|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: You're false. I'm true.
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
That only holds if your faith has no effect whatsoever on anyone who doesn't share it. If it has a negative effect on someone else, it's reasonable to require a more robust justification than "because I believe it".
The truth is that large parts of the discussion about our lives, society, culture, business etc. does not have a "more robust justification" in the ultimate sense. "Because I believe it" is pretty much par for the course for the foundation of arguments between political "liberals" and "conservatives", and for most other fault lines in society, really. In truth, we rarely if ever operate on the level of first principles, and for good reasons: neither are our first principles fully clear to us normally, nor are they shared by all, nor can we typically convince the other side of our first principles by argument. We can all produce plenty of argument if need be, but most of that is sophistry, not philosophy. After all, politics exists. It would not exist if we all agreed on first principles and were led by rational argument based on these.
So you feel entirely within your rights to assert your quasi-conservative positions, without trying to argue everything from first principles. Rather, like everybody, you are quite happy to produce sufficient sophistry to push society in the direction that you see fit. Well, people approaching this from a religious angle do not need to do more. I really think that there is a double standard there. In fact, religiously motivated "political sophistry" typically contains more, not less, foundational first principle argument than other "political sophistry". By the measure of typical debates in our societies, it is typically already more honest and less obscure about its sources.
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
But in real life it never seems to stay as just a philosophical difference of opinion. Inevitably, Person A will seek to ban the use of sugar in tea for all people. And that is where the fact that they've got no good reason to do so other than their belief comes into play.
But if you try to impose for example what you believe about the economy and the distribution of goods and jobs in society, that is different? Because you have "good reasons"? Well, news flash, a lot of people think that your reasons there are no good at all. Nevertheless, you try (within your rather limited means) to push your agenda. And others try to push theirs. And nobody is able to produce "good reasons" that will satisfy the opposing sides, which is demonstrated by the simple fact that there are opposing sides.
The truth is that society, culture, morals, the economy and whatnot is largely up for grabs. And no, we do not have a good rule either for the extent to which they are up for grabs. That's also up for grabs. Neither are we sure about the precise mechanisms that we allow for grabbing. That's also up for grabs. Largely, this whole thing is like a rugby scrum, except with dozens of sides rather than two. The reason why it is more or less "stable" is simply because much of the effort going one way is counter-acted by effort going another way. The idea however that this is perfectly static, or that lots of it is based on rational decision making, is delusional. It is drifting that way or this, slowly, and wherever we happen to be at the moment, that people consider as "normal" and indeed "rational".
--------------------
They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear
Posts: 12010 | From: Gone fishing | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
IngoB,
ISTM politicians spend a great deal of time justifying their approach to policy. The RCC oft say no more than "because we've always done it this way."
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
Which serpent would that be? I saw a corn snake at the zoo yesterday, will that do? ![[Confused]](confused.gif)
The devil. Is he not referred to as a serpent?
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
ISTM politicians spend a great deal of time justifying their approach to policy. The RCC oft say no more than "because we've always done it this way."
Nonsense! The RCC produces truckloads of justifying argument on nearly everything she ever says, indeed, often so at multiple levels of hierarchy and across many centuries. Knowing what the RCC says on anything generally suffers from the opposite problem: the sheer volume and historical depth of available text means few people can be bothered finding and working through it all to get the complete picture. There are indeed some instances where the RCC explicitly limits herself to doing what she has always done. But that's precisely not a stupid maintenance of status quo, but rather a conscious and argued acceptance that certain things are beyond her own authority to change. (And that's invariably on Church-internal matters, which really should not be discussed in the same breath as matters that concern the society at large.)
--------------------
They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear
Posts: 12010 | From: Gone fishing | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
While the oft might be argued, the charge is not nonsense. Women priests and foot washing are two examples.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
The truth is that large parts of the discussion about our lives, society, culture, business etc. does not have a "more robust justification" in the ultimate sense.
Indeed. That's why I favour a minarchist political system that allows each person to live their life the way they choose with the sole exception that they not cause direct harm to anyone else. Simply put, I remove the need for justification by removing the impositions on others that would need justifying in the first place.
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
While the oft might be argued, the charge is not nonsense. Women priests and foot washing are two examples.
The charge is nonsense. You manage to drag up two examples, and you will be hard pressed to drag up more. Furthermore, the first of these has already been covered above, it is precisely not a simplistic maintenance of the status quo. And of course there is a lot of additional argument to be had about female ordinations from Catholics, e.g., from Catholic theologians. It's just that the Magisterium has not committed to any one explanation beyond that they do not have the authority to establish this. That leaves foot washing, which simply is not a major concern. No really, it isn't. It's an optional liturgical rite, which simply had been arranged in historical accordance with the most likely reading of scripture. And this has been de facto changed without much further ado (indeed, arguably with too little formal ado) by Pope Francis. So this turns out to have been largely a matter of aesthetic / symbolic preference in the liturgy. This is hardly the kind of stuff that concerns the wider non-Catholic society.
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
Indeed. That's why I favour a minarchist political system that allows each person to live their life the way they choose with the sole exception that they not cause direct harm to anyone else. Simply put, I remove the need for justification by removing the impositions on others that would need justifying in the first place.
Fine, but we do not need to discuss your romantic-anarchic political ideals any further. For the purposes of this thread, we note that the suggestion that people need to keep their religious opinions isolated from their social and political concerns establishes a double standard and hence can be rejected outright.
--------------------
They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear
Posts: 12010 | From: Gone fishing | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Russ
Old salt
# 120
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
[QUOTE]
The truth is that society, culture, morals, the economy and whatnot is largely up for grabs. And no, we do not have a good rule either for the extent to which they are up for grabs. That's also up for grabs. Neither are we sure about the precise mechanisms that we allow for grabbing. That's also up for grabs
Great para, IngoB.
But given how true this is, some of us find it very hard to see any sound basis for declaring that gender roles (or indeed the functions of different Church officials) should be placed in the "definitely not up for grabs" category.
Leading to the strong suspicion that the principle at work here is simple conservatism.
But perhaps that's for another thread. This one is supposed to be about whether dissing other religions is hypocrisy.
And it seems to me that you've given only half the answer; that simply believing that one's own religion is better is not hypocritical.
The other half is that hypocrisy [b]is[\b] involved when one criticises or condemns otheror imply for adherence to their less-good or less-true religion without being able to make a clear case that their decision-process is in some way at fault in a way that one's own is not.
Best wishes,
Russ
--------------------
Wish everyone well; the enemy is not people, the enemy is wrong ideas
Posts: 3169 | From: rural Ireland | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
But given how true this is, some of us find it very hard to see any sound basis for declaring that gender roles (or indeed the functions of different Church officials) should be placed in the "definitely not up for grabs" category. Leading to the strong suspicion that the principle at work here is simple conservatism.
If the Church was a merely a human institution, you would have a point. Or perhaps I should say, where the Church has become a merely human institution, you do not only have a point, but the clear evidence of history on your side. But I'm not particularly interested in the shenanigans of such awkward religious social clubs.
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
But perhaps that's for another thread. This one is supposed to be about whether dissing other religions is hypocrisy. And it seems to me that you've given only half the answer; that simply believing that one's own religion is better is not hypocritical. The other half is that hypocrisy is involved when one criticises or condemns other or imply for adherence to their less-good or less-true religion without being able to make a clear case that their decision-process is in some way at fault in a way that one's own is not.
No, that's not hypocritical at all. Neither in the correct sense of the term "hypocrisy" (pretending to have virtues, beliefs and principles one does not have), nor in the common but wrong sense of "not practicing what one preaches". If I criticise Islam on points where I consider it to be wrong, I'm simply following the beliefs and principles that I actually have. And indeed, as far as this is intended to move society (or particular Muslims) towards my Christian convictions in a practical sense, I'm clearly practising what I preach (namely the necessity to bring all people to Christ). There is no hint of hypocrisy in that.
I think you are simply projecting your confusion about faith and certainty here. I would be hypocritical if I claimed that I have better arguments for my religion when in fact I know that I do not (proper hypocrisy), or when I claim that I have them but am unwilling to actually engage in argument with anybody ("not practicing what one preaches" misunderstanding of hypocrisy). The fact that I have no arguments at all for some of my faith does not mean that I cannot criticise others for disagreeing. It simply means that I cannot criticise them on account of not following my arguments (that I do not have and/or do not present). Rather, I can criticise them only for making a wrong decision: their will, rather than their intellect, failed - as far as I am concerned.
Note that it does not matter that I know, and readily admit, that I could be wrong and they could be right. The key point is that I believe that I am right. I do not have "specific doubts" on what I think is correct, I only have "general doubts" on my ability to get things right. Still, I cannot deny what I actually think is right. I may evaluate the error I believe others are making more kindly, given that I can see myself making similar errors. But I cannot disbelieve what I actually believe, I cannot deny my faith hence I cannot but reject the opinions of those who oppose it.
--------------------
They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear
Posts: 12010 | From: Gone fishing | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Yorick
Infinite Jester
# 12169
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
The fact that I have no arguments at all for some of my faith does not mean that I cannot criticise others for disagreeing... Rather, I can criticise them only for making a wrong decision: their will, rather than their intellect, failed - as far as I am concerned...
Note that it does not matter that I know, and readily admit, that I could be wrong and they could be right. The key point is that I believe that I am right... I cannot disbelieve what I actually believe, I cannot deny my faith hence I cannot but reject the opinions of those who oppose it.
[my emphasis]
Again, you qualify your position with "as far as I am concerned". This is absolutely seminal to the discussion here. I have no dispute with your argument above (though I'm interested to know how you would diagnose yourself as unaffected by secondary psychotic delusion, per Jasper) but you seem to have failed to address the key issue that EVERYONE is in the same position as you- and that many of them think you are wrong as far as they are concerned.
I know you're entirely disinterested in anyone else's concerns, but how do you suppose a neutral observer might determine which opposing position represents the exclusive truth when they both believe they are right? They cannot both be right, so both of their beliefs that they are must be wrong.
--------------------
این نیز بگذرد
Posts: 7574 | From: Natural Sources | Registered: Dec 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Yorick:
They cannot both be right, so both of their beliefs that they are must be wrong.
You say their beliefs that they are right must both be wrong.
IngoB says only one of them need to be wrong.
You cannot both be right.
Therefore, if you're right you must both be wrong, in which case you're wrong. If IngoB is right, then only you are wrong.
Either way, when you say, 'so both of their beliefs that they are must be wrong', you must be wrong.
--------------------
we remain, thanks to original sin, much in love with talking about, rather than with, one another. Rowan Williams
Posts: 10567 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Yorick
Infinite Jester
# 12169
|
Posted
Dafyd, it isn't a question of belief on my part. It's logic, isn't it?
--------------------
این نیز بگذرد
Posts: 7574 | From: Natural Sources | Registered: Dec 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Yorick
Infinite Jester
# 12169
|
Posted
Logical NAND
Person A: I believe x not y.
Person B: I believe y not x.
Person C: You cannot both be right, so the belief that you are is equally unsound in both your cases.
--------------------
این نیز بگذرد
Posts: 7574 | From: Natural Sources | Registered: Dec 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mark Betts
Ship's Navigation Light
# 17074
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Yorick:
...I know you're entirely disinterested in anyone else's concerns, but how do you suppose a neutral observer might determine which opposing position represents the exclusive truth when they both believe they are right? They cannot both be right, so both of their beliefs that they are must be wrong.
Supposing we were living in the time before the world had ever been circumnavigated - I may believe that the earth is round, whereas an acquaintance of mine believes it is flat. It hasn't been proved either way, but never-the-less I am adamant that I am right and my friend is wrong. He likewise - no, we'll say "she" just to stretch the point - is equally insistent that she is right and I am wrong.
Now, in our own time, we know that it would be wrong to say that we must both be wrong. In fact, one of us did hold the exclusive truth all along - me! ![[Smile]](smile.gif)
So whilst myself and my female acquaintance cannot both be right, one of us can be.
So why can't the same be true for religion? ...or am I missing something?
--------------------
"We are not some casual and meaningless product of evolution. Each of us is the result of a thought of God. Each of us is willed, each of us is loved, each of us is necessary."
Posts: 2080 | From: Leicester | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Yorick
Infinite Jester
# 12169
|
Posted
Yes, you are missing something. This isn't actually about who is right and who is wrong, but the equality of the basis on which their claims are made for exclusive truth.
In a case of opposing exclusive truth beliefs, I'm not suggesting that both parties must necessarily be wrong, but that their basis for claiming to be right (i.e., that both they believe they are) is equally unsound because they cannot both be.
In other words, merely believing you're right cannot speak to the truth, and to refute the truth claim of one is to refute the truth claims of all.
--------------------
این نیز بگذرد
Posts: 7574 | From: Natural Sources | Registered: Dec 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mark Betts
Ship's Navigation Light
# 17074
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Yorick:
Yes, you are missing something. This isn't actually about who is right and who is wrong, but the equality of the basis on which their claims are made for exclusive truth.
In a case of opposing exclusive truth beliefs, I'm not suggesting that both parties must necessarily be wrong, but that their basis for claiming to be right (i.e., that both they believe they are) is equally unsound because they cannot both be.
In other words, merely believing you're right cannot speak to the truth, and to refute the truth claim of one is to refute the truth claims of all.
So, in a nutshell, what this is really all about is that you are saying that no-one can say anything is exclusively "true" unless they have "empirical evidence" to back it up - am I right?
*note to self* even so-called "empirical evidence", as impressive as the name sounds, can be misleading and subsequently proved to be wrong.
--------------------
"We are not some casual and meaningless product of evolution. Each of us is the result of a thought of God. Each of us is willed, each of us is loved, each of us is necessary."
Posts: 2080 | From: Leicester | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
EtymologicalEvangelical
Shipmate
# 15091
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Yorick
In other words, merely believing you're right cannot speak to the truth, and to refute the truth claim of one is to refute the truth claims of all.
What do you mean by merely believing?
What is it, and who does it?
Please explain.
--------------------
You can argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome': but you neither can nor need argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome, but I'm not saying this is true'. CS Lewis
Posts: 3625 | From: South Coast of England | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Desert Daughter
Shipmate
# 13635
|
Posted
I'm with Yorick. Great post.
![[Overused]](graemlins/notworthy.gif)
On another, but related note, I personally do not think that the spiritual realm (to use a wide and intentionally woolly term) underlies the same binary true/not true distinction as, for example, the question of our planet being flat or more or less globe-shaped.
(/mounting my hobby horse/) there is a lot we can learn from Vedanta philosophy, which in some instances works with the notion of "neti-neti" (tr. not this - not that) (/dismounting hobby horse/)
Anyway, what Ingo is saying is just the same as Martin Luther: "Here I stand, I cannot do any differently". He argues from his truths, and it is up to us to buy into them or not.
In the end, he is not interested in dialogue, only in professing his truth. Fair enough for a Christian forum, all right if you want to see neo-scholasticism at work, but not so fertile if you want dialogue.
Posts: 733 | Registered: Apr 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Yorick:
(though I'm interested to know how you would diagnose yourself as unaffected by secondary psychotic delusion, per Jasper)
Really? ![[Disappointed]](graemlins/disappointed.gif) You are just dragging down the debate. Psychology has a role in helping people that acutely suffer, or acutely inflict suffering on others. There the notorious imprecision and necessity for subjective judgements on part of the practitioner, that plague all clinical and forensic psychology, play less of a role. What psychology can offer then is generally still better than what "common sense" would suggest as course of action, and there is an immediate need for action in such cases. But using psychology as a rhetorical tool in religious debates is a really bad idea. In particular given that the judgement to be mentally ill can have severe consequences for the freedoms that society grants. If you want to play that game, I can of course argue that your atheism is a combination of severe cognitive, emotional and social failures, a cluster of correlated mental impediments that are probably loosely related to autism and paranoia. Do you really want to go down that path? I do not.
quote:
Originally posted by Yorick:
but you seem to have failed to address the key issue that EVERYONE is in the same position as you- and that many of them think you are wrong as far as they are concerned.
No, I haven't failed to address that at all. I take it as a given that most people who disagree with me on religious manners do so in a "honest" manner. Indeed, my very point has been that we are all in our rights to consider each other wrong.
quote:
Originally posted by Yorick:
I know you're entirely disinterested in anyone else's concerns, but how do you suppose a neutral observer might determine which opposing position represents the exclusive truth when they both believe they are right? They cannot both be right, so both of their beliefs that they are must be wrong.
I'm entirely disinterested in your approval of my position, unless I need to combat you to maintain my freedoms (see above). That does not mean that I'm disinterested in other people's concerns in general. The case for classical theism is intellectually watertight. I'm serious about that. You can know that God exists, based on the observation of nature. Once you accept that, then we can elevate the debate to a different level. We cannot discuss the differences between Isalm, Hinduism and Christianity in precisely the same way.
quote:
Originally posted by Yorick:
Logical NAND
Person A: I believe x not y.
Person B: I believe y not x.
Person C: You cannot both be right, so the belief that you are is equally unsound in both your cases.
Frankly, your grasp of logic (Boolean and otherwise) is, well, unsound.
If X is true, but Y not, then A is correct and A's belief that he is correct is perfectly sound. B is then incorrect and unsound.
If Y is true, but X not, then B is correct and B's belief that he is correct is perfectly sound. A is then incorrect and unsound.
If neither X nor Y is true, or if both X and Y are true, then both A and B are (partly) incorrect and both A's and B's beliefs that they are (entirely) correct are consequently unsound.
C can make no further assertions about the A's or B's beliefs, unless C knows additional truth about X and/or Y. All C can say definitely without that information is that A and B cannot both be (entirely) correct and consequently cannot both be sound in believing in their own (perfect) correctness.
[ 10. April 2013, 10:17: Message edited by: IngoB ]
--------------------
They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear
Posts: 12010 | From: Gone fishing | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mark Betts
Ship's Navigation Light
# 17074
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Desert Daughter:
Anyway, what Ingo is saying is just the same as Martin Luther: "Here I stand, I cannot do any differently".
He'll love you! ![[Devil]](graemlins/devil.gif)
Anyway, even so, what's the point in one following anything if one doesn't believe it to be the truth. And if one does believe it to be the truth, it's only natural for one to proclaim that it is the truth, rather than all this legalistic jargon about it being true - to me - which just leads to repetitive paragraphs of the usual relativistic jargon and disclaimers.
--------------------
"We are not some casual and meaningless product of evolution. Each of us is the result of a thought of God. Each of us is willed, each of us is loved, each of us is necessary."
Posts: 2080 | From: Leicester | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Yorick
Infinite Jester
# 12169
|
Posted
IngoB, I'm sure you realise that I wasn't suggesting you are psychotically delusional, but just to be clear on this I absolutely do not think you are, and I sincerely apologise if you found my comment to be a personal attack. In fact, I was enquiring (somewhat rhetorically, I admit) about how you differentiate between your certitude that you are right about the truth of your worldview and secondary psychotic delusion, which seems pretty similar to me on the surface of it. I have no doubt that you can, but was simply wondering how.
But I agree, it's not a good line of enquiry, and I would like to apologise and leave it be if you'd be gracious enough to forgive my hamfistedness.
--------------------
این نیز بگذرد
Posts: 7574 | From: Natural Sources | Registered: Dec 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Yorick
Infinite Jester
# 12169
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
All C can say definitely without that information [additional truth about x and/or y] is that A and B cannot both be (entirely) correct and consequently cannot both be sound in believing in their own (perfect) correctness.
Well exactly!
Isn't that precisely what I've been saying?
--------------------
این نیز بگذرد
Posts: 7574 | From: Natural Sources | Registered: Dec 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Yorick:
Dafyd, it isn't a question of belief on my part. It's logic, isn't it?
You believe it's a question of logic; however, your attempt at logic is fallacious. You're confusing NAND and NOR.
Now my post, which you didn't directly address, was a question of logic. (If A then not A; therefore not A.)
Incidentally, as there's no way to distinguish between knowledge and belief from the inside, it's just not helpful to use 'belief' only for things that we don't know. Not using 'belief' for things you think you know leads to you thinking your beliefs are based on logic when the logic you're using is wrong.
--------------------
we remain, thanks to original sin, much in love with talking about, rather than with, one another. Rowan Williams
Posts: 10567 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mark Betts:
So, in a nutshell, what this is really all about is that you are saying that no-one can say anything is exclusively "true" unless they have "empirical evidence" to back it up - am I right?
As far as I'm concerned they can say their beliefs are exclusively true to their heart's content. Just so long as they don't try to force me to live as if I believe those things are true as well.
If someone believes that eating bacon is utterly wrong and claims that their belief is exclusively True, that's their prerogative and good luck to them. If, however, that belief leads them to seek to ban bacon from the entire country so that nobody can eat it, they can fuck off.
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Yorick:
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
All C can say definitely without that information [additional truth about x and/or y] is that A and B cannot both be (entirely) correct and consequently cannot both be sound in believing in their own (perfect) correctness.
Well exactly!
Isn't that precisely what I've been saying?
No, you've been saying that neither of them can have a sound belief. It may not be what you've been meaning to say, but there it is...
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Yorick:
In a case of opposing exclusive truth beliefs, I'm not suggesting that both parties must necessarily be wrong, but that their basis for claiming to be right (i.e., that both they believe they are) is equally unsound because they cannot both be.
In other words, merely believing you're right cannot speak to the truth, and to refute the truth claim of one is to refute the truth claims of all.
You are simply confusing truth with proof there. A statement does not become true, because I can prove it true. A statement is true, hence I may be able to prove it true.
Obviously, my faith in something does not as such furnish proof to you (unless, as it happens, you have faith in me). But the absence of proof does not indicate the absence of truth. You cannot refute any truth claim based on that. You can merely reject that you are intellectually compelled by this claim.
Neither can you reject means, just because they are used in conflicting claims. If I say "X by Divine inspiration" and someone else says "not-X by Divine inspiration", it does not follow that Divine inspiration as such is invalid. It could just as well be that the claim to have Divine inspiration was false for whatever turns out to be the wrong claim about X.
Your whole attitude here is simply mistaken. The game that you want to play is one of the basics. Sure, we can do that. We can argue about God's existence etc. But the actual game between religions is different. We are just not having the sort of discussions you would want us to have, because they are largely irrelevant to us. If I discuss with a Muslim, I do not have to argue the existence of God or for that matter the possibility of Divine inspiration. And the idea that you can turn our actual conflicts against us, to somehow disprove our claims about the basic stuff that you are busy with, is plain ignorant. Because we theists can agree quite easily that you are just plain wrong about some crucial basics, and that your concerns are of no particular relevance to the conflicts we are actually having among ourselves.
--------------------
They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear
Posts: 12010 | From: Gone fishing | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mark Betts
Ship's Navigation Light
# 17074
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
If someone believes that eating bacon is utterly wrong and claims that their belief is exclusively True, that's their prerogative and good luck to them. If, however, that belief leads them to seek to ban bacon from the entire country so that nobody can eat it, they can fuck off.
Ah, but recent news reports have stated that eating bacon is bad for you - it's no longer a belief, it is an exclusive truth, because there is empirical evidence to back it up.
Don't argue, the scientists say it is so.
--------------------
"We are not some casual and meaningless product of evolution. Each of us is the result of a thought of God. Each of us is willed, each of us is loved, each of us is necessary."
Posts: 2080 | From: Leicester | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
EtymologicalEvangelical
Shipmate
# 15091
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Desert Daughter
On another, but related note, I personally do not think that the spiritual realm (to use a wide and intentionally woolly term) underlies the same binary true/not true distinction as, for example, the question of our planet being flat or more or less globe-shaped.
I find it interesting that the opinion you have expressed here is not verified or supported by the kind of evidence that you think could confirm the truth of any claim, namely, empirical evidence. In other words, your view is self-refuting. There is no ("the earth is spheroid"-type) evidence that informs us that "spiritual claims lie outside the truth / falsehood distinction". Such a position cannot be observed, measured or repeated by means of the empirical scientific method. Therefore, according to your own reasoning, it cannot be verified, but "merely believed" as a blind leap of faith.
The same goes for Yorick's naturalism. This is a metaphysical position that lies outside empirical verification. He believes it, but there is not one scientific experiment that can verify it, and if there is, then I challenge any (philosophical) naturalist to show me what it is.
So everything that Yorick has said about so called 'religious' claims also applies to the philosophy of naturalism / materialism. These are all metaphysical claims, which cannot be verified empirically. But that is not to say that we cannot have any confidence in the truth of any of them. I say this, because the empirical method is necessarily limited. It must be, because it cannot verify itself by its own methodology. All our truth claims actually rely on logical inference, and we make assumptions about reality, without which science would be impossible (the existence of the external world and the uniformity of nature are just two examples). Therefore we can certainly make logical inferences, even in the absence of direct empirical evidence (in other words, we can validly infer the existence of unseen realities from the nature of what we can see).
Thus it is perfectly sound for someone to say that "my inference is more coherent than yours, and therefore I believe that my position is true and yours false". Science does it. Philosophy does it. And yes, religion can do it as well.
--------------------
You can argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome': but you neither can nor need argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome, but I'm not saying this is true'. CS Lewis
Posts: 3625 | From: South Coast of England | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mark Betts:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
If someone believes that eating bacon is utterly wrong and claims that their belief is exclusively True, that's their prerogative and good luck to them. If, however, that belief leads them to seek to ban bacon from the entire country so that nobody can eat it, they can fuck off.
Ah, but recent news reports have stated that eating bacon is bad for you - it's no longer a belief, it is an exclusive truth, because there is empirical evidence to back it up.
Don't argue, the scientists say it is so.
Frankly, they can still fuck off if they think I'm going to stop eating it just because they say so. And if I can affirm that stance in the face of empirical evidence, you can bet your back teeth I'll affirm it in the face of a mere belief.
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Yorick:
IngoB, I'm sure you realise that I wasn't suggesting you are psychotically delusional, but just to be clear on this I absolutely do not think you are, and I sincerely apologise if you found my comment to be a personal attack. In fact, I was enquiring (somewhat rhetorically, I admit) about how you differentiate between your certitude that you are right about the truth of your worldview and secondary psychotic delusion, which seems pretty similar to me on the surface of it. I have no doubt that you can, but was simply wondering how.
I think we have been through this before. But here's a simple analogy (not a perfect one, but it can illustrate some key points). You have been kidnapped with several other people and you are getting dumped by airlift in the middle of the desert with no supplies. You are told by your kidnappers that the desert is too large to escape in basically all directions, except for one, where if you start marching now and strain very hard, you may just make it to the edge of the desert, and thereby safety and help, before you die.
Well, you are not completely without evidence though. One of you suggests that the desert looks a bit less severe in one direction. Somebody else says that he managed to have a brief glance out the plane's windows and thinks that he just barely could see the edge of the desert in another direction. Again, somebody else says he watched the body language of the kidnappers closely when they explained the situation, and they did gave away in their gesturing that yet another direction is the most hopeful one. Etc.
What is the rational thing to do? First, you cannot keep on discussing endlessly. If you stay, you will die, and it appears that you must march soon and hard to make it. At some point you must decide what direction to go. Second, you cannot vacillate on the direction, at least not much. If you run first this way, then that way, you will die. There may be scope for some correction of your direction, in particular if additional evidence emerges as you walk along (that valley looks greener, somebody recognizes a feature of the landscape that they spotted from the plane, etc.). But by and large your best shot is to pick a direction and go. Third, if you split up in groups because of disagreement on direction, and latter along the walk meet again, it is valid to have a brief discussion again. Perhaps you can agree on a common direction now, perhaps one of you gained additional information that will sway the other. But until you reach the edge of the desert (or die), the same concerns as in the beginning always apply. There is only so much time you can spend on agreement, mostly you have to move decisively.
The point here is simple. There is no claim here that one knows the direction in which one has to go. It is not intellectual certainty on which the march is based. Not that there is no evidence and no argument at all, it is not entirely random. But everybody can admit quite freely that there is no way in which one can prove the other to be wrong in an inevitably compelling manner. Nevertheless, there is, or must be, a certainty of the will here. It is necessary - rationally necessary! - to make a decision based on what little evidence there is and then follow through on it. Unless serious new information comes in, to waver on the direction is to increase the chance of death. It is rational to walk hard in one direction, it is irrational to turn the remaining uncertainty of information into aimless wandering about.
Faith is not irrational. It is a rational response to a situation that has remaining uncertainty but requires decisive action. At that point will power is key. Give it your best possible evaluation, and then move on that without further hesitation. This is not "blind faith". Nobody said that you should ignore the evidence that you actually have. Indeed, nobody said that you cannot reconsider if new evidence comes in. But it is faith, not knowledge. It is a necessary operating principle of human life, as practically speaking we often lack the full picture, and it is fundamental to religion, because we cannot obtain full information there in this life.
Eternal life is not for the faint-hearted.
--------------------
They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear
Posts: 12010 | From: Gone fishing | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
Faith is not irrational. It is a rational response to a situation that has remaining uncertainty but requires decisive action.
But therein lies the problem, because the claim that the situation is one that requires urgent action is itself a matter of faith. There is no certainty about the need for action in the way that there is for a group stranded in the desert.
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
But therein lies the problem, because the claim that the situation is one that requires urgent action is itself a matter of faith. There is no certainty about the need for action in the way that there is for a group stranded in the desert.
Hmm, no. It is actually a certainty that we will die. In that sense we are all left in the desert. Of course, you can have the opinion that this life is all there is, and then can come to various conclusions based on this. But in terms of my analogy, this would be a direction (or a collection of roughly similar directions) that one could walk towards. And no, I don't think that people who think like this are not marching and staying put. If you really have considered your life properly with this assumption of finiteness and earthly limitation, then consequences arise that require decisive action. People that are refusing to walk, in my analogy, are rather the apathetics. It is when you actually refuse to consider your life, when you just do not think about it, that you avoid the pressure to make decisions about it. I think a good many atheists are really quite far from that. They are marching, and some of them with a single-minded determination that would put many a saint to shame. Just, in my opinion, in the wrong direction...
--------------------
They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear
Posts: 12010 | From: Gone fishing | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
People that are refusing to walk, in my analogy, are rather the apathetics.
Sure. But the point is, if it makes no difference whether you walk or not then there's no inherent reason why one shouldn't just get comfy and save oneself the effort.
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
kankucho
Shipmate
# 14318
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
You can know that God exists, based on the observation of nature. Once you accept that, then we can elevate the debate to a different level.
The only value I can glean from that statement is as an illustration of the thread title — particularly being directed, as it is, at Yorick.
Based on the observation of nature, you can be sure that nature exists. That's all. It is mere conjecture (let's be nice and call it belief) that nature can imply, or even prove, super-nature.
The side order of 'elevate your consciousness to my way of thinking' is totally uncalled for.
[ 10. April 2013, 13:55: Message edited by: kankucho ]
--------------------
"We are a way for the cosmos to know itself" – Dr. Carl Sagan
Kankucho Bird Blues
Posts: 1262 | From: Kuon-ganjo, E17 | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
Sure. But the point is, if it makes no difference whether you walk or not then there's no inherent reason why one shouldn't just get comfy and save oneself the effort.
If you believe that there is no difference, then that's just the direction in which you are going to be walking. "Getting comfy" is not a neutral activity. Again, the only people that are not really walking at all are those that do not even consider such questions.
quote:
Originally posted by kankucho:
Based on the observation of nature, you can be sure that nature exists. That's all. It is mere conjecture (let's be nice and call it belief) that nature can imply, or even prove, super-nature.
And you are just plain wrong. The sort of proof I'm talking about requires no faith whatsoever, it's pure metaphysics. It does require deriving conclusion from nature of a non-empirical type. It does require trusting reason to correctly operate in the abstract realm. If you want to call that "conjecture", fine. I call it reasonable realism. But then the rest simply holds true, it is a matter of philosophical demonstration. Super-nature is inferred from the strict impossibility of nature being sufficient to explain itself. This is not "a current lack of empirical data and theoretical analysis thereof", this has a similar character to mathematical proof.
quote:
Originally posted by kankucho:
The side order of 'elevate your consciousness to my way of thinking' is totally uncalled for.
This has nothing to do with any special claim about my mental abilities. It is a simple fact that the discussions between say a Christian and a Muslim operate on a different level than between an atheist and theist. It's a question of what is admitted and what not, by both sides, and what shared criteria of judgement exist. There simply is not much one can usefully talk about with an atheist. Arguments about say the necessity of the crucifixion given the state of the world simply remain pointless when there is not even an agreement that there could be such a thing as a Son of God.
--------------------
They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear
Posts: 12010 | From: Gone fishing | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Yorick
Infinite Jester
# 12169
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
Super-nature is inferred from the strict impossibility of nature being sufficient to explain itself. This is not "a current lack of empirical data and theoretical analysis thereof", this has a similar character to mathematical proof.
Sir Bedevere: ...and that, my liege, is how we know the Earth to be banana shaped.
King Arthur: This new learning amazes me, Sir Bedevere. Explain again how sheep's bladders may be employed to prevent earthquakes.
--------------------
این نیز بگذرد
Posts: 7574 | From: Natural Sources | Registered: Dec 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Yorick:
Sir Bedevere: ...and that, my liege, is how we know the Earth to be banana shaped.
King Arthur: This new learning amazes me, Sir Bedevere. Explain again how sheep's bladders may be employed to prevent earthquakes.
Again, really? Such clueless mockery convinces me of just one thing: you are not worth talking to. Not because you hold a contrary opinion, but because of the way in which you are holding it.
Anyway, for those who are interested, here's a rather nice video presentation by Dr Edward Feser of one such metaphysical proof.
--------------------
They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear
Posts: 12010 | From: Gone fishing | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Yorick
Infinite Jester
# 12169
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
you are not worth talking to.
Fair enough. To be honest, I’m not getting much from your assertiveness at the mo, so I guess its a bit pointless for both of us.
Namaste.
--------------------
این نیز بگذرد
Posts: 7574 | From: Natural Sources | Registered: Dec 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Yorick
Infinite Jester
# 12169
|
Posted
Oops. Forgot translation. Namaste.
--------------------
این نیز بگذرد
Posts: 7574 | From: Natural Sources | Registered: Dec 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Russ
Old salt
# 120
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
If I criticise Islam on points where I consider it to be wrong, I'm simply following the beliefs and principles that I actually have.
And indeed, as far as this is intended to move society (or particular Muslims) towards my Christian convictions in a practical sense, I'm clearly practising what I preach (namely the necessity to bring all people to Christ). There is no hint of hypocrisy in that.[/qb]
Agreed
quote:
I cannot criticise them on account of not following my arguments (that I do not have and/or do not present). Rather, I can criticise them only for making a wrong decision: their will, rather than their intellect, failed - as far as I am concerned.
Don't see that it's a failure of will - seems to me that there are Muslims whose will to find God and please God through Islam is quite as strong a will and as well-meaning a will as yours.
Which doesn't prevent them being mistaken.
Suppose for a moment that you and I are a pair of suckers who fall victim to a used car salesman, but it so turns out that I actually get a reliable and comfortable car from him for not that much more than what it's worth, while your purchase turns out to be a constant drain on your pocket and your peace of mind.
I may believe my car is better than yours, but cannot claim any credit for that. You made a wrong choice, but there is no failure on your part unmatched by a corresponding failure on mine.
Any suggestion on my part that you deserve to suffer for your wrong choice would be hypocritical - claiming to be wiser or more sensible or in any way more deserving than you, when all I'd be would be luckier.
Hypocrisy lurks, ISTM, in the doctrine of a just God operating a system of salvation by right belief.
Your point is that In a diverse world, thinking others mistaken is a consequence of holding any belief at all, whether the belief in question is religious or otherwise. And I'm agreeing thus far.
What You're not doing is going on to say where you think the whiff of hypocrisy that Yorick has detected is coming from.
"My belief is truer than yours" is inevitable. "I'm saved and you're damned and that's as it should be" is repulsive.
I hasten to add that you personally haven't said anything resembling the latter remark (at least on this thread ).
Seems to me that hypocrisy lies someway to leeward of the position you've sketched here. But those outside the big tent of Christianity may find it hard to know how much similarity of doctrine follows on from any resemblances they observe between the denizens therein.
Best wishes,
Russ
--------------------
Wish everyone well; the enemy is not people, the enemy is wrong ideas
Posts: 3169 | From: rural Ireland | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
I may believe my car is better than yours, but cannot claim any credit for that. You made a wrong choice, but there is no failure on your part unmatched by a corresponding failure on mine.
Well, I do not buy the analogy. You are equating God to a dishonest used car salesman, after all. That biases any further evaluation of the situation in a way that I find unhelpful.
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
Any suggestion on my part that you deserve to suffer for your wrong choice would be hypocritical - claiming to be wiser or more sensible or in any way more deserving than you, when all I'd be would be luckier.
There certainly are occasions where a simple assignment of blame would be inappropriate. But there also are occasions where that is quite justifiable, IMHO. It is simply not true that all people at all times are striving for truth, good and beauty with all their facilities and powers to the best of their abilities. Sometimes it is exactly the opposite, and the wide spectrum between these extremes shows as much darkness as light. And yes, it is true that I cannot ultimately see into anyone's heart. But it is also true that I'm not utterly clueless about all things that are going on in other people. Sometimes people are a mystery, sure, but sometimes they are also an open book.
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
Hypocrisy lurks, ISTM, in the doctrine of a just God operating a system of salvation by right belief.
Again, the specific charge of "hypocrisy" does not hold any water there.
Best I can tell, what you are really after is a violation of the Golden Rule. Something like: you would not want other people to harshly judge and/or practically mistreat you over your beliefs, so if you do that onto others then you are breaking the Golden Rule.
Well, yes. I totally accept that. At least certainly theoretically, whether I always end up doing what I think I should be doing is a different question. Indeed, I even accept a charitable extension of that, i.e., I should actually treat people better than I expect them to treat me.
However, I believe that there is a time and a season for everything, and SoF-Purgatory is IMHO a place where opinions should clash. This is a place for steel sharpening steel. And within that context, I believe I am following a Golden Rule approach, indeed even a charitable Golden Rule approach. If we go out into the "real world", we are in a different context. Accordingly, my mode of engagement changes. The world is not a discussion forum, but this is.
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
What You're not doing is going on to say where you think the whiff of hypocrisy that Yorick has detected is coming from.
Sorry, but I don't think that Yorick has made much sense so far on this thread. Best I can tell, he thinks of belief as of some kind of measurement apparatus, like a Geiger counter. So if I say "this guy is believing in something wrong", then Yorick translates that into "the use of the belief apparatus by this person has resulted in a faulty measurement". If I then say "I am believing in something right", then Yorick translates that into "this other person is now using the belief apparatus, obtains a measurement, and claims it is good". Whereupon Yorick comes to the conclusion "but if you say that the belief apparatus is unreliable, because it has been faulty in this other person, then your claim is necessarily also unreliable, since you are using the same belief apparatus to perform your measurement." And thus Yorick thinks that he can reject all belief based on believers contradicting each other: they are all putting into question the very mechanism they are using.
But that is nonsense in several ways, from fundamental to practical. The fundamental point I have made above. Belief is not some kind of measurement apparatus. It is not an intellectual method for determining truth. It is not challenged by uncertainty, it exists because of uncertainty. Belief is about swinging into decisive action in a complex situation where our various attempts to determine truth have not resulted in a single compelling answer, but nevertheless a response is required.
But on a more practical level, I also reject the suggestion that all belief is created equal. Just because people come to different beliefs does not mean that a fair comparison would see them all as equally probable. People have all sorts of failure modes in their evaluation of complex problems, and I'm convinced that in fact my faith position can be reasonably argued to be more probable than that of others. So even if belief were indeed something like a Geiger counter (which I reject), I would claim that the reason why other people get results different from mine is that their Geiger counter is crappy. Or in other words, the same mechanism does not have to have the same quality.
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
"My belief is truer than yours" is inevitable. "I'm saved and you're damned and that's as it should be" is repulsive.I hasten to add that you personally haven't said anything resembling the latter remark (at least on this thread ).
Unfortunately, I'm massively more convinced that I'm right than that I'm saved. Likewise, I'm very sure that some people are wrong, but that does not mean that I think that they are damned, certainly not with similar likelihood. I do think that all is as it should be, but not because we are as we should be.
--------------------
They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear
Posts: 12010 | From: Gone fishing | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eliab
Shipmate
# 9153
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Grokesx:
quote:
All three religions seem to see faith as having some basis in 'sight' or 'evidence' or knowledge', AND some basis in 'conviction' or 'hope' or 'belief'... You seem concentrated solely on the 'belief' side
Well, no, I don't think you can separate that lot out quite so neatly, except for hope, that is. And therein is one difference between a rational belief and an irrational one.
I don't think that's what St Paul means by 'hope', but that's rather a tangent. Our hope as Christians in the sense of that quote is the content of our beliefs, what we hope for believing it to be true, not what we believe because we wish it were true. It isn't supposed to be a matter wishful thinking. And hope as a Christian virtue is about living as if God is worth it, having already come to believe that he is real and good.
So while I would agree with you that purely wishful thinking would be irrational, I don't think it is typical of religious thought.
quote:
quote:
Sure, they describe a process of extrapolating from data to belief that goes beyond what is 'seen', but they start from what is seen, not from pure fancy.
They may start from what is seen, but two of the three descriptions explicitly say faith is about belief in, or evidence of, what is NOT seen. The obvious question that springs to the mind of an outsider is, Ok then, if you can't see it, hear it etc, by what means to you access the phenomena you have faith in?
Start with what you see and hear. You won't be able to help coming to conclusions about it. Faith is more than that, but it is based on it.
The process:
Premise 1: I see in Jesus a unique degree of holiness
Premise 2: Claims of divinity are made about Jesus
Conclusion: Jesus is the incarnate God
isn't a syllogism. The conclusion is not inherent in the premises. The premises could be (are) true without establishing that the conclusion is. But neither are the premises irrelevant to the conclusion – they put the divinity of Jesus on the agenda, and give faith something to bite on. Persuade me that Jesus wasn't a good man, or that the claims of his divinity are concoctions dated to 1000CE, and you would seriously shake my faith.
quote:
Well, to use Ingo's example - in the usual run of things, we establish the colour of a wall after we decide if there is one there or not. But, sure, it would be possible to have an opinion about Smith, Mohammed and Jesus, but how am I to go about deciding what qualities any god that might exist has to make my comparison? The only way forward I can see is to decide what qualities I think a god might have and match that to the various accounts. But all I'd be doing would be matching concepts from my culture, education, experience and maybe even genetic make up to the accounts and come up with something unique to me.
What's the thinking behind the last bit? If you are saying that your evaluation of the plausibility of religious claims is subject to bias, then I agree. It is. So's mine. We judge these things from our particular person situations, and it's as well to know that and take it into account.
But if you are saying that you are therefore an utterly incompetent judge, then you really are saying something irrational – you are denying the capacity of human reason to think about the things that have mattered most to most of the human race.
Like IngoB's hostages in the desert, we don't know the truth for certain, but we have evidence that we can think about. We can judge more reliably than guessing a direction at random. Thinking is more likely to be right that guesswork, not certain to be right, but it is not useless either.
quote:
That's fine for opinion, but the OP is about asserting that opinion as truth. Nothing any theist has said here addresses that problem, AFAICS.
I thought IngoB has addressed it admirably. “Having an opinion” IS asserting something as true. That's what “an opinion” is – something that I'm prepared to assert. Otherwise it's not an opinion, it's an idea.
There are degrees of 'asserting as true', of course. I'm more sure of some of my opinions than others. I'm more sure that angels exist than that devils do. I'm more sure that miracles happen than that this miracle happened. I'm more sure that God is good than that the Bible is infallible. And it is pure logic that makes me rank all those pairs of beliefs because in each case the former claim is the prerequisite for the latter (you must have angels before some of them can fall, miracles must in general be possible before this particular account can be credible, God must have integrity of character before I can trust the integrity of any specific revelation). That is to say, I can think about these things. I can think sensibly about religion just as I can about anything else. And it is simply, observably, true that when human beings do start to think seriously about religion, quite a lot of them come to believe in religious claims.
--------------------
"Perhaps there is poetic beauty in the abstract ideas of justice or fairness, but I doubt if many lawyers are moved by it"
Richard Dawkins
Posts: 4619 | From: Hampton, Middlesex, UK | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Yorick
Infinite Jester
# 12169
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
Sorry, but I don't think that Yorick has made much sense so far on this thread. Best I can tell, he thinks of belief as of some kind of measurement apparatus, like a Geiger counter. So if I say "this guy is believing in something wrong", then Yorick translates that into "the use of the belief apparatus by this person has resulted in a faulty measurement". If I then say "I am believing in something right", then Yorick translates that into "this other person is now using the belief apparatus, obtains a measurement, and claims it is good". Whereupon Yorick comes to the conclusion "but if you say that the belief apparatus is unreliable, because it has been faulty in this other person, then your claim is necessarily also unreliable, since you are using the same belief apparatus to perform your measurement." And thus Yorick thinks that he can reject all belief based on believers contradicting each other: they are all putting into question the very mechanism they are using.
I think of belief as an intellectual assent to a set of propositions, and that it differs categorically from knowledge and indeed action. Maybe that’s my problem- I’ve been criticised for it many times- but I can’t see it any other way. So, when you say you believe in God, I translate that into something like this: “It is my profoundest opinion, based on my authentic personal experience, that God exists. Strictly speaking, I don’t know that He exists, but I feel He does in a real sense, and I therefore elect by faith to uphold as true all the consequences of this.”
I certainly do not see belief as action- in terms of walking in a particular direction to escape a desert, say- but I see it as the mechanism by which a choice may be made on what that direction should be. Given that this process is all about uncertainty, I feel that the believer cannot claim to know the truth about the best escape route any more than any other believer can (and, yes, I understand how you disagree with that), and therefore if he claims that all other routes are wrong he makes a nonsense of the whole belief schema of navigation decision-making, and thus action.
No matter how enthusiastically you tell me I'm stupid and wrong, I still cannot get my brain to understand things the way you do. It's like a foreign language, the vocabulary of which I technically understand but whose meaning does not make linguistic sense. I guess it's one of those, 'You cannot understand this unless you experience it for yourself' type things.
--------------------
این نیز بگذرد
Posts: 7574 | From: Natural Sources | Registered: Dec 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
EtymologicalEvangelical
Shipmate
# 15091
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Yorick
I think of belief as an intellectual assent to a set of propositions, and that it differs categorically from knowledge and indeed action.
So what is 'knowledge' then, if it is not "intellectual assent to a set of propositions"?
For example, I would say that, in a common sense way, I know that London is a city on the River Thames, which is the capital of the UK. Strictly speaking I cannot be absolutely 100% certain that this is true, because, despite having been there many times and even having lived there for six years, and having perused atlases etc, there is always the miniscule possibility that my senses have deceived me in some way. Of course, I dismiss that minute possibility of Cartesian doubt as being of no relevance to my thinking and experience, but nevertheless, from an epistemological point of view, it must be there.
So there is a sense in which I have to believe and trust in the data of my senses of having discerned London (whether directly or indirectly through atlases, photos etc) and I have to trust my experience and memory of having lived there. I also trust the testimony of other people who have been there and who currently live there (such as two of my children). In other words, my knowledge of London is based on my belief in the existence and status of London, and my trust in the accuracy of my senses, in my experience, and in the veracity of information about London and the testimony of others.
My knowledge of London is based on induction, not deduction from the fundamental nature of reality. By the way, it is exactly the same reason why I 'know' that you exist.
Now my knowledge of God is no different. While there is no direct empirical (sense) data to work with (because God is not a blob of matter floating somewhere in the universe - how could He be?), I put my trust in logic, inferring from the nature of reality, deducing from basic truths about reality (such as from the nature of reason itself, or from the necessity of the moral sense), and I also trust in my own personal experience, remembering that all knowledge is influenced by experience, including all the knowledge from the empirical scientific method, and I also trust in the testimony of others. Therefore I believe, and I also know. In fact, if I didn't 'know' that God exists, I would not be able to know anything at all, because knowledge itself is dependent on the validity of reason, which itself is impossible in the absence of a truly objective reason behind reality. This objective and perfect reason can only be explained if an eternal mind exists. Naturalism certainly cannot explain it.
It therefore seems absurd to say that we cannot know the reality of that on which all knowledge depends. In fact, I would say that I have greater knowledge of God than of London, because the existence of the former is concluded by deduction from the nature of reality, whereas the latter is merely based on induction, which is, strictly speaking, probabilistic (even though the probability is 99.999999999999....% based on common sense experience).
So your analysis of belief, and the dichotomy you are setting up between belief and knowledge, is wrong. And this is the reason why your entire thesis in this thread is gravely mistaken. You are making an unwarranted assumption about all so called 'religious' people, namely, that we are just making it all up as we go along, with a complete disregard for evidence. (If that were the case, then you would have a point).
--------------------
You can argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome': but you neither can nor need argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome, but I'm not saying this is true'. CS Lewis
Posts: 3625 | From: South Coast of England | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
QLib
Bad Example
# 43
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Yorick:
I think of belief as an intellectual assent to a set of propositions, and that it differs categorically from knowledge and indeed action. ... So, when you say you believe in God, I translate that into something like this: “It is my profoundest opinion, based on my authentic personal experience, that God exists. ..."
I would want to make a distinction (and I'm not the first to do so) between Belief and Faith. Faith is a real experience, and Belief is - yes - assent to a series of intellectual propositions which best seem to fit with the Faith experience. For me, Belief is always provisional and best not invested in too heavily, because these are things we can't know. Faith is what I know - and what I know is that I have had encounters with other people - including people with profound and multiple disabilities - which fit with the Quaker understanding that there is "that of God" in everyone. As Wittgenstein has it: "What we cannot speak about we must pass over in silence And that's one reason why, in the liberal Quaker tradition, most Meetings for Worship are based on silence.
--------------------
Tradition is the handing down of the flame, not the worship of the ashes Gustav Mahler.
Posts: 8913 | From: Page 28 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Yorick
Infinite Jester
# 12169
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
So what is 'knowledge' then, if it is not "intellectual assent to a set of propositions"?
Your post is an excellent little precis of the nature of knowledge, and I agree wholeheartedly (though I am as a schoolboy with episptemological stuff, as you know). When I talk of knowledge, I'm thinking particularly of understanding objective truth, and therefore I'm with Descartes on this. The only thing we can ever know is our own existence. Everything else is unknowable, and that includes the things we subjectively believe to be truth.
Obviously, there's a spectrum here with regard to what we think we know and its correlation with objective truth. I am more confident, say, that two added to two makes four than I am that my secretary will make me a decent cup of coffee for me in the next hour or so.
--------------------
این نیز بگذرد
Posts: 7574 | From: Natural Sources | Registered: Dec 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
EtymologicalEvangelical
Shipmate
# 15091
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Yorick
I am more confident, say, that two added to two makes four than I am that my secretary will make me a decent cup of coffee for me in the next hour or so.
Then make your own!
(Little me always has to!)
![[Snigger]](graemlins/snigger.gif)
--------------------
You can argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome': but you neither can nor need argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome, but I'm not saying this is true'. CS Lewis
Posts: 3625 | From: South Coast of England | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Yorick:
I think of belief as an intellectual assent to a set of propositions, and that it differs categorically from knowledge and indeed action. Maybe that’s my problem- I’ve been criticised for it many times- but I can’t see it any other way.
Well, that's basically fine, at least for part of faith. The "decisive action" I'm talking about is then the process of giving one's intellectual assent. This is a process which goes beyond the assent you give to something for which the evidence / intellectual analysis is "overwhelming". Not in the sense that the outcome is different (assent is assent), but in the sense that taking this step is something that does not simply flow from your intellect determining that only one possibility exists. (We could have a discussion whether faith is all propositional. But it sure is partly propositional, so as far as that part goes you are good.)
quote:
Originally posted by Yorick:
So, when you say you believe in God, I translate that into something like this: “It is my profoundest opinion, based on my authentic personal experience, that God exists. Strictly speaking, I don’t know that He exists, but I feel He does in a real sense, and I therefore elect by faith to uphold as true all the consequences of this.”
Well, this is false as far as I am concerned. I do not believe that God exists, I know that God exists - by metaphysical argument, which I consider intellectually compelling. You could say that I believe that the Christian God exists. But again, the way you phrase this is wrong for me. Certainly my personal "spiritual" experience is one factor that shapes my belief in the Christian God. But it is not the only factor, and honestly, it is not "the" factor in the sense that you seem to imagine it to be. (To give an analogy, it would be more like the petrol you put into a car, than the steering wheel or the sat nav.) And all this is not removed from "reasoning" for me. It's not a case of "I feel it therefore it is". I know that some parts of Protestantism propose a direct link between personal experience and immediate assurance of faith, but that is not my deal and that is also not the mainstream of traditional Christianity.
quote:
Originally posted by Yorick:
I certainly do not see belief as action- in terms of walking in a particular direction to escape a desert, say- but I see it as the mechanism by which a choice may be made on what that direction should be. Given that this process is all about uncertainty, I feel that the believer cannot claim to know the truth about the best escape route any more than any other believer can (and, yes, I understand how you disagree with that), and therefore if he claims that all other routes are wrong he makes a nonsense of the whole belief schema of navigation decision-making, and thus action.
Again, I'm fine with you narrowing down the "act of faith" to the "act of choosing the direction" in my analogy. You go wrong simply in these two related manners:
- You appear to believe that all choices are equal. They are decidedly not. Various evidence and argument exists for the different directions in which one could go. The problem is that the situation is too complex and the evidence and argument is too weak to fully resolve it, so that it is not the case that everybody of sound mind will without hesitation pick the one obviously right option. This situation is nothing special as such. We encounter that sort of thing all the time, for example in making our career choices. The only thing special here is what the decision process is about.
- You appear to think that having made one's choice, one somehow forgets about the difficulties involved in making it and pretends that now suddenly all is clear. Again, that is definitely not so. Religions typically acknowledge the difficulties facing those who have not yet made the decision (or whom one asks to switch from one decision to another). For example, in Roman Catholicism it is dogma that a decision for Roman Catholicism cannot be made without the help of the Holy Spirit, i.e., is not possible by natural means. What this means is that Roman Catholicism never is the "only rationally possible option" for anyone. We cannot resolve the "religious decision process" into a "one option no-brainer", ever. That is not the certainty that believers claim. The certainty that they claim is simply an affirmation of their decision. We still think that the decision we made is the right one, and we will put our life on the line for it (not necessarily dramatically so). We do this, with all our heart, mind and body. It is a certainty of the will, a dedication, not of the intellect, not an analysis. The response to "Are you with me?" is "Right behind you, Sir." not "We can advise that our currently best estimate of our relative spatial positions suggests proximity in the meter range with 90% probability."
quote:
Originally posted by Yorick:
No matter how enthusiastically you tell me I'm stupid and wrong, I still cannot get my brain to understand things the way you do. It's like a foreign language, the vocabulary of which I technically understand but whose meaning does not make linguistic sense. I guess it's one of those, 'You cannot understand this unless you experience it for yourself' type things.
Well, Yorick, I believe that you are standing in your own way there. This is neither rocket science nor in fact something alien to your experience. I've pointed to your career choices. It is perhaps not the best time to mention this, but I can also point to your relationship choices. (Failure is very much an option in religion, too...) Probably I could point you to some financial investments you have made. Perhaps you play poker and go "all in" on occasion. If you face a complex choice that cannot be strictly resolved with your intellect given the available information, but which requires a massive personal investment right now (and perhaps then ongoing) from you to potentially result in success (however defined), then you end up acting "in faith". That's simply what you have to do.
There's no "magic" in religion beyond that. Well, there is, but not in a sense that you need to be concerned about in order to understand "faith". You already understand "faith". You perhaps do not understand how you could ever have faith in say Roman Catholicism. But that's a different issue. How choices jockey for position with regards to your decision making, and that this is not entirely "natural" in the case of religion, is a different topic to what you are doing there in principle. That certain religious choices seem remote to you does not mean that the process of adopting them is actually remote to you.
--------------------
They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear
Posts: 12010 | From: Gone fishing | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Yorick:
I think of belief as an intellectual assent to a set of propositions, and that it differs categorically from knowledge and indeed action.
Belief doesn't differ categorically from knowledge. There's no way that you can tell whether you know something or only believe-but-not-know by examining the mental activity.
quote:
The only thing we can ever know is our own existence.
That's rather odd, because we can never be aware of our own existence. We deduce our existence from our awareness of other things.
As a bit of a tangent, if you're going to use 'know' in such a way that we don't 'know' anything except our own existence, then most of your arguments on this page disappear. It's no good saying, "but you don't know, you only believe," if you think that we only believe there are no cars coming when we cross the road. You can't define 'know' in that sense, and then carry on as if it's used in the way it's used when I say I know the ducks on the pond are mallards.
--------------------
we remain, thanks to original sin, much in love with talking about, rather than with, one another. Rowan Williams
Posts: 10567 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
QLib
Bad Example
# 43
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
quote:
Originally posted by Yorick:
The only thing we can ever know is our own existence.
That's rather odd, because we can never be aware of our own existence.
Yes, I think Descartes is quite definitely yesterday's man in the epistemological stakes. quote:
quote:
I think of belief as an intellectual assent to a set of propositions, and that it differs categorically from knowledge and indeed action.
Belief doesn't differ categorically from knowledge. There's no way that you can tell whether you know something or only believe-but-not-know by examining the mental activity.
I agree - the Belief/Knowledge distinction doesn't work. It just comes back to what evidence that belief is based on.
--------------------
Tradition is the handing down of the flame, not the worship of the ashes Gustav Mahler.
Posts: 8913 | From: Page 28 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Fr Weber
Shipmate
# 13472
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by SusanDoris:
quote:
Originally posted by Laurelin:
I would happily be a universalist and believe that all paths lead to the same God, were it not for what the Founder of my faith actually said ...
I think it would be more correct to say, 'what people believe he said.'
Possibly, but only if you are assiduous in applying the same qualifier to any words you didn't actually hear spoken.
--------------------
"The Eucharist is not a play, and you're not Jesus."
--Sr Theresa Koernke, IHM
Posts: 2512 | From: Oakland, CA | Registered: Feb 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
