvin, your answers are begging the question.
Why do you believe this?
Because we have faith.
Why do you have faith?
Because we think it's the most plausible.
Why do you think it's the most plausible?
Because we have faith.
And so on. Ad infinitum.
The question is why choose one over another. It doesn't matter if you are certain or if you think it's more plausible. The question is still why you make that choice when there are other people who make other choices. What makes the criteria you use more special than theirs?
If they aren't special, why aren't you dropping your beliefs then just like you don't accept theirs?
The way this discussion unfolded it boils down to "it's illogical and I don't care". Are your criteria for choosing special? No. Then why on earth do you use them to make choices as to what the truth is?
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by El Greco:
The question is why choose one over another. It doesn't matter if you are certain or if you think it's more plausible. The question is still why you make that choice when there are other people who make other choices. What makes the criteria you use more special than theirs?
The reason I make that choice is because I am satisfied that it's the most plausible. Others think otherwise, and fair play to them.
Nothing makes my criteria any better than theirs. But my criteria still exist! I'm not going to suddenly stop thinking they're important just because someone else thinks differently!
quote:
If they aren't special, why aren't you dropping your beliefs then just like you don't accept theirs?
Because even though the criteria I'm using aren't special, they still exist.
quote:
The way this discussion unfolded it boils down to "it's illogical and I don't care".
That's part of what faith is.
quote:
Are your criteria for choosing special? No. Then why on earth do you use them to make choices as to what the truth is?
Because we've got to use something.
Posted by El Greco (# 9313) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by El Greco:
The way this discussion unfolded it boils down to "it's illogical and I don't care".
That's part of what faith is.
This is very sad Marvin. It wasn't always so. Ancient Christians thought their faith and their reasons for believing were reasonable. They wrote volumes defending their reasons for believing, and now we have come to this!
My astonishment comes from realizing that this is indeed where modernity leaves Christian faith. This way of thinking hadn't reached me till recently, because Orthodox theology is of a world that hasn't engaged with modernity. I wouldn't be a believer in the first place if I thought in those terms.
You know, you don't have to make claims about messiahs, holy ghosts and the condemnation in hell. I have been consistent in this thread that you don't have to make claims about metaphysics. And not making a claim is not a claim in itself. You still don't take that into account.
So, to sum up: you don't have to make claims about God, it's an error of logic to confuse between speculation about God and truth about God, and if your choice (and the criteria for that choice) of religious conviction isn't more special than other people's choices, then this choice is irrational even if it makes you feel good, or if it feels plausible or even reasonable. It is this irrationality that concerns me.
[ 18. February 2010, 11:40: Message edited by: El Greco ]
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by El Greco:
You know, you don't have to make claims about messiahs, holy ghosts and the condemnation in hell.
Yes you do. Even if that claim is "they don't exist".
quote:
I have been consistent in this thread that you don't have to make claims about metaphysics.
Yes you do. Anything you say you believe about them is such a claim.
quote:
And not making a claim is not a claim in itself. You still don't take that into account.
That's because every possible belief - including the belief that nothing about it is true - is such a claim.
quote:
So, to sum up: you don't have to make claims about God,
Yes you do. Even if you say "I don't care about it", you're applying your own criteria to the issue and reaching a conclusion by the same method that everyone who decides they do care about it uses.
quote:
it's an error of logic to confuse between speculation about God and truth about God,
Indeed. However, it's you who is making that error on this thread.
quote:
and if your choice (and the criteria for that choice) of religious conviction isn't more special than other people's choices, then this choice is irrational even if it makes you feel good, or if it feels plausible or even reasonable. It is this irrationality that concerns me.
The choice is not irrational for one very good reason: it's the choice that you have made. It doesn't have to be scientifically provable. It doesn't have to be absolute cast-iron Truth.
The thing is, something must be true. You're saying that unless you can be absolutely sure that what you believe is that truth you shouldn't believe it, but I'm saying that as long as you can be reasonably confident that it's closer to the truth than the other options you've been presented with it's worth believing.
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by El Greco:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
If you think you have let go of speculation altogether, you are absolutely, supremely kidding yourself.
I abandoned Christian speculation. What's wrong with you people? Why do you need to turn discussion away from the particular subject and speak about general philosophical issues?
Because, you appear to be attempting to criticise Christianity as an option. With an argument that is no more relevant to Christianity than it is to any other worldview. Whether the set of assumptions you operate on are given a label of 'religion' is not relevant, BECAUSE of the way you have presented your argument. You didn't attempt to undermine the actual beliefs, but the whole reasoning process that underpins them. That IS a general issue. If you didn't want to get into that level of abstraction, you shouldn't have pitched your argument at that level of abstraction in the first place.
Comparison is a perfectly valid arguing technique. I actually find it bizarrely amusing that you keep objecting to it. It's a very effective way of saying 'so what'?
It's no different to my current frustration with a news story circulating in Australia at the moment. 4 people have died installing roof insulation in the period since a government rebate came into operation - let's say it's been 6 months for the sake of simplicity, although I'm pretty sure it's been longer than that. Now, what is very hard to find out is how many people died BEFORE that.
If over the past decade an average 15 people a year have died installing insulation, then in my view it would be ridiculous to blame the government rebate for the recent deaths. You, on the other hand, would stand there bleating over and over that 4 people had died in the last 6 months, and refuse to make a comparison with anything else.
quote:
Since you want to talk about general philosophical issues, I'll say that I let go of speculation posing as truth, not of speculation altogether. You guys keep missing the point I make about imagination posing as truth (or making claims of truth), rather than what it actually is.
And you keep missing the point that people with ANY sort of worldview use language in precisely the same way. People do NOT go around prefacing every single sentence with 'I think', 'In my opinion', 'I speculate' etc etc etc!
You notice it with Christianity precisely because it isn't your set of beliefs. I notice exactly the same thing with sets of beliefs I don't believe in... and I don't particularly notice it when people are expressing beliefs consonant with my own.
This is simply the way the human brain is wired. It's in our nature to be aware of difference. So really, your entire thread is a giant version of "excuse me, but I don't share that opinion".
Which is fine, if only you would acknowledge that it works both ways.
Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Dave Marshall:
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
though all worldviews rest on a leap of faith, we can still argue about which leap of faith is better.
While El Greco doesn't seem able explain why he disagrees with you, I suspect he has a point that you and others are missing.
Going back to my earlier post about the reliability of the physical universe, unless you're contesting that, the leap of faith required to adopt what I'd call critical realism (belief that the physical universe is in fact real but that our understanding of it must always be open to criticism) is so trivial as to be no leap at all. That 'faith' is simply the baseline for what being human is. Not making it would leave us mindlessly sub-human.
Apologies for not replying earlier.
I think I would say "necessary" rather than trivial. It's non-trivial in that it needs to be acknowledged, so that we can see the consequences of making it.
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.
Posted by Leaf (# 14169) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by El Greco:
This is very sad Marvin. It wasn't always so.
Actually it is very sad. Liberal Christians have just had to deal with this sadness a lot longer than you have, and with more company.
A famous Victorian poem, "Dover Beach", remarks on the retreating tide of faith:
The Sea of Faith
Was once, too, at the full, and round earth's shore
Lay like the folds of a bright girdle furl'd.
But now I only hear
Its melancholy, long, withdrawing roar...
(Rest of poem here.)
"On the Origin of Species" was published 150 years ago, and yet there are Christians in England. They have had to cope with these ideas a lot longer than you have, and have been able to reconcile faith and science.
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
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.
Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on
:
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.
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
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.
Posted by El Greco (# 9313) on
:
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.
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
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 ]
Posted by El Greco (# 9313) on
:
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.
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
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.
Posted by El Greco (# 9313) on
:
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 ]
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
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.
Posted by El Greco (# 9313) on
:
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 ]
Posted by Leaf (# 14169) on
:
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?
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
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.
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
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!
Posted by The Revolutionist (# 4578) on
:
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.
Posted by Eliab (# 9153) on
:
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.
Posted by David Matthias (# 14948) on
:
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.
Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on
:
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.
Posted by David Matthias (# 14948) on
:
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.
Posted by Dave Marshall (# 7533) on
:
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.
Posted by El Greco (# 9313) on
:
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.
Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on
:
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.
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
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 ]
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
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.
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
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".
Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on
:
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.
Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on
:
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.
Posted by El Greco (# 9313) on
:
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!
Posted by The Revolutionist (# 4578) on
:
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.
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
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.
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
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.
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
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.
Posted by Russ (# 120) on
:
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
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
Addendum to previous post of mine:
If we had perfect rationality, we wouldn't NEED discussion forums.
Posted by Leaf (# 14169) on
:
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
Posted by El Greco (# 9313) on
:
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.
Posted by fletcher christian (# 13919) on
:
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?
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
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.
Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on
:
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.
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
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....
Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on
:
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.
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
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.
Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on
:
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).
Posted by QLib (# 43) on
:
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.
Posted by Fuzzipeg (# 10107) on
:
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 ]
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on
:
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.
Posted by Jengie Jon (# 273) on
:
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
Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on
:
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.
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
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.
Posted by QLib (# 43) on
:
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.
Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on
:
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.
© Ship of Fools 2016
UBB.classicTM
6.5.0