Revelation vs Reason

[AgnosticBoy]

In another thread, I recently explained that I could not become a Christian because I don't see it being compatible with the processes of reason and verifiable evidence. Of course, Christians can use reason and evidence, but they often do so after the fact by trying to validate their preconceived conclusions (the details in the Bible). A rational person would use reason before reaching a conclusion.

In response to this, LittleNipper seemed to have used revelation as justification for his beliefs. That line of thinking ties into the discussions on faith vs reason - here's one such perspective in regards to the faith side:

A conflict between knowledge derived through natural human faculties and knowledge derived from divine revelation occurs only if an apparent contradiction arises.
...
If we are going to understand better the relationship between faith and reason, we must have a clearer understanding of these two words. The word faith is used in several different ways by Christian thinkers. It can refer to the beliefs that Christians share (the “Christian faith”). The word faith also can refer to our response to God and the promises of the gospel. This is what the Reformed Confessions mean when they speak of “saving faith” (for example, the WCF 14). This faith involves knowledge, assent, and trust. Finally, many philosophers and theologians have spoken of faith as a source of knowledge. As Caleb Miller explains, “The truths of faith are those that can be known or justifiedly believed because of divine revelation, and are justified on the basis of their having been revealed by God.”

- Ligioner Ministries

Here's what I want to know:
1. Why is Revelation better than reason or even on par with it?
2. If revelation is useful and reliable, then why are there so many different Christian denominations and Bible canons throughout history? Why did the Church wrongly condemn Galileo for his heliocentric theory?

[AgnosticBoy]

It could be any conclusion. The rational process involves gathering evidence and using logic to arrive at a conclusion. Christianity is not built that way.

The rational process involves that, yes, but not the thing you are gathering evidence for the conclusion of. And Christianity is built that way, it just happens that over 2,000 years of corruption and abuse has made it appear otherwise to someone who isn't using the rational in their examination. For example, Acts 17:11 and 1 John 4:1 and 2 Timothy 4:4.

Your examples fall short if you intended them to be evidence for a rational Christianity. All of your examples still involve using the Bible to prove other parts of the Bible or related messages. So that still involves accepting things as true outside of the rational process.

It's as if you have to accept the Bible as true first, and then you can apply logic and evidence to verify what you've already made up your mind about.

As an atheist then I decided I needed to be fairer in my examination. You can't be rational and objective if you are biased and unfair or uninformed. You can rationalize but that isn't being rational.

That's a good example of a rational approach. I question if Christians can apply reason consistently because of my point earlier in this post regarding your biblical examples. Anyone can use reason here and there but that doesn't make it a rational approach. Using it consistently, as in not taking anything at face value or presuming it to be true, or at least taking it as far as it can go, is rational.

My concern is to educate as best I can so an informed decision can be made no matter the conclusion. It isn't about being right or wrong, it's an individual personal responsibility.

? That's a problem then. That limited revelation would not be enough for me to make a living on (in terms of having counsel, and not money-wise).

You aren't looking for the one true God, then, you're looking for a lawyer and accountant.

Yes. Wishful thinking. Are you familiar with the Latin term Deus ex machina or Deus vult? People make their own gods or make God in their image. Those people may get a return on their investment but it isn't truth. So, in some delusional way they think they have divine revelation, and they do in a sense, only the god is themselves or tradition, culture, spiritual compromise, social acceptance or challenge - it could be anything. A private jet, fleet of gold Rolls Royce cars, $700 haircuts, really nice suits, self-righteousness. You may look at those examples and think to yourself "I don't want that god" or you may think "I want that god." In a sense, I suppose, you get what you ask for. Some people think being a fake guru is the way to go and that wouldn't work unless there were a lot of people who are looking for a fake guru. They may be poor, but they give money. Taking money out of whatever truth you are looking for is a good, wise first step. Freely you receive and so freely give. If you have to pay for it, you're getting the fake.

The Bible is the only divine revelation you need for truth in that respect. When you read the Bible, it tells of very specific isolated events over a great period of time. Those events aren't or weren't everyday mundane occurrences, they always happened with a specific conclusion in mind. For example, Paul was bitten by a very poisonous snake with no harm. So, people wrongly take that to mean Christians are superheroes, or they rightly think, Christians aren't superheroes. Paul was protected by the holy spirit because he was faced with the extremely important task of establishing the early Christian congregation. Later, when that task had been completed enough for God's purpose, Paul likely died a horrible death for what he believed in. And he was honored and glad to have done so. Maybe - just maybe - he will be rewarded. Well, he had been, but maybe further rewarded.

There's something bigger than us. And them.

I'll keep that in mind. Thanks for that good perspective!

[AgnosticBoy]

For the record, I'm very open to accepting the existence of the supernatural realm, but it just seems that there's no good examples for it unless you're already a believer.

If Jesus was resurrected wouldn’t that be a good example?

Actually, let me say that I accept that Jesus did resurrect. I accept it as a historical fact because there is multiple attestation in terms of documentation and witnesses, and there's a lack of historical evidence to suggest that their observations were flawed. I dislike when people reject it on all levels all while accepting something else based on the same level of evidence or even less evidence. To me that exposes that it's not a validity issue (since the evidence is there), but rather it's a philosophical issue (it's not in line with naturalism).

The only reason I'm not a theist based on that is because of the level of evidence. Historical evidence has its limitations. I'd want evidence under more controlled circumstances, even up to a scientific level.

Christianity is not built that way. It's as if you have to accept the Bible as true first, and then you can apply logic and evidence to verify what you've already made up your mind about.

What do you think the earliest Christians did before the Bible was canonized?

In some cases, they used the Old Testament, but even without the Bible, they took the word of the Apostles. My main point is that this still falls outside of the rational process. But then again, I'm trying not to limit myself to that process which is why I'd like for any theist to show that 'revelation' is reliable, and I mean to do so beyond just going by ontology and definition. You've at least succeeded in showing why it would be reliable, but I'd also want justification that revelation exists beyond just definition, and that it does so reliably.

Okay but misinterpretation is a problem that resides with the reliability of humans to reason correctly, not with Revelation itself. Much of the interpretational problems can be avoided once one understands the difference between descriptive and prescriptive. As for verifying it is from God and not humans, that's a different question. I guess you’ll have to expand on what you mean by verification in order for me to address it.

While your point is true, but then I question what worth would revelation be to us if we can't get it right - if the message is always filtered and potentially wrong. The reason I would question if some revelation is from God is because of the standards that Christians tend to use for that. To some Christians, just having a strong feeling is a sign from God. Just having a dream is a sign from God. In my view, that's not reliable at all. The signs should be clear. In fact, the Bible, particularly the OT, gives some clear signs. The Jews were hearing audible voices, had many signs and wonders, etc. I'd want something on that level of reliability.

[TRANSPONDER]

That makes sense. The video says "It is not the skeptic requires less evidence but the Believer needs to require more". The evidence is strong that Revelation is a human mental construct and the evidence against any of it being true - and Christian as much as any looks that way - is good.

I may say it looks to me like that for the resurrection. At first glance it seems well attested. On a close look it falls seriously apart. And even if it was reliable, it would be evidence against a resurrection (from death). But that is a different discussion.

[alexxcJRO]

You have a nice recipe for committing atrocities.
1. If Revelation is from God, then Revelation is better than human reason because it originates from a source that is not fallible.
2. Revelation is from God.(says the Israeli prophet)
3. Therefore, Revelation is better than human reason(punishing and killing babies and animals, committing genocides is wrong) because it originates from a source that is not fallible (via modus ponens).

Firstly, I will note you haven’t disputed the premises of my argument at all. You just seem unhappy about it because you think it could be used to justify atrocities.

Secondly, your argument here is invalid. Your conclusion does not follow from your premises. You’ve basically argued this:


[indent]1. If P, then Q
2. P (I)
3. Therefore, R[/indent]


Thirdly, your premise (3) is false. Specifically you say that, “human reason(punishing and killing babies and animals, committing genocides is wrong).” But many humans do not reason that killing babies is wrong. In Canada abortion at any point in the pregnancy is legal. Canadians kill an average of about 100,000 babies every year and have done so for decades.

1. This is rich. Your saying your own argument is invalid.
Third premise is your premise. I have just inserted, added things using your argument.
Made a specific example.
I do not care about the argument per say. But just using the logic: "Revelation is better than human reason because it originates from God" to commit atrocities. Which surely happens and have happened. Islamic Jihadists, Inquisition, Holy wars.

2. Equating a fetus with a baby is laughable if one is really stickle for exact facts which you seem to be but not when it comes to information going against your cherished beliefs.
A one day inseminated egg is not the same with a baby.
A 5 days embryo is not the same with a baby.
A 1 week embryo is not the same with a baby.
Off course you know this.
But I guess rationality stops when reality confronts one's cherished beliefs.

3. I agree that killing on mass fully formed fetuses that have a developed nervous system-including a brain is wrong. And it will be looked back from the future as a barbaric act.
Like we look back as the acts of Aztecs killing babies as sacrifice for their moronic god beliefs.

Dear sir punishing, inflicting great suffering and pain, killing non-moral agents(fully formed fetuses, babies, non-human animals, the severely mentally impaired) is wrong/moronic in any universe. No matter who does it mere humans or incredibly powerful beings.

[Goose]

You have a nice recipe for committing atrocities.
1. If Revelation is from God, then Revelation is better than human reason because it originates from a source that is not fallible.
2. Revelation is from God.(says the Israeli prophet)
3. Therefore, Revelation is better than human reason(punishing and killing babies and animals, committing genocides is wrong) because it originates from a source that is not fallible (via modus ponens).

Firstly, I will note you haven’t disputed the premises of my argument at all. You just seem unhappy about it because you think it could be used to justify atrocities.

Secondly, your argument here is invalid. Your conclusion does not follow from your premises. You’ve basically argued this:


[indent]1. If P, then Q
2. P (I)
3. Therefore, R[/indent]


Thirdly, your premise (3) is false. Specifically you say that, “human reason(punishing and killing babies and animals, committing genocides is wrong).” But many humans do not reason that killing babies is wrong. In Canada abortion at any point in the pregnancy is legal. Canadians kill an average of about 100,000 babies every year and have done so for decades.

1. This is rich. Your saying your own argument is invalid.

No, I’m saying your version of the argument is invalid. You don't get to add a bunch of untenable stuff to my premises and then call it my argument.

Third premise is your premise. I have just inserted, added things using your argument.

It’s not my premise. As you admit here you inserted and added things to my argument thereby making it a different argument, i.e. your argument.

I do not care about the argument per say.

You should, you should address the argument I’ve made. Not your strawman version of it. That would help you avoid many of the irrational counter arguments you’ve been trying to make.

But just using the logic: "Revelation is better than human reason because it originates from God" to commit atrocities. Which surely happens and have happened. Islamic Jihadists, Inquisition, Holy wars.

My argument said nothing whatsoever about committing atrocities. It didn’t even imply it. If someone were to get “therefore, commit atrocities” from my argument they clearly aren’t reasoning correctly.

2. Equating a fetus with a baby is laughable if one is really stickle for exact facts which you seem to be but not when it comes to information going against your cherished beliefs.
A one day inseminated egg is not the same with a baby.
A 5 days embryo is not the same with a baby.
A 1 week embryo is not the same with a baby.
Off course you know this.
But I guess rationality stops when reality confronts one's cherished beliefs.

A new distinct human life begins at conception. A five day old embryo is a very young human (assuming it’s a human embryo of course). Another name for a very young human is baby. I’m not the only one who uses the term baby in this way.

“It is during this first trimester that the fetus is most susceptible to damage from substances, like alcohol, drugs and certain medicines, and illnesses, like rubella (German measles). During the first trimester, your body and your baby’s body are changing rapidly.” – John Hopkins Medicine

“Through the first trimester, your baby goes from being a fertilised ovum to a foetus of about 6cm in length at 12 weeks. – Australian Government” – Department of Health

You may not prefer the term baby because of the implications, but the term is not logically incorrect.

3. I agree that killing on mass fully formed fetuses that have a developed nervous system-including a brain is wrong. And it will be looked back from the future as a barbaric act.

But your premise still remains false despite your personal opinion about killing babies that meet your arbitrary criteria. You argued human reason is that killing babies is wrong. But there are many humans who do not reason killing babies is wrong. As I argued abortions in Canada are legal at any point in the pregnancy. Statistics from 2019 in Canada suggested that nearly 70% of abortions occur in the 9th week and later. Of the roughly 83,000 abortions that year only 17,421 occurred where gestational age was known at the time of the killing. Of that 703 (or 4%) babies were killed at 21 weeks or later. If we extrapolated that percentage out to the roughly 83,000 abortions that year, that implies there may have been approximately 3,300 babies killed after 21 weeks.

Like we look back as the acts of Aztecs killing babies as sacrifice for their moronic god beliefs.

Dear sir punishing, inflicting great suffering and pain, killing non-moral agents(fully formed fetuses, babies, non-human animals, the severely mentally impaired) is wrong/moronic in any universe. No matter who does it mere humans or incredibly powerful beings.

When you say it’s wrong in any universe, do you mean it’s necessarily true that killing babies is immoral?

[Goose]

For the record, I'm very open to accepting the existence of the supernatural realm, but it just seems that there's no good examples for it unless you're already a believer.

If Jesus was resurrected wouldn’t that be a good example?

Actually, let me say that I accept that Jesus did resurrect. I accept it as a historical fact because there is multiple attestation in terms of documentation and witnesses, and there's a lack of historical evidence to suggest that their observations were flawed. I dislike when people reject it on all levels all while accepting something else based on the same level of evidence or even less evidence. To me that exposes that it's not a validity issue (since the evidence is there), but rather it's a philosophical issue (it's not in line with naturalism).

Okay. I appreciate the consistency.

The only reason I'm not a theist based on that is because of the level of evidence. Historical evidence has its limitations. I'd want evidence under more controlled circumstances, even up to a scientific level.

I’m confused by this. You accept that Jesus did resurrect but aren’t a theist because of the evidence. But the evidence must be good enough to justify accepting Jesus did resurrect.

1. If Jesus did resurrect, then God exists.

2. Jesus did resurrect.

3. Therefore, God exists.

You accept premise (2), so if you also accept premise (1), the conclusion that God exists logically follows. The only way of it, as far as I can see, is find a reason to change your mind and dispute premise (2).

Christianity is not built that way. It's as if you have to accept the Bible as true first, and then you can apply logic and evidence to verify what you've already made up your mind about.

What do you think the earliest Christians did before the Bible was canonized?

In some cases, they used the Old Testament, but even without the Bible, they took the word of the Apostles. My main point is that this still falls outside of the rational process. But then again, I'm trying not to limit myself to that process which is why I'd like for any theist to show that 'revelation' is reliable, and I mean to do so beyond just going by ontology and definition. You've at least succeeded in showing why it would be reliable, but I'd also want justification that revelation exists beyond just definition, and that it does so reliably.

You don’t have to operate outside the rational process to be a Christian. Indeed, one of the reasons I’m still a Christian is because I believe it can be defended rationally. Let’s forget about Revelation for a moment, we can come back to it later. I think we will get further focusing on the simple argument I just gave you. You don’t need to see the Bible as Revelation or inerrant to arrive at the conclusion in that argument.

[AgnosticBoy]

The only reason I'm not a theist based on that is because of the level of evidence. Historical evidence has its limitations. I'd want evidence under more controlled circumstances, even up to a scientific level.

I’m confused by this. You accept that Jesus did resurrect but aren’t a theist because of the evidence. But the evidence must be good enough to justify accepting Jesus did resurrect.

1. If Jesus did resurrect, then God exists.

2. Jesus did resurrect.

3. Therefore, God exists.

You accept premise (2), so if you also accept premise (1), the conclusion that God exists logically follows. The only way of it, as far as I can see, is find a reason to change your mind and dispute premise (2).

Some of the confusion is a result of my trying to put my thoughts together. If I change some of my positions, it's only because I'm reacting off of reason and evidence as I encounter them here, and not because I'm trying to be disingenuous. I'm willing to update my view just as long as it is moving towards a more reasonable position!

So originally, I was trying to say that historical evidence doesn't reach a level of certainty of knowing. But then again, accepting it on any level would still count as a belief. I get your point there. But my thinking is that theism requires belief in God's existence. I don't know that Jesus is God nor that God exists. My accepting Jesus's resurrection as a historical fact simply means that I accept that an influential man died, and then later on, he's back to interacting with people. This is all that the historical evidence warrants accepting. Also, accepting that a supernatural event occurred doesn't mean that I must accept every other thing that's classified as supernatural (God, angels, demons, etc). I just accept life after death, and I'm open to accepting more or less based on logic and evidence.

You don’t have to operate outside the rational process to be a Christian. Indeed, one of the reasons I’m still a Christian is because I believe it can be defended rationally. Let’s forget about Revelation for a moment, we can come back to it later. I think we will get further focusing on the simple argument I just gave you. You don’t need to see the Bible as Revelation or inerrant to arrive at the conclusion in that argument.

My position is more open than yours regarding the need for a reason-based Christianity. I'd be okay with it being justified by revelation if Christians were able to establish that revelation is reliable in practice, and not just on a theoretical level. If that could be done first, then I wouldn't mind putting reason on the shelf at times because I wouldn't need it to get accurate information. At that point, I could see myself using reason occasionally to reaffirm that revelation is reliable or to demonstrate its validity to others.

[Goose]

So originally, I was trying to say that historical evidence doesn't reach a level of certainty of knowing. But then again, accepting it on any level would still count as a belief. I get your point there. But my thinking is that theism requires belief in God's existence. I don't know that Jesus is God nor that God exists.

I'm providing a way for you to know that God exists. I will direct you back to the argument I gave.

1. If Jesus did resurrect, then God exists.

2. Jesus did resurrect.

3. Therefore, God exists.

Or we can put the argument another way.

1. If God does not exist, then Jesus did not resurrect.

2. Jesus did resurrect.

3. Therefore, God does exist.

You already said you accept premise (2) and seemed to confirm that in your last follow up post. So do you dispute premise (1)? If so, why? If not, why reject the conclusion?

[bluegreenearth]

1. If Revelation is from God, then Revelation is better than human reason because it originates from a source that is not fallible.

2. Revelation is from God.

3. Therefore, Revelation is better than human reason because it originates from a source that is not fallible (via modus ponens).

Please clarify premise 1: Does the property of infallibility necessarily entail the property of "always truth revealing"? Could an infallible god, at least occasionally, deliberately reveal inaccurate or misinformation for some justified reason or does that describe a logical contradiction?

[Data]

Please clarify premise 1: Does the property of infallibility necessarily entail the property of "always truth revealing"? Could an infallible god, at least occasionally, deliberately reveal inaccurate or misinformation for some justified reason or does that describe a logical contradiction?

If I may interject: 1 Kings 22:21-22 - And there came forth a spirit, and stood before the Lord, and said, I will persuade him . . . I will go forth and be a lying spirit in the mouth of all his prophets. And he said, Thou shalt persuade him and prevail also; go forth and do so.

This is what the apostle Paul called "operation of error." It is a case of allowing those who prefer to believe in a falsehood to continue to do so. (2 Thessalonians 2:9-12) Micaiah had foretold disaster but the prophets of king Ahab didn't want to hear the truth, he wanted victory. It should be recognized that Micaiah did foretell the truth, but Ahab chose not to listen.