14 Dec 05
Originally posted by dottewellIncidentally, if you want some other criticisms of your "world view"...
I have explained perceptions as direct experiences of the world. I have asked you why they require, in your view, further explanation.
You have not provided an answer.
I have explained why your antecedent was wrong, because we have various ways of grounding truth. I can recap on these if you wish. Your explanation of why these were not acceptable was ...[text shortened]... s "claptrap". I will leave it to others to judge whose posts are more deserving of this label.
It is not specific for Christianity. The same argument could be made for any god, or super-intelligent and super-powerful being.
It is innately circular. You choose a system which then guarantees the truth of your world view. But what guarantees the truth of that system?
It introduces unnecessary elements. Our shared foundation could just be the world, filtered through our shared experiences, knowledge and language.
But I return to what I said above. You do not need a system, and you certainly do not get to choose one. The world is as it is.
14 Dec 05
Originally posted by NemesioHow would it "shine out"? What would shine out?
Originally posted by Nemesio
It would make sense if we understood that His existence and dying was but a parable
to be understood metaphorically. Then the objective truth would shine out. ...
And if the Scriptures are metaphorical, then sin and mercy and grace and love and redemption are all metaphorical terms? What do they mean? How would you know? A metaphor is useless without prior knowledge. Or maybe knowledge is a metaphor also.
14 Dec 05
2 edits
Originally posted by dottewellIt is innately circular. You choose a system which then guarantees the truth of your world view. But what guarantees the truth of that system?
Incidentally, if you want some other criticisms of your "world view"...
It is not specific for Christianity. The same argument could be made for any god, or super-intelligent and super-powerful being.
It is innately circular. You choose a system which then guarantees the truth of your world view. But what guarantees the truth of that system?
It ...[text shortened]... ve. You do not need a system, and you certainly do not get to choose one. The world is as it is.
The only thing that is outside of the system - God. The only means to judge a world-view system is from a system that can contain that world-view - call it a super-system. (Like the logical superset). And the only superset of a world-view would be God.
It is not specific for Christianity. The same argument could be made for any god, or super-intelligent and super-powerful being.
No because the axiom of my world-view is not "God", it is: "Scripture alone is the Word of God". I did not make "God" the axiom because that could mean any "super-intelligent and super-powerful being" as you said. I made God's revelation the axiom. And God's revelation is how we know who God is.
It introduces unnecessary elements. Our shared foundation could just be the world, filtered through our shared experiences, knowledge and language.
What are "shared experiences"? You and I never have the same experiences. We have separate experiences. No two are exactly the same.
What is our "shared knowledge"? What do you know that I know? How do you justify it as knowledge? How do you gain knowledge? What is the process? What is your epistemology?
But I return to what I said above. You do not need a system, and you certainly do not get to choose one. The world is as it is.
Is that your world-view? There is no system? OK. Then what is true? How do you know? If you can answer that, then you have chosen your would-view system. If not, you are in no position to criticism mine. Figure out your world-view first, then maybe you can criticize mine.
Are you an empiricist or an existentialist? Figure out which and them tell me what its axioms are. What does it assume so that it can justify true belief (knowledge).
14 Dec 05
2 edits
Originally posted by ColettiThe only thing that is outside of the system - God. The only means to judge a world-view system is from a system that can contain that world-view - call it a super-system. (Like the logical superset). And the only superset of a world-view would be God.
But you don't have access to anything outside the system. That is the premise from which you are working.
No because the axiom of my world-view is not "God", it is: "Scripture alone is the Word of God"... I made God's revelation the axiom.
Precisely. You chose this. But you could have chose something non-Christian specific with the same result.
What are "shared experiences"? You and I never have the same experiences. We have separate experiences. No two are exactly the same.
I didn't say they were exactly the same, but they can be of the same thing.
What is our "shared knowledge"? What do you know that I know? How do you justify it as knowledge? How do you gain knowledge? What is the process? What is your epistemology?
We have criteria for all these which can be satisfied, or not. Our shared knowledge (as a race) allows us to e.g. build aeroplanes, count up to 10, have this conversation. How do I know that you know? I could ask you. I could test you. How do I justify it as knowledge? Perhaps in the same way. How do you gain knowledge? You could read, you could talk to other people. The usual ways. What is my epistemology? That should be clear, insofar as the question makes sense.
Is that your world-view? There is no system? OK. Then what is true? How do you know? If you can answer that, then you have chosen your would-view system. If not, you are in no position to criticism mine. Figure out your world-view first, then maybe you can criticize mine.
It is not a "world view". It is how the world is.
"If not then you are in no position to criticise mine"? Post this on your Christian logic forum. See who can name the fallacy quickest. The rest of your statement is equivalent to me saying: Go and get a masters degree in philosophy from Cambridge, then you can criticise me. And I wouldn't be so rude or illogical.
Are you an empiricist or an existentialist?
What on earth do you understand by "existentialist"?
Look, you view boils down to this: either you have CHOSEN to use a Christian god as the basis for your world view, in which case your argument remains circular; or you are claiming you KNOW it is true because God has told you, in which case good luck to you & goodnight.
14 Dec 05
Originally posted by dottewellPrecisely. You chose this. But you could have chose something non-Christian specific with the same result.
[b]The only thing that is outside of the system - God. The only means to judge a world-view system is from a system that can contain that world-view - call it a super-system. (Like the logical superset). And the only superset of a world-view would be God.
But you don't have access to anything outside the system. That is the premise from which y ...[text shortened]... aiming you KNOW it is true because God has told you, in which case good luck to you & goodnight.[/b]
Could I? What could I have chosen and gotten the same results? You have chosen something non-Christian - and the results are....
I didn't say they were exactly the same, but they can be of the same thing.
How do you know?
We have criteria for all these which can be satisfied, or not. Our shared knowledge (as a race) allows us to e.g. build aeroplanes, count up to 10, have this conversation.
The utility of knowledge is what makes it shared? Or just useful.
I could ask you. I could test you. How do I justify it as knowledge? Perhaps in the same way.
So if I say "all dogs have teeth" and you say "all dogs have teeth", then how do you know we mean the same thing? Maybe you mean "order me a pizza with anchovies".
How do you gain knowledge? You could read, you could talk to other people. The usual ways.
How does reading and talking work? How do the images (sensations) become knowledge (justified true belief)? Is it not true that you can not read anything until you already know what the words mean? And how do you know what the words mean? Did your parents tell you? But then we've come around to how did you know what they said? How do you turn sensed sound vibrations into propositions? And how do you know your sensation is a sensation?
What is my epistemology? That should be clear, insofar as the question makes sense.
It appears you are an empiricist. And your axiom for gaining knowledge is sensation some how turns into knowledge. But this is like saying that you get your gold from lead by transmutation - the ancient art of alchemy.
It is not a "world view". It is how the world is.
And how do you know the world as it is?
The rest of your statement is equivalent to me saying: Go and get a masters degree in philosophy from Cambridge, then you can criticise me.
If you think that is what it will take to come up with a real criticism. 🙂But I think just a basic understanding of different philosophical word-views will suffice.
What on earth do you understand by "existentialist"?
Not sure an existentialist can answer that question.
Look, you view boils down to this: either you have CHOSEN to use a Christian god as the basis for your world view...
YES! You should choose your world-view! If you fail to choose - then you have no real argument against Christianity. If you have choosen a world-view, then you can compare your's to mine and see which holds up. I chose Scripture as my axiom. You chose what?? Maybe it chose you and you just haven't figured it out yet.
...in which case your argument remains circular
Only if I were trying to prove my world-view. My argument is not to prove my world-view is true, but that the axiom of my world-view leads to a system that is rational, coherent, comprehensive, and morally objective. It justifies what I can know, it explains what I perceive, it provides for moral objectivity, ontology, etc. And it does so where other typical world-views fail.
...or you are claiming you KNOW it is true because God has told you
No. I "BELIEVE" my world-view because God told me. You can't prove axioms. That is circular. I assume the truth of my axiom - I chose my axiom.
You believe only what you see and hear and smell, etc (as far as I can tell). But even that takes a leap of faith - that sensations become knowledge. It's an assumption which you have failed to explain or argue for. You're operating based on assumptions you have never fully explored or understood. You say "the word is what it is" but can not tell me what that means.
15 Dec 05
Originally posted by ColettiHmmmmm. I will leave it to others to decide who is being rational.
[b]Precisely. You chose this. But you could have chose something non-Christian specific with the same result.
Could I? What could I have chosen and gotten the same results? You have chosen something non-Christian - and the results are....
I didn't say they were exactly the same, but they can be of the same thing.
How do you k ...[text shortened]... explored or understood. You say "the word is what it is" but can not tell me what that means.[/b]
15 Dec 05
3 edits
Originally posted by ColettiIf you don't mind, however, I will cut out the following philosophical gem and use it as a screensaver:
Hmmm. Good idea. 😉
So if I say "all dogs have teeth" and you say "all dogs have teeth", then how do you know we mean the same thing? Maybe you mean "order me a pizza with anchovies".
Priceless.
Equally:
How do you know your sensation is a sensation?
You have no evidence a Christian "truth-guaranteeing" God exists other than that he provides you with a rational system. But why should a maximally rational system be true? Circular, but you can't see it.
I'd have so much more respect for you if you said you view was based on something a talking rabbit told you during one of your regular trips to Wonderland.
16 Dec 05
Originally posted by dottewellPerhaps the fact that the maximally rational system is the only rational choice has some bearing on it. Why should it be true? Likely because its Author is the one who determines truth, as well.
You have no evidence a Christian "truth-guaranteeing" God exists other than that he provides you with a rational system. But why should a maximally rational system be true? Circular, but you can't see it.
I'd have so much more respect for you if you said you view was based on something a talking rabbit told you during one of your regular trips to Wonderland.
What system would you use to prove the One who determines reality as untrue?
Somehow, you strike me as a person who would not have respect for anyone who espouses any type of belief in the supernatural, regardless of rational merit.
16 Dec 05
2 edits
Originally posted by FreakyKBHBut the whole point of the argument is that we start from a position of ignorance. We cannot trust our senses or mind to tell us what is true; so we "choose" a system which includes a Christian creator-god who guarantees truth.
Perhaps the fact that the maximally rational system is the only rational choice has some bearing on it. Why should it be true? Likely because its Author is the one who determines truth, as well.
What system would you use to prove the One who determines reality as untrue?
Somehow, you strike me as a person who would not have respect for anyone who espouses any type of belief in the supernatural, regardless of rational merit.
It is this logic: It is maximally rational to believe in a Christian god who guarantees that a maximally rational belief in a Christian god is true.
Even if you accept that this is the maximally rational system (which it isn't), why should it be true? Why should we be biased in favour of rationality in our search for truth, given the premise? Why is rationality a virtue in a truth-seeker? Why should we not assume, for example, that the creator is an evil deity who wishes to deceive by making the "rational" choice to believe in a benevolent Christian god?
The whole thought process is riddled with wrong assumptions - most importantly, (a) that we get to "choose" our view of the world, and what is true; and (b) that there is some sort of barrier between us, as sentient beings, and true facts about the world.
I don't care how I strike you. However, your god is clearly giving you false readings about me and how I view religion.
16 Dec 05
Originally posted by dottewellEveryone begins in ignorance, as you say. Good thing we have parents, I'd say. At some point, we begin the transfer from trusting their judgment to trusting our own. Each of us makes a determination relative to a belief system, hopefully based upon evidence, although reality does not bear this out.
Why is rationality a virtue in a truth-seek that the creator is an evil deity who wishes to deceive by making the "rational" choice to believe in a benevolent Christian god?
I don't care how I strike you.
Those who are choosing to follow the Lord Jesus Christ fall into two groups, as well. One chooses based upon how the system they are in makes them feel, and have reduced the system to a religion.
The other group chooses based upon the entire perspective presented by Christianity. That perspective, labled a world view by some, considers all aspects of life, history, society, psychology, future hope, etc.
Based on the rationality of that perspective in comparison to what a person already knows, the person makes their determination. If the person finds a lack of rationality in the system, they will (hopefully) choose against the same.
If, however, a person finds nothing lacking in that perspective, but instead determines that all rational thought, all truth emenates from that source, they are very likely to choose to adopt that perspective. Moreover, once decided to follow, that person is likely bound to discover that this Source makes their rational thought foolishness in comparison, and will continue to defer more and more of their decisions to said Source.
To consider the Source a double-agent is lacking in rationale. This Creator of truth is obviously the Creator of all, and being the Creator of all, could just as easily stop thinking of things, than to pull an elaborate hoax, as you are suggesting. Your thoughts are reminescent of a junior high schooler's challenges:
Could God make a rock that He couldn't pick up?
16 Dec 05
1 edit
Originally posted by FreakyKBHI have no idea what this means.
...being the Creator of all, could just as easily stop thinking of things, than to pull an elaborate hoax, as you are suggesting.
The rest of your post exhibits, but does not address, exactly the same circularity. You chose a system because it is "rational" and that system then guarantees that these "rational" thoughts are true thoughts. Moreover it defines for you the very meaning of rationality.
Are you saying that what I am proposing is a logical contradiction? That the sentence "God lied" is equivalent to (and just as meaningless as) "God created a stone he couldn't lift"?
16 Dec 05
1 edit
Originally posted by dottewellDo you think you can be judged on something you do not see
But the whole point of the argument is that we start from a position of ignorance. We cannot trust our senses or mind to tell us what is true; so we "choose" a system which includes a Christian creator-god who guarantees truth.
It is this logic: It is maximally rational to believe in a Christian god who guarantees that a maximally rational belief in a ...[text shortened]... ke you. However, your god is clearly giving you false readings about me and how I view religion.
or recognize? Truth isn't a guarantee; it is reality, and seeing that
for what it is, is what matters here. We have among us people
who see reality yet they act as if they don’t, for example those
of us who would just as soon buy drugs than feed their kids. They
know their kids need food, what do they do with their money?
People who know what belongs to another, yet they steal it, they
know the truth, they just choose to ignore it and do what they
will to satisfy themselves, and they may even come up with
excuses or some reason why they should have what they took.
Christianity deals in the authentic or it is a mask to dress ones
self in some religious garb of self-righteousness nothing more.
Kelly
16 Dec 05
Originally posted by KellyJayChristianity deals in the authentic or it is a mask to dress ones self in some religious garb of self-righteousness nothing more.
Do you think you can be judged on something you do not see
or recognize? Truth isn't a guarantee; it is reality, and seeing that
for what it is, is what matters here. We have among us people
who see reality yet they act as if they don’t, for example those
of us who would just as soon buy drugs than feed their kids. They
know their kids need food, what ...[text shortened]... is a mask to dress ones
self in some religious garb of self-righteousness nothing more.
Kelly
Yep. And I think this is true for all the major religions, just as I think that all of them (at their best) find and express “the authentic,” despite their different “religious garb” and despite their disagreements over how it is expressed. One may argue that this or that religion (or particular expression of this or that religion, or philosophy, for that matter) captures the authentic in a more full or accurate way than others; and we may even argue about what is and is not authentic—though none of the major religions generally argue that everything in the others is inauthentic, so that argument is usually about certain specifics. If someone says something like, “For me [name of religion/philosophy] is how I search out and try to express what is authentic in life”—or, as Ivanhoe put it, is “a lamp to guide my feet”—I cannot argue. We may debate specifics, but not that general quest, which—again—I think can be pursued in all the major religions.
I’m not saying this well. Everyone of every religion/philosophy should probably take those words of yours, fill in the name of their own religion/philosophy, and post that statement somewhere they can see it every day, and use it for continual self-examination. For me, authenticity requires continual examination and questioning of one’s own conclusions/beliefs. The spiritual journey is just that: a journey. I also think that authenticity requires that we recognize one another’s individuality and uniqueness—the path, even within the same religion—is not the same for everyone.
This does not mean that I don’t agree with a lot of what dotteweil is trying to argue here—I do. But it does mean that I never try to dissuade anyone from pursuing that authenticity within their particular religious expression. I never tell anyone they ought not to be a Christian (Protestant or Catholic or Orthodox)—or a Buddhist or a Jew or a Muslim or whatever. I may argue about particular “articles of faith”—that’s what we do on here—but I always keep in mind the statement that you have on your profile. And if we reach a friendly impasse, that’s okay.
Okay, I still don’t think I’m expressing well what I want to say, so I’ll just quit…