How do Christians possibly rationalize these things?

[Mr. Fight the Power]

DT,

Firstly, am I correct in saying that you believe the bible should be used as a moral reference rather than a religious reference, similar to Aesop's Fables?

As for my attacks on religion as a whole, I do not know what modern theory of truth would support the statement that any religious belief is true. Could you point one out?

The entire reason I brought up falsification is to point out that religious beliefs are inherently untestable. Belief that is actually untestable is rather flimsily held belief; would you not agree?

My ideas of truth are rather convoluted, I will admit that. I kind of use a combination of correspondence, coherence, minimalist and consensus theories. The only modicum of truth we can achieve would be achieved between people concerning both the correspondence of statements and things and the coherence of ideas in a system of propositions. In other words, truth is based (generated might be a better term) in one person convincing another person that a statement corresponds with reality and makes sense with other knowledge.

Correspondence is established by testing, with the individual doing the convincing providing a method for the other to test and empirically verify the statement.

Since no religious proposition can be tested, religion as a whole fails my standards.

[invulnerable23]

Originally Posted by Mr. Fight the Power

I don't know if you are questioning whether truth is relative itself, but I found the idea of subjective religion in objective reason. I can argue about the truth of this topic.

You're saying that reason is objective, but religion subjective? I suppose that means that everyone who reasons will reason the same? Or reach the same conclusions? Obviously that's not the case. Perhaps I'm not understanding what you're trying to say. Can you clarify?

My ideas of truth are rather convoluted, I will admit that. I kind of use a combination of correspondence, coherence, minimalist and consensus theories. The only modicum of truth we can achieve would be achieved between people concerning both the correspondence of statements and things and the coherence of ideas in a system of propositions. In other words, truth is based (generated might be a better term) in one person convincing another person that a statement corresponds with reality and makes sense with other knowledge.

Correspondence is established by testing, with the individual doing the convincing providing a method for the other to test and empirically verify the statement.

Since no religious proposition can be tested, religion as a whole fails my standards.

I see the problem, now. Unfortunately, nothing can really be known as truth by your ideas, can they? Everything would go back to the senses, but how far can that take you? Aren't they as subjective as people's ideas?

If I convinced you of my ideas, wouldn't that make mine right? But if you convinced me of yours, yours would be right? I don't see how anything can fit your test.

Take the example of a man who wears a sweater that is half red and half blue. The half blue side is on the left, and as he passes people on the left, they see it as a blue sweater. On the right, conversely, is the red side, and as he passes people on the right, they see a red sweater. After the man walks away, the two groups of people begin talking, and realize that the other group has "misinterpreted" what color the sweater is. They begin to argue. The man is long gone, so they can never ask him for his answer.

Wouldn't you say that the group that convinces the other is right? Or, if they do not convince the other group, that idea fails the test? But what of the fact that in reality, the sweater is actually half blue and half red, and no one knows it but the man wearing it?

Then how do you explain extant contradictions?

I would say there are none. We would start to fire back and forth with scripture that seems to contradict itself and my defense of it, but I am tired and still haven't finished my paper due Friday, and a book review due tomorrow on "the Problem of Evil", so I'll just say that it's been done for millenia, this argumentation about errors or mistakes in scripture and the justification of them.

I agree, Heaven is a spiritual thing. Which means it does not exist in reality; Heaven is language used to describe something that transcends language, the spiritual.

I would say it transcends experience. I don't think that's the same as not existing in reality. Attributes of objects that exist beyond our empirical knowledge still exist in reality. I wonder if we're saying similar things?

I really like the Flying Spaghetti Monster analogy. Seriously.

Thank you. I do suppose that the Troy reference was a little questionable. I guess I could have used the Hittites, since they were spoken of in scripture, and forgotten, then discovered again.

[Mr. Fight the Power]

Originally Posted by invulnerable23

You're saying that reason is objective, but religion subjective? I suppose that means that everyone who reasons will reason the same? Or reach the same conclusions? Obviously that's not the case. Perhaps I'm not understanding what you're trying to say. Can you clarify?

Yes, I believe that the rules of reason are fairly standard to human understanding, but that does not imply that all will reach the same conclusions. It does mean that two individuals given a set of premises should reach the same conclusion. This has to do with the coherence portion of truth and knowledge; everybody has the same idea of the relationships "this makes sense" and "this doesn't make sense".

To say that everyone will reach the same "conclusion" (that isn't the best word but it works for the time being) would neglect the other portion: correspondence. Correspondence is established empirically, people can experience reality and verify whether a proposition corresponds to it.

Finally, while I take it that no one can have objective religious experience, I cannot deny the possibility of subjective religious experience.

Put another way, no person can say "Do you see this, this is evidence of God". A statement of this manner cannot be tested by another person, as it cannot possibly be found to be false. A person can, however, experience something, take it as evidence of God and be correct about it, even if it is as simple as feeling that God exists.

So religious truth can exist, it is simply relative only to the individual believer.

I see the problem, now. Unfortunately, nothing can really be known as truth by your ideas, can they? Everything would go back to the senses, but how far can that take you? Aren't they as subjective as people's ideas?

If I convinced you of my ideas, wouldn't that make mine right? But if you convinced me of yours, yours would be right? I don't see how anything can fit your test.

Take the example of a man who wears a sweater that is half red and half blue. The half blue side is on the left, and as he passes people on the left, they see it as a blue sweater. On the right, conversely, is the red side, and as he passes people on the right, they see a red sweater. After the man walks away, the two groups of people begin talking, and realize that the other group has "misinterpreted" what color the sweater is. They begin to argue. The man is long gone, so they can never ask him for his answer.

Wouldn't you say that the group that convinces the other is right? Or, if they do not convince the other group, that idea fails the test? But what of the fact that in reality, the sweater is actually half blue and half red, and no one knows it but the man wearing it?

Consensus is largely dependent upon the assumption that human reason and observation is nearly universal. The idea is that one person can take experience and build a coherent and rational system of knowledge. He can then begin to verify this knowledge by engaging others and making his case by replicating the experience.

If, with our assumption that humans have universal tools for understanding, outside verification, consensus, lends greater truth to the proposition, as the chance of subjective error is lessened.

Ultimately this is an attempt to get around what is extreme skepticism about the relationship between human understanding and reality and the minimalist position that attributing truth to a statement really adds nothing to the statement. Like I said, it is convoluted.

As for your example, it would not be possible for consensus to be achieved without violating the correspondence test.

I would say there are none. We would start to fire back and forth with scripture that seems to contradict itself and my defense of it, but I am tired and still haven't finished my paper due Friday, and a book review due tomorrow on "the Problem of Evil", so I'll just say that it's been done for millenia, this argumentation about errors or mistakes in scripture and the justification of them.

And by my estimation, the two of you could never reach a consensus.

[invulnerable23]

Originally Posted by Mr. Fight the Power

Yes, I believe that the rules of reason are fairly standard to human understanding, but that does not imply that all will reach the same conclusions. It does mean that two individuals given a set of premises should reach the same conclusion. This has to do with the coherence portion of truth and knowledge; everybody has the same idea of the relationships "this makes sense" and "this doesn't make sense".

Making sense seems awfully subjective. What one seems sensible, another may say is unreasonable.

To say that everyone will reach the same "conclusion" (that isn't the best word but it works for the time being) would neglect the other portion: correspondence. Correspondence is established empirically, people can experience reality and verify whether a proposition corresponds to it.

Finally, while I take it that no one can have objective religious experience, I cannot deny the possibility of subjective religious experience.

I suppose it is different for each person, but what we hold as truth, we hold as objective.

Put another way, no person can say "Do you see this, this is evidence of God". A statement of this manner cannot be tested by another person, as it cannot possibly be found to be false. A person can, however, experience something, take it as evidence of God and be correct about it, even if it is as simple as feeling that God exists.

So religious truth can exist, it is simply relative only to the individual believer.

We would argue that there is religious truth, though that truth is experienced differently for each person. God will not call a person from China in English.

I suppose you are saying that it is unprovable by reason alone. The Bible is our source of communication from God, and in that way we have an objective standard. However, you are right, we hold that God must move in the person to allow truth to flow. My purpose of this, though, is that you can not single out religion as being the only thing needing something other than reason and the senses. In all of reality we become subjective without some outside idea or concept.

Ultimately this is an attempt to get around what is extreme skepticism about the relationship between human understanding and reality and the minimalist position that attributing truth to a statement really adds nothing to the statement. Like I said, it is convoluted.

I understand. A few of my own philosophies are convoluted. Don't ask me about the reality of mathematics, because it gets very convoluted.

As for your example, it would not be possible for consensus to be achieved without violating the correspondence test.

Should the red group have a weaker will than the blue group, and submit, changing their minds, then does that mean the blue group was right?

And by my estimation, the two of you could never reach a consensus.

Most likely.

[Didymos Thomas]

Firstly, am I correct in saying that you believe the bible should be used as a moral reference rather than a religious reference, similar to Aesop's Fables?

No. The Bible is a great moral reference, like Aesop's Fables, but the Bible goes deeper than Aesop's Fables. The Bible is a spiritual text.

As for my attacks on religion as a whole, I do not know what modern theory of truth would support the statement that any religious belief is true. Could you point one out?

Modern theory of truth. That is an interesting phrase. Empiricism.

The entire reason I brought up falsification is to point out that religious beliefs are inherently untestable. Belief that is actually untestable is rather flimsily held belief; would you not agree?

You mean scientifically untestable. Religious beliefs most certainly can be tested. Most, however, cannot be tested, as yet, in a scientific context. And no, I would not agree that truth outside of science is flimsy. Science is wonderful, but science does not have the answer to every question in life.

I would say there are none. We would start to fire back and forth with scripture that seems to contradict itself and my defense of it, but I am tired and still haven't finished my paper due Friday, and a book review due tomorrow on "the Problem of Evil", so I'll just say that it's been done for millenia, this argumentation about errors or mistakes in scripture and the justification of them.

No contradiction in scripture? You may be tired, but that's the beauty of these forums - you can post at your leisure. Contradictions are not hard to find in the Bible. Sermon on the Mount, or Sermon on the Plain: it's the same sermon. Did God create man and then woman, or both at the same time: both scenarios exist within Genesis.

I would say it transcends experience. I don't think that's the same as not existing in reality. Attributes of objects that exist beyond our empirical knowledge still exist in reality. I wonder if we're saying similar things?

Probably, but there is an important distinction. Heaven and Hell are states of being. We are in Heaven and Hell right this very moment. Heaven and Hell, and the language around the terms, describe the psychological disposition of people - sin creates Hell, and living right creates Heaven.

Heaven and Hell are not like the South Pole, or a city we now call Troy, or even the Hitites. They are something like the mythological Troy. Heaven and Hell do not exist in reality as locations, but they exist within our minds and exist because of the way we live.

Put another way, no person can say "Do you see this, this is evidence of God". A statement of this manner cannot be tested by another person, as it cannot possibly be found to be false. A person can, however, experience something, take it as evidence of God and be correct about it, even if it is as simple as feeling that God exists.

So religious truth can exist, it is simply relative only to the individual believer.

Just like moral truth, eh?

Oh, and reason is not objective. Objectivity is an ideal that reason and science strive for but cannot achieve. It's good to try in some cases, again, logic and science are wonderful tools. But at the end of the day, everything in human experience is necessarily subjective.

No one can have objective religious experience, and no one can have objective experience period. It's impossible.

[Mr. Fight the Power]

Originally Posted by Didymos Thomas

No. The Bible is a great moral reference, like Aesop's Fables, but the Bible goes deeper than Aesop's Fables. The Bible is a spiritual text.

I am at a loss. Explain please.

You mean scientifically untestable. Religious beliefs most certainly can be tested. Most, however, cannot be tested, as yet, in a scientific context. And no, I would not agree that truth outside of science is flimsy. Science is wonderful, but science does not have the answer to every question in life.

Testing, scientific or otherwise, necessarily implies that the proposition being tested can be proven wrong. Let me switch sides here and hear you provide examples of how my Christian beliefs can be proven wrong.

Just like moral truth, eh?

Yes, I treat religious truth much in the same manner as moral truth. I do practically deny the reality of both.

Oh, and reason is not objective. Objectivity is an ideal that reason and science strive for but cannot achieve. It's good to try in some cases, again, logic and science are wonderful tools. But at the end of the day, everything in human experience is necessarily subjective.

I do not agree. I think the process of reasoning and the qualia associated with reasoning are subjective, but the rules of reason are objective (although they may not be real) and apply to all human understanding.

I don't believe that the relationship of cause and effect is necessarily true, but I believe it is inherent to human understanding.

No one can have objective religious experience, and no one can have objective experience period. It's impossible.

The difference between objective and subjective experience is that objective experience is externally verifiable and typically replicable. If I have a spiritual awakening, it is a matter of consciousness alone and I cannot purposefully replicate that or expect another to have experienced it. If I observe the sun rising in the morning, to return to this example, I can expect another to have experienced it and I can reasonably expect it to be replicated in the next morning.

[invulnerable23]

Probably, but there is an important distinction. Heaven and Hell are states of being. We are in Heaven and Hell right this very moment. Heaven and Hell, and the language around the terms, describe the psychological disposition of people - sin creates Hell, and living right creates Heaven.

Heaven and Hell are not like the South Pole, or a city we now call Troy, or even the Hitites. They are something like the mythological Troy. Heaven and Hell do not exist in reality as locations, but they exist within our minds and exist because of the way we live.

I would like to hear you further on this idea of Heaven and Hell. Can you please clarify how you arrived at these ideas?

[O'Ferrell]

Binyamin, you say that the only method to gain salvation is to do "good" I am assuming by good you mean: acts of nobility, a negation of the self (in serving others) having love for others. Those examples may not fall into your category of "good" but i was simply throwing out "default" attributes of "good" Now i will assume you appeal to your ethics or idea of "good" from the Torah and/or other prophecy literature, wisdom, etc? Of course i appeal to the Bible (both Old and New Testaments) as my idea of ethics because i would make the case that you cannot support an ethical view that is "objective" without appealing to a higher being, consciousness, authority, etc. So what do you do with prophecy in the Old Testament that obviously fits the description of Jesus Christ? Isaiah 7, Isaiah 52, 53 (i may be off a chapter or two on this one) and Genesis 3:15, which was the first reference to Christ. No doubt, you interpret these passages a different way, in my estimation you would have to, at least to continue to affirm the belief that Christ is not the Messiah. Is is not possible that you simply misinterpret and take the passage of Deuteronomy out of context? However, i'll wager you will say the same thing to me on my opinions on the scripture passages mentioned above. I am compelled to bring up the topic again. How can you make the case that the human race is deserving of salvation in any way, explictly doing so by a "works-based" method. I believe that it would substantially be more plausible to believe that an intercession must take place for salvation (concerning religions of theistic deity/deities). I would like to know your opinion on the doctrine of the Fall. I would like to let you know that i have unique drive and attention towards Jewish people like yourselves. I anticipate my future endeavors with them that will happen in the near future.

[boagie]

A most insightful piece!

The Anatomy of Belief The World According to Xenocrates

[Binyamin Tsadik]

Originally Posted by O'Ferrell

How can you make the case that the human race is deserving of salvation in any way, explictly doing so by a "works-based" method. I believe that it would substantially be more plausible to believe that an intercession must take place for salvation (concerning religions of theistic deity/deities).

Intercession is only necissary because we are not doing good. If the world was on the level of doing good, then we would no longer need a redemption because we would have been redeemed.

In fact, the Gemara speaks of two cases of redemption. The first case is if we return to goodness. The second is if we don't. Both cases bring the same outcome, its just that one needs intervention from above and is a much darker path.