Does the truth even matter?

[TruthSeeker1]

In regards to the benefits that a Christian receives here on earth (hope, comfort, purpose, meaning) it appears to me that the truth does not matter. In other words, if the Bible was simply written by men, if Jesus didn't rise from the grave, if Paul was delusional or a liar, ect. ect., it really makes NO difference to what a Christian gets to enjoy in the here and now. As long as Christians believe that they have a relationship with God, does it even matter in this lifetime if they do not?

Almost all people, including devout Christians, will examine closely things that might negatively impact them. If a Christian is diagnosed with cancer it is likely that he/she will get a second opinion. However, when it comes to simply saying a prayer and instantly gaining a relationship with God, why would a Christian want to seriously question this? Christians will want hard facts from a doctor before they will be convinced that they do indeed have cancer because there are many negative lifestyle changes and feelings to endure if a diagnosis of cancer is true. With the claims of Christianity, there is no downside in this lifetime for a person to accept them even though there isn't a lot of objective evidence that points to Christianity being true.

In the end, is there really any use debating truth with Christians when the truth does not have any bearing on the benefits that they receive?

[Vladd44]

This forum was founded by a Christian (unless I am mistaken) And there are other like it, founded by Christians. Objective study is what helped me (and continues to help me) become a Christian.

By objective, you really mean critical study, don't you? Objective study is a fallacy. We all have our presuppositions, it's part of our human nature. If you are wondering if I will listen to what a critic has to say, sure I will. Then I'll weight what he has to say against evidence, reason, logic, and my own experinces. At that point I'll come to rational conclusion.

And what is in there that reconciles those two statements? Bringing up critical study in the second part doesn't negate your own comment claiming to have used objective study yourself.

Redefine all you want, but Objective is Objective, and critical <> Objective.

So in context the two statements are not a contradiction as they are dealing with seperate ideas. Nice try though.

How so? In response to another's claim that christians avoided "objective study of their beliefs" you said " Objective study is what helped me (and continues to help me) become a Christian".

Can you at least stipulate that you claimed to actively objectively study?

Part two, The only thing that divided your comments was "By objective, you really mean critical study, don't you?" Asking a question of what another meant in no way reflects to cause the next time you used the words "Objective study" ( as in "Objective study is a fallacy") to become "critical study" or even your later redefinition of "meaning the study of critical scholars".

Either you did objectively study or you didn't. If its a fallacy (by your definition) then I would have to assume you would claim you didn't study objectively.

and hence most Christians will not engage in an objective study of their beliefs. Why should they?

Objective study is what helped me (and continues to help me) become a Christian.

Making your above comment a false statement.

Or, You did involve yourself in objective study, which would mean there is such a thing. Making....

Objective study is a fallacy.

This false.

So you can falsely claim I took you out of context, but your words in their entirety speak for themselves.

Your option is noted and filed in the appropriate place; along with all the other sceptical opinions I've been offered.

rofl. Now thats got to be the most objective thing anyone can say. Good going goose, keep laying these eggs, they are really golden.

The group that says "Christianity can't be true because we[whoever that might be]know it isn't true because we know the truth, and the truth isn't Christianity." ...That group.

OK, I don't know that group. I know I don't know what truth is, I only know subjective truths.

[Cogitoergosum]

Europe hasn't had a grand moment since the days of Napoleon so I wouldn't be putting myself on such a high platter if I was you. If we here in the US have such medieval beliefs, then please, do so tell what advancements your country has contributed to science, environment, engineering, politics, etc..... Nothing irritates me more than someone sitting there claiming how grand their country is over another one. In the grand scheme of everything, no country is any better. The US will fall as the Roman Empire did, and whoever takes it's place, will fall, etc..... Why? Because history repeats itself. Unfortunately for you, Europes history just can't seem to get out of that circle long enough to make a difference. But hey, that is just a medieval American belief (sarcasm definitely blasting out loud).

Hi confused why the aggressivness? i'm not from europe and i live in the USA. it was not my intention in any way to imply that the europeans made more for our modern free world than the united states. I don't have nationalistic dogmas. I only said i was happy (as a secular person) that secularism is growing in europe because in the states 53% of the population believe in creationism. I sincerely hope that the united states does not fall like the roman empire. And if it happened, it would be a shame if it happened on account of mystical beliefs.

[Goose]

This forum was founded by a Christian (unless I am mistaken) And there are other like it, founded by Christians. Objective study is what helped me (and continues to help me) become a Christian.

By objective, you really mean critical study, don't you? Objective study is a fallacy. We all have our presuppositions, it's part of our human nature. If you are wondering if I will listen to what a critic has to say, sure I will. Then I'll weight what he has to say against evidence, reason, logic, and my own experinces. At that point I'll come to rational conclusion.

And what is in there that reconciles those two statements? Bringing up critical study in the second part doesn't negate your own comment claiming to have used objective study yourself.

Redefine all you want, but Objective is Objective, and critical <> Objective.

So in context the two statements are not a contradiction as they are dealing with seperate ideas. Nice try though.

How so? In response to another's claim that christians avoided "objective study of their beliefs" you said " Objective study is what helped me (and continues to help me) become a Christian".

Can you at least stipulate that you claimed to actively objectively study?

What are you saying here? Are you saying that objective study would lead me away from Christianity? Or something else.

Part two, The only thing that divided your comments was "By objective, you really mean critical study, don't you?" Asking a question of what another meant in no way reflects to cause the next time you used the words "Objective study" ( as in "Objective study is a fallacy") to become "critical study" or even your later redefinition of "meaning the study of critical scholars".

Either you did objectively study or you didn't. If its a fallacy (by your definition) then I would have to assume you would claim you didn't study objectively.

and hence most Christians will not engage in an objective study of their beliefs. Why should they?

Objective study is what helped me (and continues to help me) become a Christian.

Making your above comment a false statement.

Or, You did involve yourself in objective study, which would mean there is such a thing. Making....

Objective study is a fallacy.

This false.

So you can falsely claim I took you out of context, but your words in their entirety speak for themselves.

Thanks for the lecture. I feel enlightened. You've caught me inadequtely expressing my thoughts into print. You've never done this have you? I should have said something like:

... By objective, you really mean critical study, don't you? [By that definition then] objective study is what helped me (and continues to help me) become a Christian.

[However, on another note, in my opinion, true]objective study is a fallacy [anyway]. We all have our presuppositions, it's part of our human nature...

[/quote]

Do you get it yet? I know it's difficult to comprehend to different concepts in the same post, but please try...

Your option is noted and filed in the appropriate place; along with all the other sceptical opinions I've been offered.

rofl. Now thats got to be the most objective thing anyone can say...

Just like this little jem:

But I can give another option, perhaps it is closer to studying a fallacy

It's all the subjective truth remember?

The group that says "Christianity can't be true because we[whoever that might be]know it isn't true because we know the truth, and the truth isn't Christianity." ...That group.

OK, I don't know that group. I know I don't know what truth is, I only know subjective truths.

Vladd, do you have an intelligent argument to present? Or are we just playing the sock-puppet game.

Maybe you could show me why you or others believe that Christians don't give a hoot about truth, that we actively avoid "objective study of their[our] beliefs." So far in this thread I haven't seen any evidence of this. Only assertions. Let's get to the meat. Give me something I've not seen before that will open my eyes to the truth. Give me your best shot.

[TruthSeeker1]

Goose Wrote:

Maybe you could show me why you or others believe that Christians don't give a hoot about truth, that we actively avoid "objective study of their[our] beliefs." So far in this thread I haven't seen any evidence of this. Only assertions. Let's get to the meat. Give me something I've not seen before that will open my eyes to the truth. Give me your best shot.

Here is the deal Goose; the truth, whatever it might be, is inconsequential to the benefits that Christians receive in this lifetime. I presume that your Christian beliefs in some measure give you hope, contentment, purpose, and meaning. These benefits that you receive are not at risk if indeed Christianity is just another man-made religion. Whether or not Jesus rose from the dead does not take away your earthly benefits, as long as YOU believe Jesus rose from the dead.

On the other hand Goose, if you were to be told that you only had 1 year to live I imagine that you would want far more proof for this than what you demand for your Christian beliefs. In my estimation the reason that you accept the claims of Christianity on a level of evidence that I suspect you wouldn't for something negative like a diagnosis of cancer, is the fact that Christianity gives you plenty of earthly benefits with no downside. Being diagnosed with cancer would bring with it plenty of negative consequences and as such you will demand a much higher level of proof.

What is the ultimate truth of the universe Goose? I don't know myself, and I doubt you do either, but the difference between myself and you is that I'm comfortable admitting this, while you are more comfortable accepting the earthly benefits of a religion that doesn't have anymore solid evidence for itself than that of so many other potentially false religions. Is it possible that you have the truth? Sure, anything is possible, but questions about truth are not about possibilities as anything is possible. Rather, the question for me asks; is it probable based on the evidence that Goose's beliefs detail the ultimate truth of the world?

I simply doubt that you have "the truth", which in no way means that I have the truth, it just means that I don't think you do.

[Confused]

Europe hasn't had a grand moment since the days of Napoleon so I wouldn't be putting myself on such a high platter if I was you. If we here in the US have such medieval beliefs, then please, do so tell what advancements your country has contributed to science, environment, engineering, politics, etc..... Nothing irritates me more than someone sitting there claiming how grand their country is over another one. In the grand scheme of everything, no country is any better. The US will fall as the Roman Empire did, and whoever takes it's place, will fall, etc..... Why? Because history repeats itself. Unfortunately for you, Europes history just can't seem to get out of that circle long enough to make a difference. But hey, that is just a medieval American belief (sarcasm definitely blasting out loud).

Hi confused why the aggressivness? i'm not from europe and i live in the USA. it was not my intention in any way to imply that the europeans made more for our modern free world than the united states. I don't have nationalistic dogmas. I only said i was happy (as a secular person) that secularism is growing in europe because in the states 53% of the population believe in creationism. I sincerely hope that the united states does not fall like the roman empire. And if it happened, it would be a shame if it happened on account of mystical beliefs.

The aggressiveness was only in relation to any country claiming superiority over another just because of one element. I may live in the US as do you, but I in no way claim we are superior over any other country. Is the fact that 53% of Americans believing in Creationism somehow a horrible thing? Say out of that 53%, 50 % of those maintain moral and ethical values because of their belief in God. This is bad? The fact is that in many cases, this is probably true. We separate religion from politics (theoretically at least) and religion from medicine, and religion from science (as much as possible). We do this in an insane effort to continue advancement in technology and knowledge. Unfortunately, it doens't always work out that way. But I think there is a fine balance between the influence of religion being good and bad. That fine balance keeps science from comitting atrocities such as Hitler did to advance medicine. But it also interferes with human rights as well, such as right to choose, same sex partners, divorce, etc.... Once again, a fine balance. Not a stalemate where religion is oppressing mankind or mankind is oppressing religion. My only issue with religion is trying to understand it to decide its validity for my own advancement in knowledge.

The US will fall. History has never failed to repeat itself. But it won't be because of mysticism. More likely, survival or politics. Only time will tell.

[Goose]

andy, thank you for a well thought out post. I really mean that. Just a couple of things though.

Here is the deal Goose; the truth, whatever it might be, is inconsequential to the benefits that Christians receive in this lifetime. I presume that your Christian beliefs in some measure give you hope, contentment, purpose, and meaning. These benefits that you receive are not at risk if indeed Christianity is just another man-made religion. Whether or not Jesus rose from the dead does not take away your earthly benefits, as long as YOU believe Jesus rose from the dead.

I don't see a problem here. It's your perspective and I'll leave it at that.

On the other hand Goose, if you were to be told that you only had 1 year to live I imagine that [1.]you would want far more proof for this than what you demand for your Christian beliefs. In my estimation the reason that you accept the claims of Christianity on a level of evidence that I suspect you wouldn't for something negative like a diagnosis of cancer, is the fact that Christianity gives you plenty of earthly benefits with no downside. [2] Being diagnosed with cancer would bring with it plenty of negative consequences and as such you will demand a much higher level of proof.

1. This comparsion is not really relevant. It's not an issue of me wanting more or better proof for a diagnosis of cancer as compared to the evidence I accept for Christ's resurrection. These are two totally different issues in different contexts. I have the evidence that is available to evaluate whether or not Christ rose from the dead. I don't look at it and say, "I need better or more evidence." I don't have that luxury because there isn't any more than what already exists. I feel there is more than sufficient evidence.

2. You are focused on earthly benefits, which is fine. But you are forgetting a key element to Christian belief. We believe the negative consequences of rejecting Christ are far greater than anything we could experience on earth. For me to abandon my faith, there must be greater evidence that Christ did not rise from the grave than the evidence we have for the affirmation of His resurrection.

What is the ultimate truth of the universe Goose?

Personally I'm not too interested in the truth of the universe per se. I think these questions are much more relevant. Why am I here on earth? What is the meaning of life? Is there a God?

I don't know myself, and I doubt you do either, but the difference between myself and you is that I'm comfortable admitting this, while you are more comfortable accepting the earthly benefits of a religion that doesn't have anymore solid evidence for itself than that of so many other potentially false religions.

These type of statements show an element of ignorance about Christianity and the evidence we do have for our beliefs.

You are also thinking for me. Don't.

Is it possible that you have the truth? Sure, anything is possible, but questions about truth are not about possibilities as anything is possible. Rather, the question for me asks; is it probable based on the evidence that Goose's beliefs detail the ultimate truth of the world?
I simply doubt that you have "the truth", which in no way means that I have the truth, it just means that I don't think you do.

Andy, you sound like you are searching. I could be wrong, you may have already made your final decision. If so that's fine. But I'd encourage you to do some research into the evidence for Christian beliefs. Perhaps you've done it already and found it lacking in your eyes. If that's the case, I'd encourage you to look again. This could potentially be the most important decision of your life. If I'm wrong it doesn't really matter does it. If I'm right and what I believe ends up being the truth, well you know what happens. It's worth the time to make sure. That would be rational, agreed?

[Confused]

Andy
Quote:
What is the ultimate truth of the universe Goose?

The universe isn't in question here. An earthly religion is. Did God create the universe? I don't know, but I do believe that we can know. We just don't yet. Was it a BIg Bang? I don't know, but I do believe we can know, we just don't yet. The fact is the universe is a lot more complicated than narrowing it down to a single ultimate truth. There may exist many truths that are consistent with both theories. Since we don't know yet, we keep searching.

Goose
Personally I'm not too interested in the truth of the universe per se. I think these questions are much more relevant. Why am I here on earth? What is the meaning of life? Is there a God?

And what have you found? Why are you here on earth Goose? What is the meaning of life? Camus asked: what is it about life that makes it worth living? Do you know what makes life worth living for you? How about for someone with chronic leukemia that gets worn down with every acute phase she is out of remission until she goes back into remission. What makes life worth living for her? Is it the same thing as for you? Is it because of God? Is that suppose to make life worth living equally for both you and her? Should she keep fighting equally?

Andy
Quote:
I don't know myself, and I doubt you do either, but the difference between myself and you is that I'm comfortable admitting this, while you are more comfortable accepting the earthly benefits of a religion that doesn't have anymore solid evidence for itself than that of so many other potentially false religions.

I disagree here. I think Goose is very comfortable with his rational decision to believe in God. Do you have any more solid evidence that God doesn't exist than God does exist. Regardless of which false religion one ascribes to, why would they be less comfortable admitting to not knowing the ultimate truth of the universe? Christians may claim to know the origin of the universe, but the ultimate truth of it? That is a pretty big leap. I have yet to meet one who claims to know what his personal purpose in life is. Sure they all say they share a common purpose to glorify a deity, but I haven't ever heard one say what the personal purpose is. Why? I will quote a phrase from a friend who is close to me but we often agree to disagree. "The minute you think you have the meaning of life figured out, or what your purpose in life is, sit down and listen closely. First you will hear God laughing, then your entire life will be upheaved into yet another cloud of confusion and challenges. You will never know your purpose nor the meaning of life until your life is over". On the other hand, you say you are comfortable admitting you don't know the ultimate truth of the universe. Is this true? If so, then have you stopped searching for it? If you haven't, then you are not comfortable with it.

Goose:
These type of statements show an element of ignorance about Christianity and the evidence we do have for our beliefs.

While partially true, what I am finding is that that element of ignorance about Chrisitianity and its beliefs seems to be an element that Christianity itself has created. One Christian says this, another this, another this, another this, etc........... One says this is evidence, another says this is, another says no you are both wrong, this is. Tell me, where exactly is it that one goes to find true evidence. To the bible. Not even top scholars agree on this and that and this and that. So we have as much evidence there as we do from 20 different Christians all saying different things. And everyone wonders why I am confused? I wonder why I am the only one confused?

[Cogitoergosum]

We separate religion from politics (theoretically at least) and religion from medicine, and religion from science (as much as possible).

Confused, u do separate religion from ur life but others in this country don't. Even though the war in irak was a debacle for the bush administration, john kerry lost to him on accounts of not speaking up against homosexuality and not taking a firm stance against abortion. If u watched the debates, kerry did better than bush in all of them except in these instances. The bush administration baned stem cell research on religious beliefs, stem cell research is the most promising field for cures in medicine. we would understand cancer better and probably cure paraplegics and other currently uncurable diseases...

That fine balance keeps science from comitting atrocities such as Hitler did to advance medicine.

please it is not true that hitler did what he did in the name of advancing medicine. Hitler had strong nationalistic and racist dogmas, believing that the Aryan race is a superior race. It is very comparable to religious dogmas. think of the jews thinking they are god's chosen people. This is why atrocities were commited. Medicine had nothing to do with it.

The US will fall. History has never failed to repeat itself. But it won't be because of mysticism. More likely, survival or politics. Only time will tell.

I'm sorry if i seem aggressive towards religion. I used to conform and not question, and believed in the god of abraham like others.
But imagine this, and please confused tell me how unlikely this scenario is:
Iran among others is developping nuclear weapons. a small tactical nuclear bomb is passed to islamic fundamentalists who consider the united states as the SATAN corrupting this world. This bomb is detonated in a major city. Millions die, while chaos and panic spreads. The U.S. president and administration ,who are elected by the 53% of the people who believe in the bible literally, see this event as the beginning of the apocalypse prophecy and retaliate with their own nuclear arsenal. Our society as it exists now is no more, we are back to the stone age.
If u think this is unlikely, religion is one of other 6-7 causes that could lead mankind to extinction according to many reports, one of them broadcasted on the history channel.

[Confused]

Cog:
Confused, u do separate religion from ur life but others in this country don't. Even though the war in irak was a debacle for the bush administration, john kerry lost to him on accounts of not speaking up against homosexuality and not taking a firm stance against abortion. If u watched the debates, kerry did better than bush in all of them except in these instances. The bush administration baned stem cell research on religious beliefs, stem cell research is the most promising field for cures in medicine. we would understand cancer better and probably cure paraplegics and other currently uncurable diseases..

First, John Kerry lost, IMHO, because he ran on a utopian platform that was unrealistic. But since this isnt' the politics and religion forum, I won't expand on this except to say, yes I watched the debates and firmly disagree with you. I will agree that a ban on embryonic stem cell research was a bad thing. Since genetics was my minor for my masters in Microbiology, it was a field I seriously felt held promise.

Cog:
please it is not true that hitler did what he did in the name of advancing medicine

Let me rephrase, Hitler comitted atrocities against mankind that led to advancement of medicine, most notable hypothermia. I don't believe he did it for anything other than another means of torture. The ends don't justify the means. But for some portion of the population, a belief in God may be what they need to prevent them from becoming the next Hitler, Manson, Dahlmer, etc....

Cog:
I'm sorry if i seem aggressive towards religion. I used to conform and not question, and believed in the god of abraham like others.
But imagine this, and please confused tell me how unlikely this scenario is:
Iran among others is developping nuclear weapons. a small tactical nuclear bomb is passed to islamic fundamentalists who consider the united states as the SATAN corrupting this world. This bomb is detonated in a major city. Millions die, while chaos and panic spreads. The U.S. president and administration ,who are elected by the 53% of the people who believe in the bible literally, see this event as the beginning of the apocalypse prophecy and retaliate with their own nuclear arsenal. Our society as it exists now is no more, we are back to the stone age.
If u think this is unlikely, religion is one of other 6-7 causes that could lead mankind to extinction according to many reports, one of them broadcasted on the history channel.

No apologies needed. I don't pretend to even understand the basics of religion. I have never conformed or believed. But I seek the truth, regardless of what it may be. And I won't stop until I find it. I will pick apart what I don't understand until I understand it. What else can I do? But your analogy fails miserably. First off, you can't say that all 53% of Christians voted for Bush. Second, using the slippery slope fallacy is never good. Third, you say there are 6-7 causes that could lead mankind to extinction. Is there any reason the apocalyptic analogy you have described is more likely to happen than any of the other reasons? Personally, I think a collision with a meteor is more likely, looking at history. But that is just my opinon.

[Cogitoergosum]

First off, you can't say that all 53% of Christians voted for Bush

I did not say that, my scenario was hypothetial, i did not mean bush and his administration. U must aknowledge though that 53% of the population sharing a certain belief makes it more likely that a president that shares this belief would be elected.

Is there any reason the apocalyptic analogy you have described is more likely to happen than any of the other reasons? Personally, I think a collision with a meteor is more likely, looking at history. But that is just my opinon.

No, no reason this is more likely, hiting a meteore might be more likely, the thing is all other causes are beyond our control except for religion.