If you don't trust the Bible, Where do you look for truth?

[2timothy316]

What say you?
Also, if you don't see an option in the vote then add it in a comment.

[JehovahsWitness]

Yes it most certainly does. On the presumption that God exists and expects to be worshipped, how would you answer the question?

... if I were to presume Jesus to be the God that exists, then I would have to presume the Bible contains the most reliable answer to that question.

Good answer. Thanks for finally coming to the point.


JW

[bluegreenearth]

RightReason,

My point is sounds like you’re saying unless we can measure it, it isn’t true. That’s silly. We may not have the technology to measure something, but that doesn’t mean therefore it doesn’t exist.

I'm not saying that at all. I'm trying to explain that it is logically impossible for us to know the supernatural exists even if it does exist. Therefore, it is fallacious for anyone to argue that they know the supernatural exists when what they should be saying is that they believe the supernatural exists. Whether the supernatural actually exists or not is besides the point because we are talking about what kinds of knowledge are logically possible for us to acquire.

Any claim about the supernatural falls under the category of Metaphysics. Metaphysical truths exist but are inaccessible to us and do nothing to inform our decisions in the reality we perceive.

Ha, ha, ha . . . I think your do nothing conclusion is itself unscientific.

You misunderstood the meaning of that comment. I'll illustrate the point with an example. If the metaphysical truth of our reality were that we are actually living in an elaborate computer simulation of which we are completely unaware and cannot escape from (like the Matrix), we would still experience and observe objective consequences for our actions on ourselves, other things, and other people in that virtual environment from our restricted perspective. For instance, the decision to eat healthy, exercise, receive vaccinations, discourage bigotry, encourage critical thinking, promote gender equality, and support the LGBTQ community will objectively maximize well-being and minimize unnecessary harm for the largest number of people within the reality we all experience whether it only exist in a computer simulation or not. Therefore, knowledge of the metaphysical truth about my reality is not required for me to make informed decisions from within the reality I perceive.

So, like I said, unless it doesn’t. If the event actually occurred, then it doesn’t only exist in the mind of the eyewitness – it actually exists.

If the event actually occurred, the only way anyone could know the event occurred would be to observe it. The only way someone could know the claim about the event is empirically true would be if they were also observing it when the claimed event occurred. The only way an outsider could know the claim about the event is conceptually true would be to demonstrate where it has an implicit empirical basis by recreating the event to show it is possible that such an event could occur at all. If none of these criteria are met, it doesn't mean the event didn't occur; only that we couldn't claim to know it occurred. At best, someone could only claim to believe the event occurred. Whether or not someone has reliable reasons to believe the event occurred is another topic altogether.

Sure. And also eliminates some limits to its reliability. Works both ways.

Fair point.

It also does not prove that it is not true.

Yes, but if it is possible to disprove a claim, every effort should be made to try and disprove it rather than submit to confirmation bias by only seeking out evidence that seems to support it.

Right. So, like I said, that’s something.

Yes, but that kind of "something" is not enough to justify a high degree of confidence in an extraordinary claim.

the inescapable problem of hard solipsism makes it impossible for us to acquire metaphysical knowledge beyond that of our own self-awareness.

Sure, but to expect to be able to measure the metaphysical means you are setting yourself up for never knowing, which is too bad. This is where faith comes in – understanding it’s ok for some things to not be fully understood. It probably means they are bigger than we are. That they are outside of our world and laws. What it does not mean is they don’t exist.

Yes, but it in no way justifies any confidence at all that they do exist. Intellectual honesty demands agnosticism in this case.

Without that empirical baseline, how could we presume to know what is conceptually possible or impossible?

Faith and reason.

While reason can be a reliable component of an epistemology, faith is a demonstrably unreliable method for acquiring any kind of knowledge since anyone can use faith to claim anything is true which inherently leads to incompatible knowledge claims. Reason might be deployed to help calculate what our confidence level should be in the truth of certain extraordinary claims, but without an implicit empirical basis, we cannot determine if the claim is conceptually true. Arbitrarily applying faith to the equation seems only to corrupt the outcome with confirmation bias.

the empirical baseline we do have for apples allows to estimate that the conceptual probability that an apple stopped in midair or will stop in midair is close to zero.

Making it all the more cool and awesome when people say they saw it.

Cool and awesome? Maybe so.
Empirically or conceptually true? No.
Metaphysically true? There is no way to know.

Right. So, just because a thousand years ago we didn’t have the technology to prove the world was not flat, does not mean that people should not have acted as if it weren’t.

I'm a bit confused by this response. Doesn't your comment here support my position better than yours? I'm not the one suggesting they should have acted like the Earth wasn't flat when none of the evidence available to them at the time could justify the claim that it is spherical. Back then, the shape of the planet was a metaphysical truth that was unavailable to those people since their inability to observe the entire Earth from space or travel around its circumference at the equator rendered any claim about its shape unfalsifiable. However, their ability to directly observe only a limited portion of the planet's surface provided those people with an implicit empirical basis for presuming the flat Earth claim could at least be conceptually possible; even though it was later demonstrated to be false. Now that we have an ability to directly observe and measure the entire planet, any claim about its shape is falsifiable and would no longer be categorized as an unknowable metaphysical truth.

So, for the analogy to work properly, the ancient people who had no justifiable reason to presume the Earth was spherical based on the limited evidence available to them should be equated with agnostics and atheists who have no justifiable reason to presume a God created the universe based on the limited evidence available to them. To be fair, though, we shouldn't presume a God could not have been responsible for creating the universe either any more than those ancient people shouldn't have presumed the shape of the planet couldn't be spherical.

Of course not in some scientific study. But you better believe if a good friend of mine, who I have known and respect tells me something, I have no reason to doubt him. In fact, it would be unreasonable to do so.

Sure, in that situation, such reasoning would help you calculate a higher level of confidence but wouldn't demonstrate whether or not the claim is conceptually true unless it had an implicit empirical basis. For instance, if my good friend who I've known and respected for a long time told me she bought a new Honda Civic, my high level of confidence in the truth of her claim would be supported by previous experiences with my friend where she consistently demonstrated her reliability as an honest person. However, what makes her claim conceptually true is the fact that I know a Honda Civic is a moderately priced car that actually exists and that she can afford to purchase it. Therefore, it would be unreasonable to doubt her. Meanwhile, the claim wouldn't become empirically true for me until I actually saw her drive away in a brand new Honda Civic. Conversely, if my friend told me she bought a brand new Aston Martin sports car that can fly and runs on wastewater, I would not be able to determine if her claim was conceptually true or conceptually possible even if I knew her to be a reliably honest person because there is no implicit empirical basis for the existence of such a vehicle.

Yes, of course, but I think you misinterpret your own commentary. The point is you aren’t telling any of us anything we don’t already know. And like I said, human beings are by nature pretty skeptical. So, given that, it is funny that you attempt to suggest Christians believe things as true that aren’t true. We don’t tend to just believe something because we read about it in some old book. You might want to investigate that there might be a little more to it than that. Anyone who reduces Christian faith to something like that is in my opinion the one that is being intellectually dishonest and writing off their fellow man.

I'm intimately familiar with the complexities and nuances associated with faith in Jesus Christ and Christianity. I used to identify as a born-again Christian and believed I had a personal relationship with Jesus. I just don't convey that understanding very well to other people sometimes. My purpose here is not to oversimplify Christian belief or construct a straw-man but to facilitate a productive dialogue that helps me think more critically about these important questions.

It isn’t impossible to know by using ones reason and faith.

See my earlier comment about faith as a method for acquiring knowledge. There is actually whole lot more I should probably explain about faith and epistemology because it is a very nuanced topic, but it is probably best if we make that a separate discussion.

If you say so. But in using my reason, I might call into question your ulterior motives, preconceptions, assumptions regarding religious faith, etc. in pointing out the obvious – basically that we can’t scientifically measure the supernatural. I’m pretty sure most Christians understand this and we are ok with this. It is you who seems to not be ok with that.

This appears to be another misunderstanding. The point of my discussion is to distinguish between what we can justifiably label as knowledge and truth apart from what we should label as speculation and belief. Of course, I acknowledge that most Christians accept that supernatural claims cannot be scientifically verified (at least not at this time).

[bluegreenearth]

Good answer. Thanks for finally coming to the point.

Why didn't you respond to the rest of my comment from which that quote was taken? You seemed to have missed the entire point I was attempting to convey.

[RightReason]

[Replying to post 110 by bluegreenearth]

Since I would have to arbitrarily presume a God exists in order to answer the question, I would have to presume that any arbitrary response could be constructed to fit whichever imaginary God I've presumed to exist. For instance, if I were to presume Jesus to be the God that exists, then I would have to presume the Bible contains the most reliable answer to that question. If I were to presume Sauron was the God that exists, then I would presume The Lord of the Rings by J.R.R. Tolkien is the most reliable answer to that question. If I were to presume I was the God that exists, it would be a trick question because I would never be so immoral as to require anyone to worship me even if I was their divine creator.

<sigh> Doing the ‘ole belief in God is equivalent to belief in Santa Claus is intellectually dishonest. I do not think you could find 2 people on the planet who actually believe Sauron exists. He was a fictional character and there is no historical record, evidence, support, eye witness accounts, ancient writings, personal testimony, movements formed, dedication of lives, attested miracles in his name, etc. attributed to him. Your comparison is nonsense which makes me think you aren’t really interested in serious conversation, your comments simply stem from your anti-Christian bigotry and the odd notion that there is some kind of immorality in worshiping God. Is it immoral for a parent to desire their children show them honor and respect and thank them for all they have given them? I would think it a serious act of immorality for a child not to. Again, methinks Christians might not think/believe what you think they think/believe.

[bluegreenearth]

[Replying to post 114 by RightReason]

You misunderstood the reason I used unrealistic examples in my response. Please accept my apologies for failing to adequately convey my point. I was attempting to demonstrate that the question seemed to demand a variety of examples in the response including the unrealistic ones. This is because the hypothetical required me to begin by presuming a God exists. Since anyone could presuppose the existence of any God, the answer to the question will depend on where the source material for that God is found. It was not my intent to imply the unrealistic examples were of the same quality as Christianity. If you prefer, I can just respond to the question from the hypothetical perspective that only presupposes the Christian God exists.

If I may offer some constructive criticism of my own: The next time you feel offended by one of my responses, please ask me what my intensional were first before assuming I was being deliberately disrespectful. Thanks.

[RightReason]

[Replying to bluegreenearth]

it is fallacious for anyone to argue that they know the supernatural exists when what they should be saying is that they believethe supernatural exists.

Semantics. Almost every statement human beings make to one another would then have to be prefaced with I think or I believe, because we never know anything for certain until it has actually happened and been confirmed.

For instance, the decision to eat healthy, exercise, receive vaccinations, discourage bigotry, encourage critical thinking, promote gender equality, and support the LGBTQ community will objectively maximize well-being and minimize unnecessary harm for the largest number of people within the reality we all experience whether it only exist in a computer simulation or not. Therefore, knowledge of the metaphysical truth about my reality is not required for me to make informed decisions from within the reality I perceive.

Ummmm . . . not necessarily required, but oddly enough often helpful. And your above comments help demonstrate why. For some reason, you have falsely concluded that programs/policy/behavior that “promote gender equality� and “support the LGBTQ community� will objectively maximize well being and minimize harm. But I would not consider that an objective reality. I would suggest there is research/science/facts showing promoting these supposed gender equality programs/behavior and encouraging and supporting the LGBTQ do not result in good, rather harm. It depends what you mean by supporting these things/groups. It depends how you define “support for the LBGTQ community�. If by support people get the idea that same sex unions are A-ok and in man’s best interest, then that would be a harmful outcome. It also might prevent those in the LBGTQ community from getting important information they should get. Things like how anal sex is considered risky sexual behavior by the CDC (research shows that among men who have sex with men over 90% engage in anal intercourse – in other words the overwhelming majority). Nature shows us the anus was not intended to receive foreign objects inside of it. The anus does not share the natural elasticity of the vagina. The membranes of the anus are thin, can easily tear and rupture, and harbor and spread disease. Those living lifestyles that include this activity are doing so despite the science/research and in fact are putting themselves at risk. The research, perhaps not surprisingly, also shows those in the LBGTQ community have increased substance abuse issues, domestic violence, depression and mental health issues, as well as suicide rates.

Now these are all facts/truths that can be known regardless of whether one believes in God or not, but clearly the message is not getting out, so perhaps it takes the Church to help be honest and realistic about some of these things. If people are falsely repeatedly told there are no differences in gender (even though this is biologically false), he/she might make decisions in life that end up being harmful choices. The Church, in her wisdom, is not driven by fads, fashions, and popular culture and has no choice but to teach truth about these things. Therefore, people could know they are being told the truth and then this would be an example of when metaphysical truths (belief in God and the Bible) might be helpful for some in making informed decisions. At least, from observation, that often seems to be the case.

it doesn't mean the event didn't occur; only that we couldn't claim to know it occurred.

Again, tomato tomata – kinda like if I say John is at the movies. Well, he told me he was going to go to the movies, but I didn’t actually witness him go. It would be silly in conversation to say if someone asks where John is, well, gee I really don’t know. I mean he told me he was going to the movies, but I shouldn’t really tell you that since I didn’t see it with my own eyes. We operate without fully knowing all the time.

Quote:
Right. So, like I said, that’s something.


Yes, but that kind of "something" is not enough to justify a high degree of confidence in an extraordinary claim.

Why? It could be. If 100 people said they saw John float in the air, and they didn’t stop talking about it, and I knew these people and they were all normal, sane, trustworthy people, and they all swore on their lives they are telling the truth, etc. I know I would certainly look into the matter. And even if no empirical evidence could be found, I would have confidence, because I am a normal, sane rational human being myself and I know people don’t just make stuff like that up. And I know that 100 people is an awful lot of human beings and the chances they report all having seen the same thing would be extremely unlikely. I also am willing to admit this world we live in is not necessarily all there is and there might be things out there we don’t know or that defy our laws of nature.

Science can only get us so far. It never answers the really big questions in life. Science might be able to tell us if the ice caps continue to melt the polar bear might become extinct, but it can’t tell us why we should care, or whether we care, or if it matters if the world would no longer have polar bears living on it. We no longer have dodo birds and I gotta tell ya, it’s not something I lose sleep over. So you are demanding empirical evidence which in my opinion isn’t asking the right question.

Quote:
Right. So, just because a thousand years ago we didn’t have the technology to prove the world was not flat, does not mean that people should not have acted as if it weren’t.


I'm a bit confused by this response. Doesn't your comment here support my position better than yours?

No. You suggest if we can’t prove something, we must remain agnostic about it. I could see this deterring an awful lot of educated guesses, exploration, and drives for discovery. The earth was not flat until it was proven that it wasn’t. It isn’t like finally having the empirical evidence changed anything. The science or empirical evidence is not the end all be all and can often be preventative or even get in the way if we think we can only accept or believe something if there is empirical evidence. Thank goodness early explorers didn’t say, “well since there is no empirical evidence that the world is not flat, we need to act as if it is, until we have the evidence saying otherwise. So, no one better dream of far away lands or sailing one’s boat over the horizon. We cannot presume to hope and know what “know�.

if my friend told me she bought a brand new Aston Martin sports car that can fly and runs on wastewater, I would not be able to determine if her claim was conceptually true or conceptually possible even if I knew her to be a reliably honest person because there is no implicit empirical basis for the existence of such a vehicle.

Well, I guess I would want to know why your friend would lie to you. I assume she would realize that you might want to see this car at some point. I also would like to know why she would want to jeopardize your friendship by making something up or jeopardize her reputation and risk being seen as a liar and lunatic. That would be odd.

Quote:
If you say so. But in using my reason, I might call into question your ulterior motives, preconceptions, assumptions regarding religious faith, etc. in pointing out the obvious – basically that we can’t scientifically measure the supernatural. I’m pretty sure most Christians understand this and we are ok with this. It is you who seems to not be ok with that.


This appears to be another misunderstanding. The point of my discussion is to distinguish between what we can justifiably label as knowledge and truth apart from what we should label as speculation and belief. Of course, I acknowledge that most Christians accept that supernatural claims cannot be scientifically verified (at least not at this time).

Glad to hear it

[IaLoaou]

What say you?
.

The seven Spirits of God.

[bluegreenearth]

RightReason,

it is fallacious for anyone to argue that they know the supernatural exists when what they should be saying is that they believethe supernatural exists.

Semantics. Almost every statement human beings make to one another would then have to be prefaced with I think or I believe, because we never know anything for certain until it has actually happened and been confirmed.

Yes, in everyday dialogue, people often equivocate the words believe and know. However, precise language is critical when constructing an epistemology or an argument. In my day to day conversations with people, I wouldn't normally be bothered by the equivocation. However, I think it would prevent a lot of confusion if people were a little more careful with their word choices when engaged in theological debates.

Ummmm . . . not necessarily required, but oddly enough often helpful. And your above comments help demonstrate why. For some reason, you have falsely concluded that programs/policy/behavior that “promote gender equality� and “support the LGBTQ community� will objectively maximize well being and minimize harm. But I would not consider that an objective reality. I would suggest there is research/science/facts showing promoting these supposed gender equality programs/behavior and encouraging and supporting the LGBTQ do not result in good, rather harm. It depends what you mean by supporting these things/groups. It depends how you define “support for the LBGTQ community�. If by support people get the idea that same sex unions are A-ok and in man’s best interest, then that would be a harmful outcome. It also might prevent those in the LBGTQ community from getting important information they should get. Things like how anal sex is considered risky sexual behavior by the CDC (research shows that among men who have sex with men over 90% engage in anal intercourse – in other words the overwhelming majority). Nature shows us the anus was not intended to receive foreign objects inside of it. The anus does not share the natural elasticity of the vagina. The membranes of the anus are thin, can easily tear and rupture, and harbor and spread disease. Those living lifestyles that include this activity are doing so despite the science/research and in fact are putting themselves at risk. The research, perhaps not surprisingly, also shows those in the LBGTQ community have increased substance abuse issues, domestic violence, depression and mental health issues, as well as suicide rates.

Now these are all facts/truths that can be known regardless of whether one believes in God or not, but clearly the message is not getting out, so perhaps it takes the Church to help be honest and realistic about some of these things. If people are falsely repeatedly told there are no differences in gender (even though this is biologically false), he/she might make decisions in life that end up being harmful choices. The Church, in her wisdom, is not driven by fads, fashions, and popular culture and has no choice but to teach truth about these things. Therefore, people could know they are being told the truth and then this would be an example of when metaphysical truths (belief in God and the Bible) might be helpful for some in making informed decisions. At least, from observation, that often seems to be the case.

There is a lot to unpack here and most of it is not relevant to this particular conversation. So, I will respond to it in a separate post except to clarify that "gender equality" refers to equal pay for women employed in the same job position as a man.

Again, tomato tomata – kinda like if I say John is at the movies. Well, he told me he was going to go to the movies, but I didn’t actually witness him go. It would be silly in conversation to say if someone asks where John is, well, gee I really don’t know. I mean he told me he was going to the movies, but I shouldn’t really tell you that since I didn’t see it with my own eyes. We operate without fully knowing all the time.

More like tomato / ketchup because in the context of a theological debate, the word believe and the word know are not describing the same thing even though there is relationship between them.

If 100 people said they saw John float in the air, and they didn’t stop talking about it, and I knew these people and they were all normal, sane, trustworthy people, and they all swore on their lives they are telling the truth, etc. I know I would certainly look into the matter.

And even if no empirical evidence could be found, I would have confidence, because I am a normal, sane rational human being myself and I know people don’t just make stuff like that up. And I know that 100 people is an awful lot of human beings and the chances they report all having seen the same thing would be extremely unlikely. I also am willing to admit this world we live in is not necessarily all there is and there might be things out there we don’t know or that defy our laws of nature.

If that comment is supposed to be a justification for a high degree of confidence in the supernatural claims about Jesus, I'm failing to understand how it is a direct analogy. What we have with the gospel accounts are not necessarily 1st-hand eyewitness testimonies from your best friends and neighbors but various claims about the existence of eyewitnesses written by anonymous authors decades after the supernatural events they describe are supposed to have occurred.

So, maybe a better analogy would be the various corroborating stories about the legendary King Arthur and his knights of the Round Table in which the fantastical accounts assert that various reputable eyewitnesses saw King Arthur pull a magical sword from a stone in order to fulfill a prophecy and was assisted by a mysterious wizard named Merlin who possessed miraculous powers. Some scholars believe the stories may have been initially communicated through oral tradition before being transcribed by anonymous authors who likely borrowed from each others work throughout the centuries resulting in similar but mildly contradictory versions of the same tale. Up until recently, the consensus of experts agreed the stories were probably based on an actual King Arthur because the texts describe his encounters with several known historical figures and places. Furthermore, the Knights of the Round Table were wiling to give their lives in defense of their leader and probably wouldn't have been willing to do so if Arthur wasn't a real King. Is that more analogous to the gospel accounts of Jesus?

Science can only get us so far. It never answers the really big questions in life. Science might be able to tell us if the ice caps continue to melt the polar bear might become extinct, but it can’t tell us why we should care, or whether we care, or if it matters if the world would no longer have polar bears living on it. We no longer have dodo birds and I gotta tell ya, it’s not something I lose sleep over. So you are demanding empirical evidence which in my opinion isn’t asking the right question.

Since your response above is based on a misunderstanding of my perspective and/or a straw-man version of my argument, I'm going to ignore it for now. Only after you've demonstrated an accurate understanding of the actual epistemology I've described and offer a logical and reasonable counter-argument will I happily return this portion of our dialogue.

I'm a bit confused by this response. Doesn't your comment here support my position better than yours?

No. You suggest if we can’t prove something, we must remain agnostic about it. I could see this deterring an awful lot of educated guesses, exploration, and drives for discovery. The earth was not flat until it was proven that it wasn’t. It isn’t like finally having the empirical evidence changed anything. The science or empirical evidence is not the end all be all and can often be preventative or even get in the way if we think we can only accept or believe something if there is empirical evidence. Thank goodness early explorers didn’t say, “well since there is no empirical evidence that the world is not flat, we need to act as if it is, until we have the evidence saying otherwise. So, no one better dream of far away lands or sailing one’s boat over the horizon. We cannot presume to hope and know what “know�.

My previous comment above applies here as well. If you are having trouble understanding my epistemology, I will be glad to try and clarify it upon request, but please don't straw-man me.

Well, I guess I would want to know why your friend would lie to you. I assume she would realize that you might want to see this car at some point. I also would like to know why she would want to jeopardize your friendship by making something up or jeopardize her reputation and risk being seen as a liar and lunatic. That would be odd.

Indeed, it would be odd to receive such a claim from a reliably honest personal friend. The problem with this analogy, though, has already been addressed in my response to your story about the 100 reliable people who claimed they saw John floated in the air. So, it is a moot point.

[William]

[Replying to post 118]

bluegreenearth: I'm not saying that at all. I'm trying to explain that it is logically impossible for us to know the supernatural exists even if it does exist. Therefore, it is fallacious for anyone to argue that they know the supernatural exists when what they should be saying is that they believe the supernatural exists.

RightReason: Semantics. Almost every statement human beings make to one another would then have to be prefaced with I think or I believe, because we never know anything for certain until it has actually happened and been confirmed.

bluegreenearth: Yes, in everyday dialogue, people often equivocate the words believe and know. However, precise language is critical when constructing an epistemology or an argument. In my day to day conversations with people, I wouldn't normally be bothered by the equivocation. However, I think it would prevent a lot of confusion if people were a little more careful with their word choices when engaged in theological debates.

William: Yes. I have often called out this use of language as something of a ruse.
The allowance for the interchangeability of "Know" and "Believe" is a cause for genuine concern, as it also allows for those who believe, to claim that they know and to skirt around this fallacy by hand-waving counter-argument away as 'semantics'.

I try to avoid using the word believe, preferring to use the word "understand" as this shows others that I am open to discussion about what it is and why I understand what it is, to be true.


When one believes something to being true, they have already committed. When adding to this, they know something is true, this solidifies the commitment, and renders their belief as non-negotiable, which, in a debate setting, amounts to only one thing, and that is proselytizing...a false pretense, as such are not really using the debate setting for its stated purpose.

[bluegreenearth]

[Replying to post 119 by William]

Thank you, William