Why Is There Belief in the Divinity of Jesus?

Originally posted by Scriabin
I said that there is an entire branch of philosophy devoted to the problem of how we know anything -- what does the word "knowledge" mean? That branch of philosophy is called epistemology.

Epistemology primarily addresses the following questions: "What is knowledge?", "How is knowledge acquired?", and "What do people know?"

Defined narrowly, epistemol ty with the subject: Epistemology & Methodology
http://www.ucl.ac.uk/philosophy/LPSG/

To be conversant with you using the vocabulary of philosophical terms is not my strong suite.

I do not mean such concepts as rationalism, epistimology, ontological argument, etc. are totally foriegn to me. My library does include some Christian apologetics in the realm of those disciplines.

I am more inclined at the moment to pull down some of those books and do some review of Spinoza.

So for the moment I withdraw the comment, and let you do your thing. I'll do a little homework on Spinoza for my own edification.

Maybe, I'll comment latter.

By the way. Did you tell me whether or not Alexander Scriabin the composer has anything to do with your tag?

Originally posted by jaywill
To be conversant with you using the vocabulary of philosophical terms is not my strong suite.

I do not mean such concepts as rationalism, epistimology, ontological argument, etc. are totally foriegn to me. My library does include some Christian apologetics in the realm of those disciplines.

I am more inclined at the moment to pull down some of t d you tell me whether or not Alexander Scriabin the composer has anything to do with your tag?

don't know if I did tell you, Scriabin, some of whose music I really like, has been dead for more than a century now.

But I read somewhere that they opened his tomb and found him sitting there erasing all his musical scores. They asked him why and he said:
"What else should I be doing? I'm decomposing."

Scriabin was a bit of a nutcake, to tell the truth. He wrote some of the best music and the worst poetry ever. Like everyone else, he thought he could see into the heart of the universe and had it all figured out -- only he knew the truth of the whole.

As if .....but I do like some of his music quite a lot.

Originally posted by Scriabin
well, faith itself is a problem because it rests on the ontological argument I just posted about and which I reject as Kant did.

For another, it is simply beyond any rational thought I can entertain to consider a human being as divine or as having any of the attributes of a deity.

But you got it right -- I think following what Jesus would have us actu ...[text shortened]... ey my conscience and also by the suffering I must summon the courage to face and endure.y

Yes , I see . God to you is nothing unless He is a way of being and a way of living. All that religion stuff can easily get in the way. I think Spirituality is where it's at. Living in the Spirit is the most important thing. Despite the differences in our primary beliefs I see you as a kindred spirit. Your courage is commendable. I think God would be proud of you.

Originally posted by knightmeister
Yes , I see . God to you is nothing unless He is a way of being and a way of living. All that religion stuff can easily get in the way. I think Spirituality is where it's at. Living in the Spirit is the most important thing. Despite the differences in our primary beliefs I see you as a kindred spirit. Your courage is commendable. I think God would be proud of you.

I think the universe has better things to do and be than to concern itself with me or, indeed, any individual on this speck of dust and water -- one among perhaps trillions of similar worlds throughout a vastness that our minds cannot hold, even in thought. Thus, we shrink it down to manageable levels by inventing for ourselves coping mechanisms, such as putting a human face on that which is the great whole of all that is the case.

Whether or not a consciousness the least bit anthropomorphic exists is beyond what is given us or perhaps even possible ever to know.

But I don't rule it out, because as I'm fond of saying, what we don't know, we don't know.

Originally posted by Scriabin
I think the universe has better things to do and be than to concern itself with me or, indeed, any individual on this speck of dust and water -- one among perhaps trillions of similar worlds throughout a vastness that our minds cannot hold, even in thought. Thus, we shrink it down to manageable levels by inventing for ourselves coping mechanisms, such as p ...[text shortened]...
But I don't rule it out, because as I'm fond of saying, what we don't know, we don't know.

"I think the universe has better things to do and be than to concern itself with me..."

You think so?

"But I don't rule it out, because as I'm fond of saying, what we don't know, we don't know."

On the one hand you think there's nobody out there, and on the other you think that there may be.
The bottom line is you just don't know. Well, what do you know?
Do you know that there is something terribly wrong with the human race? Or do you just chalk it up to evolution? Even animals aren't as vicious as man. Maybe the animals are further along in evolution, and it's the human race that's inferior.

What you don't know, I do! Actually, it's who you don't know.

Originally posted by Scriabin
[b]I think the universe has better things to do and be than to concern itself with me or, indeed, any individual on this speck of dust and water --

So what does size have to do with anything? 😳 Er, um, you know what I mean right?

Originally posted by Scriabin
Why do people accept, without evidence, as fact that a human being called Jesus was conceived by the union of the deity of monotheism and a virgin human woman?

How is this different from the story of Hercules? What if the name of God was Zeus or Jupiter?

In other words, defining reality in terms of faith, any faith, simply baffles me.

Why do people accept, without evidence, as fact that a human being called Jesus was conceived by the union of the deity of monotheism and a virgin human woman?

People do not accept anything without evidence, and it is a common misconception that Christian faith is a blind faith. The evidence Christians believe in is the word of God, specifically the New Testament. Now, there are indeed copious arguments for and against the validity of scripture as a historical document, but the fact is that the New Testament is the evidence upon which the Christian faith rests.

In other words, defining reality in terms of faith, any faith, simply baffles me.

Faith is inescapable whoever you are, whether atheist or theist. Whatever we take for granted can be shown to not rest upon absolute certainty, but faith. There are varying degrees of certainty, sure, but at bottom faith defines everybody's reality.

A Christian has faith that the Bible is reliable; that those who wrote the New Testament were faithful witnesses to the Truth of Christ, his miracles, his bodily resurrection, etc. An atheist has faith in the rationality of Hume, empirical evidence, persistent realities, etc. We can have faith that black holes exist because we trust the reliability of Einstein's model, even though we've never witnessed one. Likewise, a person can have faith that Jesus walked on water because of the reliability of scripture.

Any rational human being would ask, "how do we establish that scripture is reliable?" There are many avenues to take. One can study the word itself and get a sense of its integrity (or lack thereof), research the historicity of the NT, prayerfully seek the God spoken of in scripture, and find whatever solid evidence there is that the NT itself is a reliable historical document (unadulterated by mythologizing or degradation over time). It is possible to present a good case that the NT is reliable, but it will never be possible to do so with absolute certainty.

Originally posted by epiphinehas
Faith is inescapable whoever you are, whether atheist or theist. Whatever we take for granted can be shown to not rest upon absolute certainty, but faith. There are varying degrees of certainty, sure, but at bottom faith defines everybody's reality.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/faith

1 a: allegiance to duty or a person : loyalty b (1): fidelity to one's promises (2): sincerity of intentions
2 a (1): belief and trust in and loyalty to God (2): belief in the traditional doctrines of a religion b (1): firm belief in something for which there is no proof (2): complete trust
3: something that is believed especially with strong conviction; especially : a system of religious beliefs

With so many of the definitions linked to religious belief, or theism, you are equivocating on the term by ascribing it to both atheists and theists at once.

Originally posted by SwissGambit
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/faith

1 a: allegiance to duty or a person : loyalty b (1): fidelity to one's promises (2): sincerity of intentions
2 a (1): belief and trust in and loyalty to God (2): belief in the traditional doctrines of a religion b (1): firm belief in something for which there is no proof (2): complete trust
3: somethin ...[text shortened]... theism, you are equivocating on the term by ascribing it to both atheists and theists at once.

With so many of the definitions linked to religious belief, or theism, you are equivocating on the term by ascribing it to both atheists and theists at once.

What do you call belief in something without having absolute certainty?

Faith.

Undoubtedly, there is an aspect of Christian faith which is blind. For instance, if I ask for a wife based on the promise found in scripture that whatsoever I ask for in Christ's name I shall receive it, the faith that God is going to fulfill that promise is faith in something for which there is no proof - a blind faith.

However, faith in the reliability of scripture isn't blind faith, it is faith in evidence. Similar to any other mode of knowledge acquisition.

Originally posted by epiphinehas
[b]With so many of the definitions linked to religious belief, or theism, you are equivocating on the term by ascribing it to both atheists and theists at once.

What do you call belief in something without having absolute certainty?

Faith.

Undoubtedly, there is an aspect of Christian faith which is blind. For instance, if I ask for a n't blind faith, it is faith in evidence. Similar to any other mode of knowledge acquisition.[/b]

…What do you call belief in something without having absolute certainty?

Faith. …

It isn’t “faith” to believe something with 99% certainty if, according to the evidence, you should rationally be 99% certain that it is true -and yet 99% certainty is not absolute certainty.
It is only “faith” if you have a high certainty in a belief with insufficient premise to logically justify that high certainty.

…However, faith in the reliability of scripture isn't blind faith, it is faith in evidence. Similar to any other mode of knowledge acquisition…

Not quite. What about knowledge acquisition through scientific method? I have no doubt that there must be a lot of historical truth ingrained within the scriptures but if scientific facts (gained from scientific method) contradicts something that the scriptures says then it isn’t “faith” to believe that that part of the scripture is false for you would have a reason to believe that there is a high probability of it being false (obviously religious scriptures do not come from scientific method and so are generally a less reliable source of information that that gained through scientific method).

Originally posted by epiphinehas
[b]Why do people accept, without evidence, as fact that a human being called Jesus was conceived by the union of the deity of monotheism and a virgin human woman?

People do not accept anything without evidence, and it is a common misconception that Christian faith is a blind faith. The evidence Christians believe in is the word of God, specifical se that the NT is reliable, but it will never be possible to do so with absolute certainty.[/b]

I have to take issue with some of this. First, it is simply not the case that people never believe a proposition without evidence. For instance, people come to believe propositions based on inference from false beliefs, fallacious inferences from true beliefs, and in some cases from psychological events that do not even roughly count as inferences. People can be non-rationally caused to believe propositions, after all.

In the prior two cases, it will generally be the case that people take themselves to have formed their beliefs on the basis of good inferences from true premises, but this does not suffice to show that their beliefs are actually based on evidence. At least, this does not suffice if we take the term 'evidence' to be normative; as a term that we use to describe some propositions making other propositions more likely to be true. You, perhaps, are using the term 'evidence' descriptively, to refer to just whatever it is upon which the formation of a belief is based and sustained. But I think this way of understanding the term makes you misunderstand the point of those who take issue with the evidential credentials of religious belief. They are not, in general, claiming that from the point of view of the believer their religious beliefs are based on nothing. Rather, they are claiming that from the third-personal point of view these religious beliefs are not based on anything that epistemically justifies them. If you substitute 'good evidence' for 'evidence' in the claim to which you respond above, then you will get the drift. Although you deny the claim above because Christian belief is based on evidence provided by scripture, this misses the point. The claim here is that the Christian faith is based on nothing that counts as good evidence; as evidence in the normative sense capable of justifying belief. Whether this claim is true is contentious, but can not be simply dismissed.

Further, although I've heard it quite often in these forums, I am always surprised when a theist claims that faith is inescapable. It seems to me that this results from two errors. The first error is thinking that justified belief or knowledge requires epistemic certainty. The second error is the conflation of faith and belief. The inference seems to go like this: For a large class of propositions, we cannot be epistemically certain of their truth, yet we believe them nonetheless. Epistemically uncertain beliefs are instances of faith. Hence, these beliefs are instances of faith. But this is not how the term 'faith' is used in ordinary discourse, and leads to strange results. For instance, I am not now certain that I am at my desk, and yet I believe it. I have all sorts of reasons for believing that I am at my desk, yet these reasons are all defeasible. Any sane individual would accept that I am justified in believing I am at my desk, and anybody not in thrall with skepticism will claim that I know I am at my desk. But there is no contradiction in supposing that I am hallucinating, or have been spirited away unknowingly to an exact replica of my desk. Now, on the inference above, it follows that I simply have faith that I am at my desk. But this should strike us as, minimally, a very strange way of putting things. Do I merely have faith that my name is Bennett, or that I live in Seattle, or...? And this is not simply for contingent and empirical beliefs. I cannot be certain that the syllogistic proof I have just constructed for my logic class is valid, even though I seem to see very clearly that the conclusion follows from the premises. And yet I could, bizarrely, have temporarily taken leave of my rational faculties, or be irremediably conceptually confused about the workings of the truth-functional connectives. So I cannot even be epistemically certain about putatively necessary propositions justified a priori. Does it follow that I merely have faith that Modus Ponens yields truths from truths?

I understand the desire to press the term 'faith' into service in this way. Doing so allows you to deflect the charge of epistemic irresponsibility that naturally follows from construing faith in the standard way. But this has all the virtues of theft over honest toil; it is linguistic slight-of-hand, and in any case buys you nothing. For your antagonist will simply draw the same epistemological distinctions using revised terminology. Even if all epistemically uncertain beliefs are based on faith, it is still sensible to ask which propositions it is most reasonable or justified to have faith in. My faith that I am at my desk, and that Modus Ponens works will still come out justified. Faith that my cat is a cleverly disguised robot will not.

But the strangest entailment of this way of using the term 'faith', I think, is that it tends to vitiate the theological importance of the notion. If faith is really nothing more than any instance of epistemically uncertain belief, than nothing except their respective propositional contents distinguishes your faith in Jesus from my faith that I am at my desk. But I thought that, according to theists, faith was something additional to belief; a type of persisting trust even in face of hardship or countervailing evidence, that sustained belief, informed character, and made one better. All this is lost, if you conflate faith and belief. Of course, you can press other terms into service to pick up the slack. You can use terms like 'fidelity', 'trust', 'steadfast', etc. to make these points. But what does this buy you, in the end? It answers no legitimate question, settles no dispute, and only serves to obfuscate religious discussions.

Originally posted by bbarr
[b]I have to take issue with some of this. First, it is simply not the case that people never believe a proposition without evidence. For instance, people come to believe propositions based on inference from false beliefs, fallacious inferences from true beliefs, and in some cases from psychological events that do not even roughly count as inferences. People can be non-rationally caused to believe propositions, after all.

Who says evidence needs to be rational? In fact, how is one to prove what it rational? I am sure evidence, no matter rational or irrational. at the time seems rational. All that matters is your perception of what is rational.

Originally posted by whodey
Who says evidence needs to be rational? In fact, how is one to prove what it rational? I am sure evidence, no matter rational or irrational. at the time seems rational. All that matters is your perception of what is rational.

I assume what is meant by “rational evidence” here is information that can “rationally” be used to justify greater certainty in some belief.

…Who says evidence needs to be rational? …

-anyone who doesn’t want irrational beliefs.

…In fact, how is one to prove what it rational? …

This is a completely different subject but, here’s is just one example of a proof of what is rational:
It is rational to believe the following proposition:

“If (a) 1+1=2 And If (b) 2+2=4 Then (c) 1+1+1+1=4. “

And here’s the proof that it is rational to believe this proposition:

1+1=2 can be rewritten as:

(d) (1+1)=2

So substituting each of the two “2” in equation (b) for the “(1+1)” in equation (d) gives:

(e) (1+1)+(1+1)=4.

Which can be rewritten as: (c) 1+1+1+1=4.
Which proves that “If (a) 1+1=2 And If (b) 2+2=4 Then (c) 1+1+1+1=4” as required.

…All that matters is your perception of what is rational…

No -or at least not when it comes to forming beliefs. It is a matters of logic of what is a rationally based belief. If I base a belief X on an observation Y when, if X and Y are stated as propositions, Y does NOT logically follow from X then it is not a “matter of perception” that it is irrational, it simply is irrational. And, similarly, if Y DOES logically follow from X then it is not a “matter of perception” that it is rational, it simply is rational.

Originally posted by Andrew Hamilton
…In fact, how is one to prove what it rational? …

This is a completely different subject but, here’s is just one example of a proof of what is rational:
It is rational to believe the following proposition:

“If (a) 1+1=2 And If (b) 2+2=4 Then (c) 1+1+1+1=4. “

And here’s the proof that it is rational to believe this proposit ...[text shortened]... ollow from X then it is not a “matter of perception” that it is rational, it simply is rational.[/b]

Great! Now all you need to do is show me a mathmatical equation that either proves that God exists or does not exist.

Of course I was looking for examples that does not include mathamatics. 😉

Originally posted by Andrew Hamilton
[b]I assume what is meant by “rational evidence” here is information that can “rationally” be used to justify greater certainty in some belief.

Show me someone who does not do this?