08 Dec 05
Originally posted by ColettiOkay then... let's start at the beginning.
Hit and run philosophy? That's pretty sad. You won't even get close to the truth if you won't deal with the issues epistemology.
Explain to me why it follows from "I have no means of grounding truth" that "anything is possibly true".
The first is an epistemological statement. The second is, i suppose, a metaphysical statement.
I would suggest both statements are nonsense. I have various ways of grounding truth - observation, reason, and so on. But you seem to mean something stronger - what?
Moreover even if I didn't have any way of grounding truth, why would this have metaphysical consequences? It would just mean I was in a state of ignorance. It would be unsatisfactory, perhaps, but it would not follow that anything was possible true. It would only follow that I could not know what was true.
Are you suggesting some kind of Pascal's wager?
08 Dec 05
Originally posted by dottewellYou can always get it right through reason and observation? Unless
Okay then... let's start at the beginning.
Explain to me why it follows from "I have no means of grounding truth" that "anything is possibly true".
The first is an epistemological statement. The second is, i suppose, a metaphysical statement.
I would suggest both statements are nonsense. I have various ways of grounding truth - observation, r ...[text shortened]... follow that I could not know what was true.
Are you suggesting some kind of Pascal's wager?
you have a marker for truth, a guide, a level, something that goes
beyond your abilities to internally measure and line up, how do you
know you are getting doing it right? Like building a house without
levels you will not put it up strait and it will come down on its own
because of that.
Kelly
08 Dec 05
Originally posted by KellyJayWho said anything about "always getting it right"? That is not required for truth to be grounded. In fact it would be quite possible to argue that if your system does not allow the possibility of getting something wrong, your "truth" is not "grounded".
You can always get it right through reason and observation? Unless
you have a marker for truth, a guide, a level, something that goes
beyond your abilities to internally measure and line up, how do you
know you are getting doing it right? Like building a house without
levels you will not put it up strait and it will come down on its own
because of that.
Kelly
08 Dec 05
Originally posted by dottewellThat works for me. I stand corrected then - it means you would be in a state of ignorance - that your could not know what was true.
... It would just mean I was in a state of ignorance. It would be unsatisfactory, perhaps, but it would not follow that anything was possible true. It would only follow that I could not know what was true. ...
Are you suggesting some kind of Pascal's wager?
I prefer a world-view that does not leave me in a state of ignorance or does not allow me to know what is true.
08 Dec 05
1 edit
Originally posted by ColettiIf you accept the antecedent - which, as I've said, I don't. In fact (here I don't mean to be rude), I don't even know what it means.
That works for me. I stand corrected then - it means you would be in a state of ignorance - that your could not know what was true.
I prefer a world-view that does not leave me in a state of ignorance or does not allow me to know what is true.
09 Dec 05
Originally posted by NemesioIn the situation you describe, yes, one would be saved. Metaphorically.
However, the question I am asking is if you believe that the question
was metaphorically asked, metaphorically answered, and metaphorically affirmed, would
you still be a Christian.
Nemesio[/b]
However, salvation, according to tradition and the Scriptures, requires appropriation on the part of the one desiring salvation. To achieve real results, one must appropriate real action.
There will be in heaven (some of which are there now), many who either did not understand and/or believe whole portions of the Bible. Thankfully for them, salvation is not based on that issue.
The mere use of the term 'sign' does not predicate a metaphor. Were that the case, one of Jesus' contemporaries, His cousin, John the Baptiser, was nothing more than a methaphor. Additionally, He Himself then could be nothing more than a metaphor, as Simeon proclaimed Him to be "a sign that will be spoken against," and so on and so forth.
09 Dec 05
Originally posted by FreakyKBH
In the situation you describe, yes, one would be saved. Metaphorically.
Why does my situation necessitate that metaphorical salvation would
occur rather than literal salvation? And, what would metaphorical salvation mean?
However, salvation, according to tradition and the Scriptures, requires appropriation on the part of the one desiring salvation. To achieve real results, one must appropriate real action.
Please don't misunderstand me. The belief in the metaphor must yield real action
on the part of the believer. That is, I'm certainly not advocating reading the parable
of the Good Samariten and suggesting we should love our neighbors metaphorically,
but that Jesus's use of the allegory should inspire real action.
Nemesio
10 Dec 05
Originally posted by NemesioYour situation necessitates it because you set the limits! How does one believe metaphorically? Is the reasoning along these lines:
Why does my situation necessitate that metaphorical salvation would
occur rather than literal salvation? And, what would metaphorical salvation mean?
Nemesio[/b]
Owing to certain historical murkiness, and unable to conclude emphatically that it actually happened, I understand God wants me to at least grasp the meaning of this act as if it did happen, and as such, in light of the plausibility of such an act, I accept the same on my behalf. Further, my belief will not be rewarded on the basis of the histrocity of the act, but rather, on my accepetance of the feasibility of the act. Therefore, should the act not have occured, my salvation is assured, as I accepted the intent of the idea.
Does that about sum your argument up?
10 Dec 05
1 edit
Originally posted by dottewellLet me try to explain. There are two kinds of world-views, rational and irrational. Mysticism is an example of an irrational world-view. Knowledge is a sort of ambiguous emotional experience, with no means or foundation for separating reality from imagination.
If you accept the antecedent - which, as I've said, I don't. In fact (here I don't mean to be rude), I don't even know what it means.
Rationalism is rational of course, but it's knowledge is based on innate ideas. What innate ideas - I dunno. So while it's a sort of formally valid system - it still doesn't have a point where it can say this is real. And there is no transcendental truth.
Empiricism say knowledge comes from the experience of physical sensation. How there experience become propositions is a big mystery. And since no two people have the same experiences - there's no common truth.
Foundationalism says that in order for there to be any common knowledge between people - there has to be some sort of benchmark or base or common starting point.
I am a presuppositionalist. This is a kind of foundationalism in that I think there needs to be a benchmark from which we can have a common source of knowledge. The foundation I take is the revelation of God in Scripture. If anything can be a sure foundation of knowledge, I can think of no other one better than Scripture. And from this foundation I divide by beliefs into knowledge (justified true beliefs) and opinions. Because my foundation is fixed by God, it is fixed by the ultimate authority. I don't need to worry about truth changing with time or place. I can have common knowledge with other men. I can account for the truth of the propositions I know.
All systems are presuppositional at some point. They all have to take on some axioms from which to start. And these axioms can not be proven from a priori knowledge because the axioms are the start of what ever knowledge that system entails. I believe my world-view is the true. All others break apart at some point. No other can provide any sure truth. My system is Christianity.
That was quick so I doubt I captured the essential basics of the major world-views. There are many more that can be examined. But I know that Christianity is the only completely sound and rational world-view there is.
10 Dec 05
Originally posted by FreakyKBHNot at all.
Does that about sum your argument up?
My argument is simply this: which is more important, that Jonah existed, or the
moral of the story? Would the moral be any less inspired if Jonah didn't exist.
I don't need Jonah to exist in order for my faith to be deeply moved by the story.
I've yet to hear a compelling argument to the contrary.
Nemesio
10 Dec 05
Originally posted by ColettiMysticism is an example of an irrational world-view. Knowledge is a sort of ambiguous emotional experience, with no means or foundation for separating reality from imagination.
Let me try to explain. There are two kinds of world-views, rational and irrational. Mysticism is an example of an irrational world-view. Knowledge is a sort of ambiguous emotional experience, with no means or foundation for separating reality from imagination.
Rationalism is rational of course, but it's knowledge is based on innate ideas. What innate ...[text shortened]... ed. But I know that Christianity is the only completely sound and rational world-view there is.
(1) I would say that mysticism (and I think you are using it in the “technical” sense here, as it is used, say, in mainstream religious traditions, rather than the occult) is non-rational rather than irrational. However, trying to build a knowledge base strictly from mystical experiences/insights may be irrational [see (3) below]. (Mystical experiences may have absolutely nothing to do with the “supernatural”—Zen satori experiences, for example.)
(2) Mysticism is not about “a sort of ambiguous emotional experience;” it may not be emotion-based at all.
(3) I think you are correct that there’s no real foundation for separating “reality from imagination.” Therefore such experiences, I think, must always be treated as provisional at best. Then again, would you not make a similar argument for strict empiricism?
10 Dec 05
Originally posted by ColettiBut I know that Christianity is the only completely sound and rational world-view there is.
Let me try to explain. There are two kinds of world-views, rational and irrational. Mysticism is an example of an irrational world-view. Knowledge is a sort of ambiguous emotional experience, with no means or foundation for separating reality from imagination.
Rationalism is rational of course, but it's knowledge is based on innate ideas. What innate ...[text shortened]... ed. But I know that Christianity is the only completely sound and rational world-view there is.
Unless, of course, your presuppositional axiom(s) about the divine authority of the Biblical writings turns out to be flat wrong. In which case, it may be technically rational but ultimately unsound. 🙂
There, I had to write out that “presupp” word again! 😉
10 Dec 05
Originally posted by ColettiThanks.
Let me try to explain. There are two kinds of world-views, rational and irrational. Mysticism is an example of an irrational world-view. Knowledge is a sort of ambiguous emotional experience, with no means or foundation for separating reality from imagination.
Rationalism is rational of course, but it's knowledge is based on innate ideas. What innate ...[text shortened]... ed. But I know that Christianity is the only completely sound and rational world-view there is.
The problem as I see it is that both you (and several of the systems you mention) see "truth" as some metaphysical entity lurking behind what we perceive. That is a very old-fashioned conception of truth. I imagine very few people today, for example, see themselves as empiricists (in the tradition of Hume, for example) or rationalists (here you seem to be thinking of Descartes or similar).
It is true that there is no tiger in my lounge at the moment. It is false there there is a lion in my lounge at the moment. You know what those statements mean, I know what they mean, I also know they are accurate. Why over-complicate things?