Determining Reality

[Iakobos]

For me reality isn't determined by what anybody says. It's purely based upon my experiences. Nothing is out of the question in my mind, some things are just more likely then others.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Meaning no offense, it seems to be as if you're tying yourself in knots with these definitions. Earlier you said this: "When I'm asking about how we determine reality, I'm talking about absolute truth." You acknowledged that "we accept the knowledge of certain authorities when its to our benefit", but imply that this is different from absolute truth. So in other words, you and I both agree that if we have a disease, we'll consult a doctor and accept what he says. But you think there's a dividing line between this sort of acceptance of knowledge and "absolute truth".

In attempting to explain that dividing line, you say "the fact that they are authorities does not make their answers true". Most of us would agree. Authority figures can be and often are wrong. But similarly, no amount of logic or reason can make answers true. Basic facts in mathematics or physical properties of matter are true no matter what anybody thinks about them. For example, every atom has always had a nucleus. Nobody on earth knew that the atomic nucleus existed until just over a century ago. Millions of people alive today don't know that atoms have nuclei. At some future point, knowledge of the atomic nucleus may be lost. Yet presumably we'd agree that the existence of atomic nuclei remains just the same, regardless of who believes what about the matter. It's true that authority figures do not make their answers true. It's equally true that no logic, reason, or mental activity of any sort by any person can makes answers true or false in math or the physical sciences.

Now, to make matters yet more complicated, you admit that we can't know absolute truths about "the nature of reality".

If so, then let's consider some things that you--I presume--agree with: Pluto exists, the atomic nucleus exists, ecosystems at undersea vents exist. Presumably we both agree that all these things exist and are not dependent on any mental process of any human being. So then, how would you answer these questions:

• Is the existence of these things--Pluto, the atomic nucleus, deep-sea vent ecosystems--part of absolute truth?
• Why do you believe that these things exist?
• If you believe in these things because of logic, reason, and experiment rather than because of authority, can you present to me a case for their existence that doesn't require me to trust some authority?

"no amount of logic or reason can make answers true". Obviously you aren't talking about basic questions like the "which house is red?" Logic question we all answered in school. I'm assuming you're referring to bigger questions like, "Does god exist?". In that respect, you are right, no amount of logic or reason can give you the truth. HOwever, in these types of questions, logic and reason are the best ways of finding an answer close to the truth (determining reality). That may seem contradictory, but all I'm saying is that if you're being intellectually honest, you know there is the possibility of being wrong.

I don't think admitting that we cannot know the nature of reality is complicating things at all. Yea, its possible we are in the matrix, or maybe we are some super-intelligent being's science project. It's ridiculous to assume any of these possibilities without any evidence, all we can go on is what we know (obviously). LIving your life around unknown unknowns is absurd.

Yes, I believe your three examples exist. The case I would make for all three is actually quite simple (and obvious IMO)....evidence. the evidence for all three exists independent of any authority. EXamine the evidence for yourself...and decide.

 

[Ana the Ist]

For me reality isn't determined by what anybody says. It's purely based upon my experiences. Nothing is out of the question in my mind, some things are just more likely then others.

So you don't believe in anything you haven't experienced? What makes something "more likely" than something else?

 

[oi_antz]

I've split this reply in half to make it a bit more manageable. I wish secondtimearound was still reading this thread, he insisted that people did not believe things were true simply because they believe they are true. Your statements here are a perfect example of that.

Do you know what a strawman is? It's interesting that you don't deny your statement is a strawman, but rather you ask if it can still be true. Well the answer is yes, a strawman can be true (and often is) that's not what makes it illogical.

I want to ask you here, why are you so sure that the bold part of your statement is true. Do you just believe it to be true? You don't seem to like answering questions.

It's illogical because its irrelevant to the topic in any way. I went back and reread your statement, its still illogical. You've said that the scientist and the Christian are both using the same faith, but that's it. You've claimed this is "true" but you haven't shown how.

I did show you how, you are not listening. Either I am not articulating it properly or there is something on your side which prevents you from understanding the semantic of my speech. Let's both try a bit harder and don't forget that we both have pride. We are butting heads because of that. What's the importance for you to refuse that scientist's use faith? What's the importance for me to insist that they do? I'll tell you my perspective, it is because believing in Jesus is purely logical and just as logical as believing in atomic theory. The best difference you have managed to define is that one persons experience with Jesus cannot be proven to another unless they perform the experiment themselves. That is the way Jesus has done it. It is done that way for a reason. He told us why He did it that way and it is perfectly wise to have done it that way. So, if you are seriously interested in observing the results of the experiment, you already know the method.

I actually bothered to show you how different these two examples are, but you seem to have ignored it.

I also have bothered to show you how similar they are and you have likewise ignored it. Why do you think we are arguing here?

I'll try one more time.

Great! I'll try too.

A scientist makes guesses about reality based upon knowledge that he has

A prospective disciple of Jesus makes a guess about God based upon knowledge that he has

, he then confirms (or denys) this guess with an experiment,

the prospective disciple then decides to obey Jesus

the results of the experiment either confirm his guess about reality or deny it and he begins again with knew knowledge to make his guess with.

Jesus accepts the prospective disciple and the disciple then begins to experience God more and more by following this pattern of obedience.

At no point in this process is faith required.

Faith is required at step 1. The scientist does not know what will happen as a result of the experiment, but trusts that it will be safe. I have seen an acoustic scientist with facial damage from an experiment gone wrong. That is an example of misplaced faith. Allow me to quote your definition to prove it:

1. Confident belief in the truth, value, or trustworthiness of a person, idea, or thing.

I have bolded and underlined the exact words that describe the faith that a scientist exercises in the scientific method you gave me.

So, why do we still but heads? Is one of us wrong or are we both arguing for the sake of argument? BTW when I use a question mark I expect you to think for yourself, it is polite to acknowledge questions. I have been very thorough in my responses to your questions, my patience can wear thin though and you should be detecting that in the tone of my voice.

A person hears about Jesus and decides to believe in him.

Oh really? That easy eh? We both know it's not that easy.

This takes faith since they cannot find out for themselves if what the bible says is true.

Exactly. The same faith that your scientist uses: A confident belief in the trustworthiness of an idea.

The person decides that their belief is justified or not based on personal experience. (also requires faith to believe their personal experience is actually spiritual in nature).

Is that a fact? How many times have you experienced that kind of reality you are claiming to understand so well? I tell you Ana, when you meet God there is no doubt what just happened.

The person can then stay with Jesus or leave him, based on personal belief.

Well yeah, not everyone loves Jesus.

The difference here is that the scientist has actual evidence about reality that he can share with others and have them acquire through the same methods. All the believer has is personal experience which they can tell to others, but doesn't actually say anything about reality.

Yep. I agree with that because that is the way God wants to do it. What I don't agree with is your claim that scientists don't exercise faith in their work.

As for Kenneth Taylor's definition of faith, I prefer the dictionary. Your use of his definition is an appeal to authority...look it up. If you think that his definition and mine are so similar, why not just go with mine?

I did. You asked me though whether I had a different definition of faith so I showed it to you. Both statements convey the same meaning by using different words.

I don't agree that they're similar. The three points you made were nowhere in the definition I gave you nor would I agree to them. If scientists based the scientific method on faith I don't think any progress would've been made.

Why do you believe this statement is true?

 

[aiki]

Hello, this may seem like an overly simple question, but I would like to know how Christians determine reality?

I accept reality as a brute given. It could be an utter fiction - ala The Matrix - but in the absence of good reason to believe otherwise I simply assume that what my physical senses perceive as reality is, in fact, actually real.

How do you decide fact from fiction? How do you know truth from opinion or belief? Is the bible your main source for this kind of determination? Something else?

I hold to the correspondence view of truth. It is the most common-sensical view in my opinion.

Selah.

 

[AlexBP]

I'm not saying we don't accept certain things on authority, I'm just saying that it isn't a logical method for determining truth.

What I'm trying to do is nail down some very specific understanding here. You and I both agree that we accept certain things on authority. To me, saying we "accept certain things" is identical to saying that we choose to hold certain things as truths. Suppose a doctor prescribes hydroxychloroquine to treat my grandmother's arthritis, and I accept this based on my doctor's authority. In that case, I now hold it as true that hydroxychloroquine is the correct medicine to take in this case. Are we in agreement so far?

But then you go on to say "it isn't a logical method for determining truth". So then, do you and I and everyone else do something illogical whenever we accept a doctor's medical judgment? And do we do something illogical in all of the many other cases where we accept certain things on authority? Or are there some truths that we accept on authority while still being logical?

 

[Ana the Ist]

I want to ask you here, why are you so sure that the bold part of your statement is true. Do you just believe it to be true? You don't seem to like answering questions.

I did show you how, you are not listening. Either I am not articulating it properly or there is something on your side which prevents you from understanding the semantic of my speech. Let's both try a bit harder and don't forget that we both have pride. We are butting heads because of that. What's the importance for you to refuse that scientist's use faith? What's the importance for me to insist that they do? I'll tell you my perspective, it is because believing in Jesus is purely logical and just as logical as believing in atomic theory. The best difference you have managed to define is that one persons experience with Jesus cannot be proven to another unless they perform the experiment themselves. That is the way Jesus has done it. It is done that way for a reason. He told us why He did it that way and it is perfectly wise to have done it that way. So, if you are seriously interested in observing the results of the experiment, you already know the method.

I also have bothered to show you how similar they are and you have likewise ignored it. Why do you think we are arguing here?

Great! I'll try too.

A prospective disciple of Jesus makes a guess about God based upon knowledge that he has

the prospective disciple then decides to obey Jesus

Jesus accepts the prospective disciple and the disciple then begins to experience God more and more by following this pattern of obedience.

Faith is required at step 1. The scientist does not know what will happen as a result of the experiment, but trusts that it will be safe. I have seen an acoustic scientist with facial damage from an experiment gone wrong. That is an example of misplaced faith. Allow me to quote your definition to prove it:

1. Confident belief in the truth, value, or trustworthiness of a person, idea, or thing.

I have bolded and underlined the exact words that describe the faith that a scientist exercises in the scientific method you gave me.

So, why do we still but heads? Is one of us wrong or are we both arguing for the sake of argument? BTW when I use a question mark I expect you to think for yourself, it is polite to acknowledge questions. I have been very thorough in my responses to your questions, my patience can wear thin though and you should be detecting that in the tone of my voice.


Oh really? That easy eh? We both know it's not that easy.

Exactly. The same faith that your scientist uses: A confident belief in the trustworthiness of an idea.

Is that a fact? How many times have you experienced that kind of reality you are claiming to understand so well? I tell you Ana, when you meet God there is no doubt what just happened.

Well yeah, not everyone loves Jesus.

Yep. I agree with that because that is the way God wants to do it. What I don't agree with is your claim that scientists don't exercise faith in their work.

I did. You asked me though whether I had a different definition of faith so I showed it to you. Both statements convey the same meaning by using different words.

Why do you believe this statement is true?

You bolded part of my statement and asked me why I know its true, it is because I know what a strawman is. I asked you if you know what one is, and you ignored the question, then you accuse me of not liking to answer questions lol. If you actually look up what a strawman is and still don't understand how it can be true and yet irrelevant to the discussion then I'll gladly explain it to you.

You didn't explain it. Your statement was basically "I believe x is the same as y". It's a statement that doesn't explain why. It's not important for me to insist scientists don't use faith, if it could be shown they do, I'd gladly agree.

A prospective disciple of Jesus makes a guess about God based upon knowledge that he has

But where did he get this knowledge? The scientist gathered empirical evidence from the natural world. The disciple got his knowledge from a 2000 year old book that someone wrote. At this point, the scientist knows the data he starts with is true. The disciple doesn't.

the prospective disciple then decides to obey Jesus

The scientist crafts an experiment to confirm his guess about the data. He has to choose A way that will reveal whether or not his guess is true. He doesn't know his guess is true, in fact it could be wrong for several reasons, including a poor experiment or mis interpreted starting data. The disciple doesn't craft any such experiment, he simply chooses to believe or not believe that this point. He has effectively skipped past any attempt to verify his starting data was ever true.

Jesus accepts the prospective disciple and the disciple then begins to experience God more and more by following this pattern of obedience.

If the scientist's experiment confirms his guess, then he repeats it over and over before subjecting it to the scrutiny of others. If his results are still correct, than anyone can perform the experiment and get the exact same results. What qualifies as an "experience of god" for the disciple? Does it not count if it can be explained through natural processes? Does every disciple get the exact same results? I can answer that one for you, no, they don't. A short read over the "testimony" section of this site will show you how wildly different all these "experiences" are. There is really no similarity here between scientist and disciple.

I do understand your trouble with the definition of faith though...finally. You're using the wrong contextual definition. I gave two and in this case it is The second that is appropriate.
2. Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence. That is the definition I was using in describing the "faith" you keep mentioning. If you're wondering why it Is because your belief hasn't been shown to rest on logical proof or material evidence. I hope this clears some things up.

 

[aiki]

A prospective disciple of Jesus makes a guess about God based upon knowledge that he has

But where did he get this knowledge? The scientist gathered empirical evidence from the natural world. The disciple got his knowledge from a 2000 year old book that someone wrote. At this point, the scientist knows the data he starts with is true. The disciple doesn't.

Talk about a Strawman! Your description of the basis for the Christian worldview is extremely inaccurate. THe follower of Christ has many points from which he may draw a reasoned basis for his faith. They all serve to establish the Bible as being what it claims to be thus securing the faith of the believer in it. You sound like so many uninformed atheists who charge Christians with circular reasoning and blind faith. In some cases, this might be true, but in many others it most certainly is not.

The scientist crafts an experiment to confirm his guess about the data. He has to choose A way that will reveal whether or not his guess is true. He doesn't know his guess is true, in fact it could be wrong for several reasons, including a poor experiment or mis interpreted starting data. The disciple doesn't craft any such experiment, he simply chooses to believe or not believe that this point. He has effectively skipped past any attempt to verify his starting data was ever true.

As far as how one comes to faith in Christ you couldn't be more off. Plainly, you know not whereof you speak. There are excellent philosophic arguments completely separate from the Bible that bear out its claims about a Creator-God; there are powerful historical bases for trusting the Bible; there is the matter of fulfilled biblical prophecy as well, and so on.

If the scientist's experiment confirms his guess, then he repeats it over and over before subjecting it to the scrutiny of others. If his results are still correct, than anyone can perform the experiment and get the exact same results. What qualifies as an "experience of god" for the disciple?

Read the Bible and you'll find out!

Does it not count if it can be explained through natural processes?

Being able to posit a natural explanation for something doesn't necessarily mean it is the correct explanation.

God deals with us on a spiritual and supernatural level; science functions only on the natural/material level. The latter, therefore, is not able to assess the former.

Does it not count if it can be explained through natural processes? Does every disciple get the exact same results? I can answer that one for you, no, they don't. A short read over the "testimony" section of this site will show you how wildly different all these "experiences" are. There is really no similarity here between scientist and disciple.

I disagree. There is incredible unity within the diversity of the Christian community. You see only the diversity because it is what you hope and wish to see and because you can construe it in such a way as to serve your argument. Nonetheless, as one who has lived within the evangelical Christian community since birth, I can tell you there is great unity and common experience among believers.

Selah.

 

[AlexBP]

You know as well as I do that people don't walk on water, they don't return from the dead (with some medical exceptions of course), they don't cause things like bread and fish to appear from nowhere, and yet (I'm guessing) you discard that knowledge when it comes to what the bible says of Jesus. You apply different rules to reality when it comes to the bible. I don't, that's really the only difference.

Well now we seem to be at the heart of the matter. The gospels say that Jesus Christ did things which an ordinary person cannot do, including but not limited to raising the dead, miraculous healings, and multiplication of food. Some atheists seem to think that we Christians must view these gospel episodes as dreadfully embarrassing. In fact, quite the opposite is true. The miracles of Jesus are central to Christianity.

As for your implied claim that believing in the miracles of Jesus violates the trio of 'logic, reason, and evidence' I don't think that it does. We apply those methods to measurable classes of things. If we investigate one class of things, we can't use the results to make conclusions about a different class. If we find that hippos can't fly, that doesn't prove that eagles can't fly. So likewise if we find that most ordinary human beings can't work miracles, that doesn't prove that Jesus couldn't work miracles for those of us who don't believe that Jesus was an ordinary human being. We believe that Jesus was God.

Suppose someone made this argument: "You know as well as I do that a carpenter and half-time itinerant preacher who dies in disgrace never becomes a central figure in human history." Is it true? Obviously it is true--with one exception. The lives of carpenters and other poor people generally don't become pivots of all human history. The deaths of minor criminals are even less likely to do so. Yet the life of death of Jesus Christ became exactly that. Everything that has happened and still happens in the human story is influenced by this one person. With that fact in mind, it seems quite reasonable to me to be open to the possibility that Jesus Christ was not limited as other persons are.

(All of this discussion doesn't mention the very fascinating question of whether there have been other miracles workers besides Jesus and other supernatural events besides those in the Bible. I have looked at the evidence and concluded that there are. I could offer some books if you'd like to read up on the topic.)

 

[Ana the Ist]

What I'm trying to do is nail down some very specific understanding here. You and I both agree that we accept certain things on authority. To me, saying we "accept certain things" is identical to saying that we choose to hold certain things as truths. Suppose a doctor prescribes hydroxychloroquine to treat my grandmother's arthritis, and I accept this based on my doctor's authority. In that case, I now hold it as true that hydroxychloroquine is the correct medicine to take in this case. Are we in agreement so far?

But then you go on to say "it isn't a logical method for determining truth". So then, do you and I and everyone else do something illogical whenever we accept a doctor's medical judgment? And do we do something illogical in all of the many other cases where we accept certain things on authority? Or are there some truths that we accept on authority while still being logical?

"Are we in agreement so far?". No. FIrst off, this is a poor example because there may be multiple ways to treat your gma's affliction, any of which can be true. To apply this reasoning to questions which are clear dichotomies is misleading. Secondly, you still use logic and reason when deciding if the dr's treatment is correct. You don't simply accept it based on the fact he is a Dr. If he had told you to mash up kitty treats and rub them on your grandma's hands would you do it? (SEriously I'd like you to answer this). If the answer is "no" then why not? He is a Dr after all.

It's pointless to answer the rest of your questions here because they work off the assumption you made in the first paragraph. That assumption is that we accept knowledge based solely on authority. I'm hoping that in answering my question you'll see why I disagree that is true.

 

[Iakobos]

So you don't believe in anything you haven't experienced? What makes something "more likely" than something else?

Pretty much, with more likely i mean such things as walking around as opposed to flying about. Although i haven't personally taken to flying, it's not out of the question, just less likely.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Talk about a Strawman! Your description of the basis for the Christian worldview is extremely inaccurate. THe follower of Christ has many points from which he may draw a reasoned basis for his faith. They all serve to establish the Bible as being what it claims to be thus securing the faith of the believer in it. You sound like so many uninformed atheists who charge Christians with circular reasoning and blind faith. In some cases, this might be true, but in many others it most certainly is not.



As far as how one comes to faith in Christ you couldn't be more off. Plainly, you know not whereof you speak. There are excellent philosophic arguments completely separate from the Bible that bear out its claims about a Creator-God; there are powerful historical bases for trusting the Bible; there is the matter of fulfilled biblical prophecy as well, and so on.



Read the Bible and you'll find out!



Being able to posit a natural explanation for something doesn't necessarily mean it is the correct explanation.

God deals with us on a spiritual and supernatural level; science functions only on the natural/material level. The latter, therefore, is not able to assess the former.



I disagree. There is incredible unity within the diversity of the Christian community. You see only the diversity because it is what you hope and wish to see and because you can construe it in such a way as to serve your argument. Nonetheless, as one who has lived within the evangelical Christian community since birth, I can tell you there is great unity and common experience among believers.

Selah.

THis is why I typically don't respond to posters who interject themselves into conversations between me and another poster. JUdging by your statements you haven't followed the entire discussion between me and oi_antz. If you just wanted to make a point about a particular statement I made, that's ok. Responding to my reply to oi_antz however robs him of the opportunity to respond back without someone (you) jumping in and possibly making his points for him. Nonetheless, I'll reply to your statements this time.

Do you know what a strawman is? Even if the bible weren't the source of information used by the disciple in this example, that would only make my assumption wrong, not a strawman. I'm willing to consider other sources of information about Christianity, so enlighten me, what would someone use to learn about Jesus, his teachings, god, and all the important aspects of Christianity if not the bible?

Yes, its true that a disciple could look hard at the claims in the bible, research them, look for evidence outside the bible and make every attempt at verifying as much of the bible as possible...and then decide to believe based onthat information. This wasn't the example I was given to work with though. In the example we were discussing, the disciple learns about Jesus, and then decides to believe in him on faith. No research was mentioned. Do you see the problem of commenting on a discussion that you haven't been a part of until just now? Your comments here have nothing to do with the situation oi_antz and I were discussing.

The problem with the disciple deciding they had an "experience of god" is that the only criteria seems to be that the disciple simply decides for themself that they had an experience of god. ANYONE can make this claim regardless of whether they had an experience or not, there is no way for any third party to know if the claim is true.

"Being able to posit a natural explanation for something doesn't necessarily mean it is the correct explanation." Of course, it doesn't mean that it isn't the correct explanation either. Read my statement above for further understanding.

The fact that there is diversity in "experiences of god" between Christians makes my point by itself. Scientific experiments yield the same results regardless of who performs them. That's the difference.

 

[oi_antz]

Responding to my reply to oi_antz however robs him of the opportunity to respond back without someone (you) jumping in and possibly making his points for him.

Don't worry about that Ana, I've finished discussing this with you. You don't listen to what I say so I'm not going to waste more time with you. I have other friends that can benefit from my time and they do appreciate it.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Don't worry about that Ana, I've finished discussing this with you. You don't listen to what I say so I'm not going to waste more time with you. I have other friends that can benefit from my time and they do appreciate it.

That's your choice of course. I have read what you've had to say and I understand your position. I've tried my best to explain why I disagree. Maybe some day what I've said will lead you to understand things in a new light. Take care.

 

[AlexBP]

"Are we in agreement so far?". No. FIrst off, this is a poor example because there may be multiple ways to treat your gma's affliction, any of which can be true. To apply this reasoning to questions which are clear dichotomies is misleading.

Okay, then let's rephrase the question so that it is a clear dichotomy. Someone asks her doctor whether hydroxychloroquine is an effective treatment for arthritis, the doctor answers 'yes', and the patient accepts the doctor's answer as the truth. Has the patient done something illogical?

Secondly, you still use logic and reason when deciding if the dr's treatment is correct. You don't simply accept it based on the fact he is a Dr. If he had told you to mash up kitty treats and rub them on your grandma's hands would you do it? (SEriously I'd like you to answer this). If the answer is "no" then why not? He is a Dr after all.

I don't this line of argument will prove to be as convincing as you hope. I would not accept my doctor's word if he said something crazy, but unless he says something crazy the point is moot. If I have a doctor who been extremely reliable for a long time, then I trust him. Perhaps you think it's significant that in order to define 'crazy' we need the old trio of logic, reason and evidence, but that's missing the point. The significant decisions in life are generally not between one sane and one obviously crazy option, but rather between two or more options that all have the appearance of plausibility.

 

[aiki]

THis is why I typically don't respond to posters who interject themselves into conversations between me and another poster. JUdging by your statements you haven't followed the entire discussion between me and oi_antz. If you just wanted to make a point about a particular statement I made, that's ok. Responding to my reply to oi_antz however robs him of the opportunity to respond back without someone (you) jumping in and possibly making his points for him. Nonetheless, I'll reply to your statements this time.

My comments were not an attempt to answer for OiAntz. You were attempting to school him in the use of a Strawman Argument but were guilty of using one yourself. This seemed to me worth pointing out.

Do you know what a strawman is?

Yes. Do you? When you write things like,

"A prospective disciple of Jesus makes a guess about God based upon knowledge that he has

But where did he get this knowledge? The scientist gathered empirical evidence from the natural world. The disciple got his knowledge from a 2000 year old book that someone wrote. At this point, the scientist knows the data he starts with is true. The disciple doesn't."

you are guilty of mischaracterizing the facts about the basis for why a "disciple of Christ" chooses to believe in and follow him. Mischaracterization is at the heart of every Strawman Argument.

Even if the bible weren't the source of information used by the disciple in this example, that would only make my assumption wrong, not a strawman.

Whether your Strawman is the result of ignorant assumptions or not, it is still a Strawman and deserves to be discounted as such. You are responsible for properly informing yourself about the facts concerning Christians before you attempt to render a characterization of those facts.

I'm willing to consider other sources of information about Christianity, so enlighten me, what would someone use to learn about Jesus, his teachings, god, and all the important aspects of Christianity if not the bible?

Christians learn about the character and purposes of God and His truth from the Bible. But before any person can confidently trust what the Bible says, they must ascertain whether or not it deserves their trust. One cannot simply rest upon the Bible's claims about itself to do this, however. Doing so would warrant the charge of circular reasoning. Fortunately, the extraordinary nature of the Bible, philosophy, history, and even science bear out the Bible's claims. The experience of millions of believers also sustains faith in what the Bible claims about itself, as do the many fulfilled prophecies of the Bible. Ultimately, though, each believer experiences for him or herself the reality of God and this, more than anything else, serves as the ground for their faith in Him.

Yes, its true that a disciple could look hard at the claims in the bible, research them, look for evidence outside the bible and make every attempt at verifying as much of the bible as possible...and then decide to believe based onthat information. This wasn't the example I was given to work with though.

As I said, I wasn't speaking for OiAntz. He must answer for himself. I speak only for myself and the many other Christians that I know who are careful to have solid, reasonable ground for their faith.

Do you see the problem of commenting on a discussion that you haven't been a part of until just now? Your comments here have nothing to do with the situation oi_antz and I were discussing.

Insofar as my comments show that OiAntz is not necessarily representative of all Christians in his answers to you, I think my comments are useful.

The problem with the disciple deciding they had an "experience of god" is that the only criteria seems to be that the disciple simply decides for themself that they had an experience of god.

Aren't you assuming the criteria for the disciple here? Why must this be the only criteria? Couldn't there be other criteria?

ANYONE can make this claim regardless of whether they had an experience or not, there is no way for any third party to know if the claim is true.

Well, if you refuse to accept personal testimony as valid, then you'd be right. I doubt, though, that you discard personal testimony so readily in other instances. Why is your default setting in this matter to assume that a lie is being told?

The fact that there is diversity in "experiences of god" between Christians makes my point by itself. Scientific experiments yield the same results regardless of who performs them. That's the difference.

You completely missed my point, it seems. Is having a relationship with God, or with anyone for that matter, a scientific experiment? Should every relationship I have with other people be exactly the same? If not, why should every relationship God has with us be exactly the same?

Selah.

 

[Ana the Ist]

My comments were not an attempt to answer for OiAntz. You were attempting to school him in the use of a Strawman Argument but were guilty of using one yourself. This seemed to me worth pointing out.

Yes. Do you? When you write things like,

"A prospective disciple of Jesus makes a guess about God based upon knowledge that he has

But where did he get this knowledge? The scientist gathered empirical evidence from the natural world. The disciple got his knowledge from a 2000 year old book that someone wrote. At this point, the scientist knows the data he starts with is true. The disciple doesn't."

you are guilty of mischaracterizing the facts about the basis for why a "disciple of Christ" chooses to believe in and follow him. Mischaracterization is at the heart of every Strawman Argument.

Whether your Strawman is the result of ignorant assumptions or not, it is still a Strawman and deserves to be discounted as such. You are responsible for properly informing yourself about the facts concerning Christians before you attempt to render a characterization of those facts.

Christians learn about the character and purposes of God and His truth from the Bible. But before any person can confidently trust what the Bible says, they must ascertain whether or not it deserves their trust. One cannot simply rest upon the Bible's claims about itself to do this, however. Doing so would warrant the charge of circular reasoning. Fortunately, the extraordinary nature of the Bible, philosophy, history, and even science bear out the Bible's claims. The experience of millions of believers also sustains faith in what the Bible claims about itself, as do the many fulfilled prophecies of the Bible. Ultimately, though, each believer experiences for him or herself the reality of God and this, more than anything else, serves as the ground for their faith in Him.

As I said, I wasn't speaking for OiAntz. He must answer for himself. I speak only for myself and the many other Christians that I know who are careful to have solid, reasonable ground for their faith.

Insofar as my comments show that OiAntz is not necessarily representative of all Christians in his answers to you, I think my comments are useful.

Aren't you assuming the criteria for the disciple here? Why must this be the only criteria? Couldn't there be other criteria?

Well, if you refuse to accept personal testimony as valid, then you'd be right. I doubt, though, that you discard personal testimony so readily in other instances. Why is your default setting in this matter to assume that a lie is being told?

You completely missed my point, it seems. Is having a relationship with God, or with anyone for that matter, a scientific experiment? Should every relationship I have with other people be exactly the same? If not, why should every relationship God has with us be exactly the same?

Selah.

It's one thing for you to claim my statement is a strawman, its another entirely to show its a strawman. In order for my statement to a strawman, I would have to be addressing a position that I created that looks similar to the position oi_antz took but is in fact a misrepresentation of his position. THat's not what I did. I used his exact words. I wanted to show him the difference between the scientist and the disciple at the beginning of his analogy, and this difference was in the quality of starting information.

The scientist is starting with facts. The disciple is starting with claims. I assumed the disciple was learning about Christianity and Jesus from the bible, since oi_antz himself didn't specify. If I was wrong in this assumption, oi_antz could've corrected me, as you can see from his last statement, he didn't lol. If you want to say that the disciple can learn about Christianity from another source, fine, state the source. The point I was making still stands and it still won't be a strawman because I am addressing oi_antz analogy.

" You are responsible for properly informing yourself about the facts concerning Christians before you attempt to render a characterization of those facts." Incorrect. All I have to do is address oi_antz' position as he describes it. I did that. You still haven't stated this non-biblical source that you think someone can learn about Jesus and Christianity from, and without that your argument here doesn't have a leg to stand on.

"Christians learn about the character and purposes of God and His truth from the Bible."

Wow. THis is the funniest part. I wrote--->" The disciple got his knowledge from a 2000 year old book that someone wrote." You spend half your reply stating that my statement is a strawman because the disciple can learn about Jesus and Christianity from other sources. Then you write:

" Christians learn about the character and purposes of God and His truth from the Bible."

That pretty much proves my point. Case closed.

 

[aiki]

It's one thing for you to claim my statement is a strawman, its another entirely to show its a strawman. In order for my statement to a strawman, I would have to be addressing a position that I created that looks similar to the position oi_antz took but is in fact a misrepresentation of his position. THat's not what I did. I used his exact words. I wanted to show him the difference between the scientist and the disciple at the beginning of his analogy, and this difference was in the quality of starting information.

Fair enough. As a response specific to OiAntz's comments your characterization may avoid being called a Strawman. If you like, you can simply regard my comments as a warning not to assume OiAntz is speaking for all Christians.

" You are responsible for properly informing yourself about the facts concerning Christians before you attempt to render a characterization of those facts." Incorrect. All I have to do is address oi_antz' position as he describes it. I did that.

Okay. I hope you won't assume, then, that your comments have any general pertinency to the Christian worldview beyond OiAntz's perspective.

You still haven't stated this non-biblical source that you think someone can learn about Jesus and Christianity from, and without that your argument here doesn't have a leg to stand on.

You could conceiveably obtain a very comprehensive knowledge of the faith without directly studying the Bible through things like Christian commentaries, theological treatises, essays, books, etc.

"Christians learn about the character and purposes of God and His truth from the Bible."

Wow. THis is the funniest part. I wrote--->" The disciple got his knowledge from a 2000 year old book that someone wrote." You spend half your reply stating that my statement is a strawman because the disciple can learn about Jesus and Christianity from other sources. Then you write:

" Christians learn about the character and purposes of God and His truth from the Bible."

That pretty much proves my point. Case closed.

My comments above were in response to your request for extra-biblical sources that would teach people about God, Christ, etc. While the specifics of Christian theology and doctrine are best obtained from the Bible, one can obtain effective arguments for the existence of God, authenticating references to the life, death and resurrection of Christ, proofs of the historical accuracy of the Bible, etc., from sources outside the Bible. Any of a wide number of sites on the web can direct you to this information.

CARM - Christian Apologetics and Research Ministry
Defending Biblical Christianity | Reasonable Faith
Stand to Reason: Stand to Reason Homepage
Answers in Genesis - Creation, Evolution, Christian Apologetics
Welcome to Ravi Zacharias International Ministries

Selah.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Fair enough. As a response specific to OiAntz's comments your characterization may avoid being called a Strawman. If you like, you can simply regard my comments as a warning not to assume OiAntz is speaking for all Christians.

Okay. I hope you won't assume, then, that your comments have any general pertinency to the Christian worldview beyond OiAntz's perspective.

You could conceiveably obtain a very comprehensive knowledge of the faith without directly studying the Bible through things like Christian commentaries, theological treatises, essays, books, etc.

My comments above were in response to your request for extra-biblical sources that would teach people about God, Christ, etc. While the specifics of Christian theology and doctrine are best obtained from the Bible, one can obtain effective arguments for the existence of God, authenticating references to the life, death and resurrection of Christ, proofs of the historical accuracy of the Bible, etc., from sources outside the Bible. Any of a wide number of sites on the web can direct you to this information.

CARM - Christian Apologetics and Research Ministry
Defending Biblical Christianity | Reasonable Faith
Stand to Reason: Stand to Reason Homepage
Answers in Genesis - Creation, Evolution, Christian Apologetics
Welcome to Ravi Zacharias International Ministries

Selah.

I think I can fairly say I wouldn't use the answers that I did in response to oi_antz anywhere else. That really is the problem with jumping into the discussion where you did. If you didn't read all the posts leading up to the one you responded to, then you might not realize my statements were very specific towards the analogy oi_antz had written. He was trying to show that scientists and new disciples of Christ use the same faith. My response was to show, sentence by sentence, where the differences were and how they were fundamental to the methods used by scientists and disciples. Rather than admit it was a poor analogy, he left.

I do understand what you are saying about those Christians who do make an effort to justify their beliefs with science or logic. I've read a great number of apologetic arguments for Christianity, but I've also read many of the responses (and thought of a few myself.) I think, of course, that the arguments against apologetics are constructed better. However, apologetics do serve a purpose in helping those Christians who have trouble reconciling science and Christianity.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Well now we seem to be at the heart of the matter. The gospels say that Jesus Christ did things which an ordinary person cannot do, including but not limited to raising the dead, miraculous healings, and multiplication of food. Some atheists seem to think that we Christians must view these gospel episodes as dreadfully embarrassing. In fact, quite the opposite is true. The miracles of Jesus are central to Christianity.

As for your implied claim that believing in the miracles of Jesus violates the trio of 'logic, reason, and evidence' I don't think that it does. We apply those methods to measurable classes of things. If we investigate one class of things, we can't use the results to make conclusions about a different class. If we find that hippos can't fly, that doesn't prove that eagles can't fly. So likewise if we find that most ordinary human beings can't work miracles, that doesn't prove that Jesus couldn't work miracles for those of us who don't believe that Jesus was an ordinary human being. We believe that Jesus was God.

Suppose someone made this argument: "You know as well as I do that a carpenter and half-time itinerant preacher who dies in disgrace never becomes a central figure in human history." Is it true? Obviously it is true--with one exception. The lives of carpenters and other poor people generally don't become pivots of all human history. The deaths of minor criminals are even less likely to do so. Yet the life of death of Jesus Christ became exactly that. Everything that has happened and still happens in the human story is influenced by this one person. With that fact in mind, it seems quite reasonable to me to be open to the possibility that Jesus Christ was not limited as other persons are.

(All of this discussion doesn't mention the very fascinating question of whether there have been other miracles workers besides Jesus and other supernatural events besides those in the Bible. I have looked at the evidence and concluded that there are. I could offer some books if you'd like to read up on the topic.)

Let's just keep the focus on Jesus, I don't really have the resources at the moment to investigate every Christian claim of a miracle. My efforts at researching Padre Pio are less than encouraging.

I would agree that if Jesus were the son of god then certainly we wouldn't apply the same logical perceptions to him as we would any regular human being. The obvious problem with that is how do we logically show Jesus was divine in nature? We can't use any aspects of that he claims to have because of his divine nature without getting into some very circular reasoning. For example:
Q. "How can we logically believe Jesus had performed miracles
A. "Because Jesus was the son of god"
Q. "How do we know that Jesus was the son of god?"
A. "Because Jesus could perform miracles no other man could"

I've actually seen this method of reasoning described as the "perfect wheel of knowledge" (or something like that) in an attempt to instill pride in Christians who do not understand the faulty logic in this approach.

Your third paragraph falls short of a logical, reasonable argument for several reasons. The most obvious is that it isn't true. There are a great many historically important/influential figures who came from very humble beginnings and have had impacts on the world that have lasted to this day. I'll be glad to name some if you can't think of any. Some of these figures are central to other religions...and yet you don't value those religions as you do Christianity.