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?

[bluegreenearth]

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.

So, you are conceding that revelations from an infallible god are not always truth revealing?

[Data]

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.

So, you are conceding that revelations from an infallible god are not always truth revealing?

Well, it's an interesting aside. In the case mentioned above the truth was an option, but the lie was preferred by Ahab. Rehab was counted as righteous by Paul, though she lied to protect the Israelites. Jesus produced evidence that wasn't there for doubting Thomas. The signs Jesus displayed were more or less, for a lack of a better term, parlor tricks for unbelievers or those weak in faith. It wasn't that there wasn't truth in them, it was that the people are more impressed by them.

I don't subscribe to the notion that people receive divine revelation to the extent that the discussion suggests anyway. God doesn't talk to people like he did Moses. He doesn't tell them to go forth and convert the heathens running amok on internet forums. If someone tells me "God told me" or they received something through "divine revelation" I'm pretty sure they are lying or delusional. Or perhaps even under demonic influence.

[POI]

I don't subscribe to the notion that people receive divine revelation to the extent that the discussion suggests anyway. God doesn't talk to people like he did Moses. He doesn't tell them to go forth and convert the heathens running amok on internet forums. If someone tells me "God told me" or they received something through "divine revelation" I'm pretty sure they are lying or delusional. Or perhaps even under demonic influence.

All I read here is special pleading. Why not instead remain consistent and also assume no one was giving 'revelation' to Moses either, if he even existed at all in the first place?

[bluegreenearth]

Well, it's an interesting aside. In the case mentioned above the truth was an option, but the lie was preferred by Ahab. Rehab was counted as righteous by Paul, though she lied to protect the Israelites. Jesus produced evidence that wasn't there for doubting Thomas. The signs Jesus displayed were more or less, for a lack of a better term, parlor tricks for unbelievers or those weak in faith. It wasn't that there wasn't truth in them, it was that the people are more impressed by them.

I don't subscribe to the notion that people receive divine revelation to the extent that the discussion suggests anyway. God doesn't talk to people like he did Moses. He doesn't tell them to go forth and convert the heathens running amok on internet forums. If someone tells me "God told me" or they received something through "divine revelation" I'm pretty sure they are lying or delusional. Or perhaps even under demonic influence.

I'm not sure how Ahab's preference for the revelation containing the lie is relevant in the context of the claim that revelation is better than reason. Was revelation ultimately better for Ahab given the outcome? Please elaborate. Thanks.

[Data]

Well, it's an interesting aside. In the case mentioned above the truth was an option, but the lie was preferred by Ahab. Rehab was counted as righteous by Paul, though she lied to protect the Israelites. Jesus produced evidence that wasn't there for doubting Thomas. The signs Jesus displayed were more or less, for a lack of a better term, parlor tricks for unbelievers or those weak in faith. It wasn't that there wasn't truth in them, it was that the people are more impressed by them.

I don't subscribe to the notion that people receive divine revelation to the extent that the discussion suggests anyway. God doesn't talk to people like he did Moses. He doesn't tell them to go forth and convert the heathens running amok on internet forums. If someone tells me "God told me" or they received something through "divine revelation" I'm pretty sure they are lying or delusional. Or perhaps even under demonic influence.

I'm not sure how Ahab's preference for the revelation containing the lie is relevant in the context of the claim that revelation is better than reason. Was revelation ultimately better for Ahab given the outcome? Please elaborate. Thanks.

Your question was this:

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?

Ahab didn't want the revelation so how could his outcome benefit from it? He chose to reject it. He chose the deception which was also available. Ahab had to reason to do that. The operation of error I mentioned earlier. That's an intellectual choice.

[POI]

If revelation is useful and reliable, then why are there so many different Christian denominations and Bible canons throughout history?

The easiest and most logical answer is that no one is receiving any "revelation" from any external agency. It's all self-deception. Hence, the reason you have so many conflicting claims. All other conclusions require much more mental gymnastics. You know, it's like Data says, that he does not believe people receive much revelation anymore. Except, just go a little further, and include the ancients from the Bible too. Meaning, no one did, and/or no one is getting any external messages. It's all self-deception.

[bluegreenearth]

Ahab didn't want the revelation so how could his outcome benefit from it? He chose to reject it. He chose the deception which was also available. Ahab had to reason to do that.

Again, I'm not sure how the above information is relevant. According to the story (please correct me if I'm mistaken in my understanding), god revealed false information to a set of prophets who were tasked with advising Ahab. At the same time, god revealed true information to Micaiah who was also tasked with advising Ahab. Had god revealed true information to all the prophets as well as Micaiah, am I to infer from your above explanation that Ahab's reasoning would have led him to ignore all of his trusted advisors anyway? If so, then of what value was it for god to reveal a lie to all but one of Ahab's trusted prophets when he was determined to ignore the truth regardless?

Doesn't even the most basic line of reasoning lead to the conclusion that it is probably best to act in accordance with a consensus of trusted advisors (given the presumption that there is a justifiable reason to trust those advisors)? If so, then in an alternate scenario where god revealed the same truth to all of Ahab's trusted prophets including Micaiah, what is the justification for expecting Ahab's basic reasoning capabilities to fail him?

Obviously, Ahab must have been inclined to believe that his trusted prophets were receiving revelations from an infallible god. Otherwise, why would he employ and seek advice from a contingent of prophets? Accordingly, isn't it reasonable to expect that Ahab would be receptive to his own direct revelation from an infallible god if he had been targeted by god to receive one? Therefore, what would be the justification for providing a revelation to Ahab's trusted prophets but not Ahab himself? Again, am I to infer from your explanation above that a man who believed in divine revelation and sought advice from people who were receiving revelations would reason so poorly as to ignore his own revelatory experience should one be induced in him by an infallible god?

More relevant to the topic of this thread, how can revelation be consistently better than reasoning when revelation has been demonstrated to occasionally impart incorrect or misinformation where proper reasoning would have otherwise succeeded?

[AgnosticBoy]

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?

I don't agree with premise #1. I simply see no necessary connection where resurrection could only mean God was involved. The NT writers claimed that God did it, and many would reject that just because it involves the supernatural. I draw the line with what can be verified objectively, regardless of if it is supernatural or natural. Saying that God did it isn't something that can be objectively verified, but the resurrection is observable when you can see a man killed and then see him alive again.

[TRANSPONDER]

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?

I don't agree with premise #1. I simply see no necessary connection where resurrection could only mean God was involved. The NT writers claimed that God did it, and many would reject that just because it involves the supernatural. I draw the line with what can be verified objectively, regardless of if it is supernatural or natural. Saying that God did it isn't something that can be objectively verified, but the resurrection is observable when you can see a man killed and then see him alive again.

I agree. Those propositions (Jesus did resurrect; Revelation is from God) have to be accepted as true for the logical propositions to work.

If the Bible is true, my Pig can fly
My pig can fly,
Therefore the Bible is true.

And any of the Bible apologetics excuses, evasions and denial can be applied to doubt that anyone's pig can fly. So it comes down to probability versus denial, excuses and evasion. Every time.

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.

So, you are conceding that revelations from an infallible god are not always truth revealing?

Well, it's an interesting aside. In the case mentioned above the truth was an option, but the lie was preferred by Ahab. Rehab was counted as righteous by Paul, though she lied to protect the Israelites. Jesus produced evidence that wasn't there for doubting Thomas. The signs Jesus displayed were more or less, for a lack of a better term, parlor tricks for unbelievers or those weak in faith. It wasn't that there wasn't truth in them, it was that the people are more impressed by them.

I don't subscribe to the notion that people receive divine revelation to the extent that the discussion suggests anyway. God doesn't talk to people like he did Moses. He doesn't tell them to go forth and convert the heathens running amok on internet forums. If someone tells me "God told me" or they received something through "divine revelation" I'm pretty sure they are lying or delusional. Or perhaps even under demonic influence.

I'm not sure whether you are making a serious argument here of just funnin' about.

But there is a valid point of semantics. What do we mean by 'Revelation'? The first thing that pops into my head is what pops in the heads of believers. What they think God/Jesus is telling them, straight information or "Truth", like how to Interpret the Bible, or When they bet 10,000 times on the lottery and win once, that proves God is real.

The other kind of Revelation is what is claimed in the Bible. I could hardly care less about what God supposedly said to Ahab or what Paul thought about it if I don't credit a thing the Bible says anyway. The 'Revelation' to Thomas is debunked (for me, and I suggest anyone who doesn't do Denial) by Luke who says the eleven (minus Judas) were there when Jesus appears, so he denies that Thomas was absent. Like John's denial of the transfiguration (in effect) this ought to be unanswerable. So usually it doesn't get answered.

[Goose]

If the Bible is true, my Pig can fly
My pig can fly,
Therefore the Bible is true.

Classic affirming the consequent fallacy you've got there.