Can Christians understand this principle? You can try to argue your God into existence, but by doing so you just end up living a lie.Truth is not what you want it to be; it is what it is, and you must bend to its power or live a lie.
What Truth Is
Moderator: Moderators
What Truth Is
Post #1The warrior Miyamoto Musashi said:
Re: What Truth Is
Post #41[Replying to post 40 by peterk]
Respect for other people, while usually laudable, has little to do with truth. I remember being ridiculed by atheists while I was a Christian. It hurt to be mocked, but eventually I found that those atheists were right. I was being a fool, and I deserved being seen as one.
I think that a good test of our commitment to this principle is the respect that we show (or don't show) to people who hold views contrary to ours.
Respect for other people, while usually laudable, has little to do with truth. I remember being ridiculed by atheists while I was a Christian. It hurt to be mocked, but eventually I found that those atheists were right. I was being a fool, and I deserved being seen as one.
I have no idea how anybody who really knows what Christianity claims could possibly find it to be reasonable. It's nonsense from beginning to end. I'm very skeptical about these claims that people discover good logic in Christianity. I think it's much more likely that those who convert to Christianity do so because they're desperate for hope and will believe anything to cheat death.I as a Christian believe that Christianity is rational. But I also believe that those who reject Christianity do so for reasons that are rational to them.
Respect is something we should earn. If we go around telling people that wild and crazy stories are true stories, then we deserve no more respect than a snake-oil salesman does.It saddens me to see the OP author asking "Can Christians understand this principle?" If we're serious about respect for truth wherever it leads, then respect of atheists for theists and vice versa is crucial.
Re: What Truth Is
Post #42Well I for one converted to Christianity out of atheism and it had nothing to do with those reasons. Which is my point. If we're serious about meaningful dialogue, we need to actually listen to each other and take seriously what people of contrary views think. Otherwise we might as well pack up and go home.Jagella wrote: [Replying to post 40 by peterk]
I'm very skeptical about these claims that people discover good logic in Christianity. I think it's much more likely that those who convert to Christianity do so because they're desperate for hope and will believe anything to cheat death.
-
jgh7
Re: What Truth Is
Post #43Well, I don't interpret the quote literally dealing with Christianity. The quote itself seems very interesting. The quote is very true, wouldn't you agree?Jagella wrote: The warrior Miyamoto Musashi said:
Can Christians understand this principle? You can try to argue your God into existence, but by doing so you just end up living a lie.Truth is not what you want it to be; it is what it is, and you must bend to its power or live a lie.
Re: What Truth Is
Post #44Well, I think we can disagree with each other without packing up and going home. To be fair, you are welcome to be skeptical of anything I claim. In fact, I would invite you to check out everything I say to verify "what truth is."peterk wrote:Well I for one converted to Christianity out of atheism and it had nothing to do with those reasons. Which is my point. If we're serious about meaningful dialogue, we need to actually listen to each other and take seriously what people of contrary views think. Otherwise we might as well pack up and go home.Jagella wrote: [Replying to post 40 by peterk]
I'm very skeptical about these claims that people discover good logic in Christianity. I think it's much more likely that those who convert to Christianity do so because they're desperate for hope and will believe anything to cheat death.
I find your conversion story to be very interesting. When you say you were "converted from atheism," what exactly does that mean? Are you saying that for you atheism was like a religion? What exactly made you an atheist? Also, there are many varieties of Christianity. Which Christian sect did you convert to and why that sect rather than the others? Why did you start believing in the Christian god rather than some other god?
Getting back to what I said earlier, it appears to me that almost all Christians as well as other religious people are looking to their beliefs for hope both in this life and in some hoped-for afterlife. Many Christians have told me of their looking forward to heaven where they want to see their dearly departed and escape their earthly troubles. This hope, while very understandable, can and does skew thinking causing people to seek reasons to believe in Christian claims while ignoring and denying all the evidence to the contrary.
As for any evidence for the truth claims of Christianity, I've studied it for decades--ever since I left my own Christian faith. I simply cannot see how any honest person can see it as anything but nonsense. That's why I'm so skeptical of claims that the evidence for Christianity is convincing.
Re: What Truth Is
Post #45Jagella, thanks for your latest post and for the gracious honesty you display. I will try to return the favour. 
When I talked in the earlier post about mutual respect, that was more than a call to be nice to each other. I was in fact referring directly to the issue of understanding truth. (Although I may not have stated it clearly enough.) My key point in all of this is that I can't even begin to truthfully assess what you say until I am sure that I understand it correctly. And the same is true for you.
But I'm hopeful that you don't literally mean what you appear to be saying.
If you are interested in an open dialogue, I'd like to focus on these words of yours:
Consider these two cases as a thought experiment:
1. Fred says, "Since my wife died, I am so lonely. Christian teaching says that I will meet her again after I die, so I will adopt a faith in Christianity even though it makes no sense to me."
2. Joe says, "Since my wife died, I am so lonely. But I am filled with hope that I will see her again after death, because that is one of the truth claims of Christianity, and on other grounds I have come to believe that those truth claims are reliable."
What we have here are two people believing the same thing: life after death. But their inward motivation is very different. Fred's case matches your example. He believes because he wants it to be true, not because he is persuaded that it is rationally true. In this case I would agree with you that this is contrary to reason, and that his emotional need has warped his thinking about the subject. Wanting it to be so does not make it so. (Though even here it could be argued that there is benefit to his attitude if it gives him a way to relieve his deep grief.)
Joe's case is very different. He has the same belief in life after death, and that belief certainly has emotional consequences. But here there are also reasons for the belief which to Joe are rational. For Joe, life after death is in fact one of the specific truth claims that Joe has found to be persuasive. Christianity is the package, and life after death one of the items in the package.
So yes, of course it's possible that people can adopt Christianity for irrational reasons. But it doesn't follow that every person has adopted Christianity for irrational reasons. We should look at the reasons and put aside the motivations that people may have.
Note the kind of truth that we are talking about here. Christianity has always claimed to be a comprehensive world view. It claims to be intellectually true, but not just intellectually true. It also claims to be socially, spiritually and psychologically true. The claim is that "God was in Christ, reconciling the whole world to himself." If this is true, then it is true at every level of life. So people being emotionally impacted is just what we should expect if the Christian story is real.
It's also important to see this as a human issue, not just a theist or Christian issue. Everyone has motivations for their actions. Suppose McDonald's changes its food packaging to minimise bad effects on the environment. This may be done for altruistic reasons; or it may be done as a commercial decision in response to consumer demand. Either way, the change is a good thing. In the same way, my personal experience is that people decide both for and against Christianity for emotional reasons. I have known a young man become a Christian because he wanted to date the beautiful girl who went to youth group. But I have also known another man who turned away from the church to date a beautiful woman he met outside the church.
It's in all our interests to decide for or against Christianity based on the best possible arguments we can find, and not be distracted by some cases where the reasons are weak, or distorted, or non existent.
Atheism for me is not a religious term, just a descriptive term. At one point I was an atheist, because I answered No to the question "Does God exist?" At a later point I was a theist, because my answer to the same question was now Yes.
My religious heritage included Christian elements (such as a strong Methodist grandmother). But my immediate family had no religious life and I grew up with almost no active Christian life. I was comfortable through school and into University calling myself an atheist and arguing with Christian friends. But then I had a life experience which opened my eyes to the spiritual realm and challenged those previously comfortable opinions. So I had to seriously think through what I believed and why. I still respect the arguments of skeptics. (Anyone who denies the force of questions about evil in the world, the problem of bible inconsistencies, moral failings of church leaders, different religions, etc, is just deluding themselves.) But I now also believe that there are good rational Christian responses to such issues, and that the Christian world view rings truer than a naturalist one.
When you ask about Christian "sects", I presume you are thinking of labels such as Baptist or Catholic. (But if not, feel free to refine your question.) To me they are not sects, but colourful expressions of the wide spectrum of Christian life. I have been involved with several of them, and benefited from the distinctive strengths that each of them offers.
Obviously this is true, but it's not the whole story, because in the same post you say this:Jagella wrote: Well, I think we can disagree with each other without packing up and going home.
So if I say that I find the truth claims of Christianity persuasive, then according to you I am being dishonest by definition. Even though you don't actually know anything specific about what or why I believe. That's why I wondered if there's any point continuing. You've pre-defined the result of the discussion before we even start.Jagella wrote: As for any evidence for the truth claims of Christianity, I've studied it for decades--ever since I left my own Christian faith. I simply cannot see how any honest person can see it as anything but nonsense. That's why I'm so skeptical of claims that the evidence for Christianity is convincing.
When I talked in the earlier post about mutual respect, that was more than a call to be nice to each other. I was in fact referring directly to the issue of understanding truth. (Although I may not have stated it clearly enough.) My key point in all of this is that I can't even begin to truthfully assess what you say until I am sure that I understand it correctly. And the same is true for you.
But I'm hopeful that you don't literally mean what you appear to be saying.
If you are interested in an open dialogue, I'd like to focus on these words of yours:Those are good words, and it is indeed important for us to think carefully about the psychological and experiential aspects of faith. But I have a somewhat different reading of the examples you give.Jagella wrote: Getting back to what I said earlier, it appears to me that almost all Christians as well as other religious people are looking to their beliefs for hope both in this life and in some hoped-for afterlife. Many Christians have told me of their looking forward to heaven where they want to see their dearly departed and escape their earthly troubles. This hope, while very understandable, can and does skew thinking causing people to seek reasons to believe in Christian claims while ignoring and denying all the evidence to the contrary.
Consider these two cases as a thought experiment:
1. Fred says, "Since my wife died, I am so lonely. Christian teaching says that I will meet her again after I die, so I will adopt a faith in Christianity even though it makes no sense to me."
2. Joe says, "Since my wife died, I am so lonely. But I am filled with hope that I will see her again after death, because that is one of the truth claims of Christianity, and on other grounds I have come to believe that those truth claims are reliable."
What we have here are two people believing the same thing: life after death. But their inward motivation is very different. Fred's case matches your example. He believes because he wants it to be true, not because he is persuaded that it is rationally true. In this case I would agree with you that this is contrary to reason, and that his emotional need has warped his thinking about the subject. Wanting it to be so does not make it so. (Though even here it could be argued that there is benefit to his attitude if it gives him a way to relieve his deep grief.)
Joe's case is very different. He has the same belief in life after death, and that belief certainly has emotional consequences. But here there are also reasons for the belief which to Joe are rational. For Joe, life after death is in fact one of the specific truth claims that Joe has found to be persuasive. Christianity is the package, and life after death one of the items in the package.
So yes, of course it's possible that people can adopt Christianity for irrational reasons. But it doesn't follow that every person has adopted Christianity for irrational reasons. We should look at the reasons and put aside the motivations that people may have.
Note the kind of truth that we are talking about here. Christianity has always claimed to be a comprehensive world view. It claims to be intellectually true, but not just intellectually true. It also claims to be socially, spiritually and psychologically true. The claim is that "God was in Christ, reconciling the whole world to himself." If this is true, then it is true at every level of life. So people being emotionally impacted is just what we should expect if the Christian story is real.
It's also important to see this as a human issue, not just a theist or Christian issue. Everyone has motivations for their actions. Suppose McDonald's changes its food packaging to minimise bad effects on the environment. This may be done for altruistic reasons; or it may be done as a commercial decision in response to consumer demand. Either way, the change is a good thing. In the same way, my personal experience is that people decide both for and against Christianity for emotional reasons. I have known a young man become a Christian because he wanted to date the beautiful girl who went to youth group. But I have also known another man who turned away from the church to date a beautiful woman he met outside the church.
It's in all our interests to decide for or against Christianity based on the best possible arguments we can find, and not be distracted by some cases where the reasons are weak, or distorted, or non existent.
In the light of what I said above, I want to first thank you for the way you've responded here. You didn't write off what I said, but asked questions so you could understand it better. That's a great example of what I have been trying to explain.Jagella wrote: I find your conversion story to be very interesting. When you say you were "converted from atheism," what exactly does that mean? Are you saying that for you atheism was like a religion? What exactly made you an atheist? Also, there are many varieties of Christianity. Which Christian sect did you convert to and why that sect rather than the others? Why did you start believing in the Christian god rather than some other god?
Atheism for me is not a religious term, just a descriptive term. At one point I was an atheist, because I answered No to the question "Does God exist?" At a later point I was a theist, because my answer to the same question was now Yes.
My religious heritage included Christian elements (such as a strong Methodist grandmother). But my immediate family had no religious life and I grew up with almost no active Christian life. I was comfortable through school and into University calling myself an atheist and arguing with Christian friends. But then I had a life experience which opened my eyes to the spiritual realm and challenged those previously comfortable opinions. So I had to seriously think through what I believed and why. I still respect the arguments of skeptics. (Anyone who denies the force of questions about evil in the world, the problem of bible inconsistencies, moral failings of church leaders, different religions, etc, is just deluding themselves.) But I now also believe that there are good rational Christian responses to such issues, and that the Christian world view rings truer than a naturalist one.
When you ask about Christian "sects", I presume you are thinking of labels such as Baptist or Catholic. (But if not, feel free to refine your question.) To me they are not sects, but colourful expressions of the wide spectrum of Christian life. I have been involved with several of them, and benefited from the distinctive strengths that each of them offers.
-
JoeyKnothead
- Banned
- Posts: 20879
- Joined: Fri Jun 06, 2008 10:59 am
- Location: Here
- Has thanked: 4093 times
- Been thanked: 2572 times
Post #46
From the OP:
They needn't bend to that power, but get 'em some schoolin' and some studyin' and such. Like me, heck, I can't remember if I even finished the eighth grade, but I got me one of them GEDs that says I might be smart as me a high schooler, and I've enjoyed a lifetime in the amateur study of animals and evolutionary theory.
Conclusions?
Like most such statements, there's some truth to 'em, and some not so truth to 'em.
But yeah, "He's there y'all, I swear it" is kinduva goofy way to show there he sits.
The truth is, some folks are ignorant.Miyamoto Musashi wrote: Truth is not what you want it to be; it is what it is, and you must bend to its power or live a lie.
They needn't bend to that power, but get 'em some schoolin' and some studyin' and such. Like me, heck, I can't remember if I even finished the eighth grade, but I got me one of them GEDs that says I might be smart as me a high schooler, and I've enjoyed a lifetime in the amateur study of animals and evolutionary theory.
Conclusions?
Like most such statements, there's some truth to 'em, and some not so truth to 'em.
But yeah, "He's there y'all, I swear it" is kinduva goofy way to show there he sits.
I might be Teddy Roosevelt, but I ain't.
-Punkinhead Martin
-Punkinhead Martin
