FORMAL LOGIC

[Stephen3141]

More on Evidence and Reality...

Reminder... the Soundness of an argument/proof involves whether or not the premises (propositions in the Assumptions area of a proof) "match our shared reality" (I use this phrase, instead of the simpler "are true").

For those who think that a system of Assumptions is either true, or false, remember that scientific models do change, century by century, as more information is discovered about the natural world. At any one time, one may ask whether a scientific model is "true" to the physical world. But over time, I prefer to allow change in models to match, more and more, "our shared reality".

For Christian arguments/proofs, consider that different core doctrines of different theologies, could be seen as the Assumptions part of a proof. I consider that different theologies, approach our shared reality to different degrees. This is why it is worthwhile for Christians to debate different theological systems. Some concepts in some theologies, use definitions or rules that do not closely reflect the language of Scripture (according to world class lexicons), as the biblical authors used the language. When definitions or rules in a theology are found to be dysfunctional, this indicates that the arguments/proofs that are built on them, are not Sound.

Moral-ethical systems are another example of models that are often used as the Assumptions part of proofs. But, different ME (moral-ethical) models are closer or further away from biblical values. For a Christian, debates over ME topics need to consider whether the definitions/rules in the Assumptions part of the proof, are biblical. If they are not, then the Conclusions reached will suffer from being Unsound, from a Christian point of view.

For those working in the hard sciences, it is intuitively obvious that a scientific model that does not produce Conclusions that match our experience of the physical universe, is Unsound.

For anti-intellectual Christians, it is sometimes not intuitively obvious that theological premises that lead to Conclusions that require the abusing of the text of Scripture (they don't match our shared reality of what the biblical authors meant when they wrote) to make the theology "work", are Unsound.

 

[Helmut-WK]

More on Evidence and Reality...

I don't see that these considerations are part of formal logic. Logic, yes, but you don't have to formalize logic to arrive at these points.

 

[Stephen3141]

I don't see that these considerations are part of formal logic. Logic, yes, but you don't have to formalize logic to arrive at these points.

I am taking the position that the Christian use of formal logic,
must be concerned not only with the logical validity of a proof,
but the soundness of the proof.

Even secular people, who use formal logic (such as all the hard sciences,
or philosophers), accept that the DEFINITIONS of the initial premises are important.
It is important that the initial premises match reality (or as some would say, are true.)

For Christians, I have made the point that our concept of evidence comes from
our shared reality, and how we perceive it. And, that we have a moral-ethical OUGHT
to honestly describe our shared reality. So, for Christians, we must be concerned
with how the Bible describes our shared reality, how we perceive it, and how we
evaluate "evidence" from that reality. These considerations are crucial, for the
evaluation of whether or not the initial premises in a proof match reality (are true).

---------------------
I realize that books on Symbolic Logic do not spend time talking about our shared reality, or evidence.
But, Christians must do this. (I would argue that all who have historically been interested in correct
reasoning, have been concerned over testing the truthfulness of premises.)

Christians must be concerned with what real evidence is, else they can
be carried off into the most ridiculous conspiracy theories (which do not
have substantial evidence from our shared reality, supporting them).

Note that non-Christians should also be concerned with carefully evaluating
what our shared reality is. Otherwise, there is no basis for sound evidence evaluated
in a courtroom, or for a fair rule of law, or for justice.

The connection between formal logic, the trueness of initial premises,
the goodness of evidence, and what reality is, may not seem connected
to formal logic, for many modern Americans. But for historic thinkers
about valid reasoning, these are basic parts of valid reasoning methods.
---------------------

Note that the modern flurry of language about getting "critical thinking skills"
into education, deals with the testing of initial premises for goodness. [Critical Thinking, 12]

(I say "flurry", because all sorts of people are trying to sell all sorts of concepts
as "critical reasoning skills". But one of the weaknesses of the younger
American generations, is that they do not have the background to discuss
primitive concepts. And, one of the core skills of the older concept of
"critical thinking", is the ability to evaluate the trueness (or not) of initial
premises in an argument/proof.)

[Critical Thinking] Introduction to Logic and Critical Thinking, Second Edition, Merrilee
H. Salmon, Harcourt, Brace, Jovanovich, 1989

 

[Stephen3141]

More on Evidence and Reality...

The Brain-in-a-Vat thought experiment can be pretty easily brushed aside
by many Christians (as "useless philosophy", etc.)

But, for Christians who accept that the Bible uses all sorts lf languages that
describes carefully hearing, observing, seeing, and evaluating evidence,
we cannot brush aside some thought experiments that are a bit more to the
point, for Christians. I don't mean to offend, but you must carefully consider...

--------------------

"Millenial-in-Vat

Take the associated problem, the Millenial in a Vat: (MIV)
A millenial is placed in a sensory deprivation room, with an iPhone and everything needed to survive for a lifetime (and charge the iPhone).

Doing Google searches on the iPhone, can the millenial ever detect:

— am I a real human being, or just a MIV?
— am I not a real human being, and just a MIV?
— are the perceptions I get from the iPhone valid? Or are they all fake news?
— given iPhone Google searches, can I get enough evidence to justify belief in any proposition?
— can I ever prove that the Google results represent a real world?
— do the Google results show that there are other sentient beings? (What if they are
Russian bots, and there has been a nuclear holocaust killing everything on earth
except brown cactus owls, and cacti.)

— can I ever prove that I live in a shared reality? With other sentient beings?
— could the MIV ever have enough evidence to say “I believe that I exist”?
— is reality, whatever the MIV asserts that it is?
— what happens if the iPhone breaks, and the MIV can’t make any Google searches?

Can the millenial say, “I’m not an MIV - I’m a real person!”?

— if the iPhone breaks, can the MIV still learn things about God?

The MIV thought experiment is a little different than the BIV experiment.

The classic Brain-in-Vat thought experiment points to the importance of dealing with our perceptions of the world (and everything else). It addresses questions about what our perceptions are, and what sort of evidence we would need to validly justify our beliefs.

The MIV thought experiment points to the importance of questioning whether any electronic flow of information apart from experience of the real world, should be trusted as real, or trusted as representing the unified reality that we live in.

We need to think carefully about what our direct and indirect perceptions indicate, as far as being evidence for/against believing some proposition. This careful examination is probably more important now, in the age of confusing internet searches, with regard to learning knowledge." [Making Bible Study Formal, Wuest, 177-178]

--------------------

"Theologian-in-a-Vat (TIV)

Now think about a more religious version of the thought experiment of Millenial-in-a-Vat.

A theologian is in a sensory deprivation room, with all he/she needs to survive a lifetime.
AND they have a commentary on the Bible, and the original text of the Bible, as their only sensory input.

Now the questions are:

— is the real world really how the commentary describes it?
— how can I tell what the real world is like?
— is this commentary accurate, in what it asserts about the Bible?
— How can I tell what other people have thought about the verses of the Bible that this commentary addresses?
— With only this commentary, am I even asking the right questions about the text of the Bible?
— do the concepts that this commentary use, even allow the expression of what the Bible is saying?
— if I lose access to this commentary, how should I learn anything about what the Bible means?
— can the Holy Spirit zoom through the walls of the sensory deprivation room, and teach me what the Bible means?
— how do I identify the voice of the Holy Spirit?
— does the Holy Spirit agree with this commentary?
— if I had an iPhone, and 100 commentaries online, how would I know which opinions in the commentaries are true?
— is a TIV responsible to verify what the commentary is saying? (Or does he suspect that Vladimir Putin placed the wrong commentary in the room with him.)
— can the TIV be condemned at the final judgment, for believing something that the
commentary asserts is true?
— can the TIV still “treasure up treasure in heaven” by doing righteous works that will
be rewarded positively at the final judgment? Even though he is stuck in a room,
like being in prison?

Unfortunately, a lot of Christians think that whatever translation of Scripture and commentary they use, must be correct.

This is a dysfunctional denial of personal moral/ethical responsibility.

At the final judgment, is the TIV justified in saying “my commentary made me do it” in order to offload personal moral/ethical responsibility on some convenient other thing? Are we really responsible, for what we believe?"
[Making Bible Study Formal, Wuest, 178-179]

 

[Helmut-WK]

I am taking the position that the Christian use of formal logic,
must be concerned not only with the logical validity of a proof,
but the soundness of the proof.

I agree with you. My point is: That assumptions should be in the common ground (your shared reality) of the persons who communicate to one another, is important anyway, not only in formal logic.

I realize that books on Symbolic Logic do not spend time talking about our shared reality, or evidence.

Perhaps the author think this is granted.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

More on Evidence and Reality...

The Brain-in-a-Vat thought experiment can be pretty easily brushed aside
by many Christians (as "useless philosophy", etc.)

But, for Christians who accept that the Bible uses all sorts lf languages that
describes carefully hearing, observing, seeing, and evaluating evidence,
we cannot brush aside some thought experiments that are a bit more to the
point, for Christians. I don't mean to offend, but you must carefully consider...

--------------------

"Millenial-in-Vat

Take the associated problem, the Millenial in a Vat: (MIV)
A millenial is placed in a sensory deprivation room, with an iPhone and everything needed to survive for a lifetime (and charge the iPhone).

Doing Google searches on the iPhone, can the millenial ever detect:

— am I a real human being, or just a MIV?
— am I not a real human being, and just a MIV?
— are the perceptions I get from the iPhone valid? Or are they all fake news?
— given iPhone Google searches, can I get enough evidence to justify belief in any proposition?
— can I ever prove that the Google results represent a real world?
— do the Google results show that there are other sentient beings? (What if they are
Russian bots, and there has been a nuclear holocaust killing everything on earth
except brown cactus owls, and cacti.)

— can I ever prove that I live in a shared reality? With other sentient beings?
— could the MIV ever have enough evidence to say “I believe that I exist”?
— is reality, whatever the MIV asserts that it is?
— what happens if the iPhone breaks, and the MIV can’t make any Google searches?

Can the millenial say, “I’m not an MIV - I’m a real person!”?

— if the iPhone breaks, can the MIV still learn things about God?

The MIV thought experiment is a little different than the BIV experiment.

The classic Brain-in-Vat thought experiment points to the importance of dealing with our perceptions of the world (and everything else). It addresses questions about what our perceptions are, and what sort of evidence we would need to validly justify our beliefs.

The MIV thought experiment points to the importance of questioning whether any electronic flow of information apart from experience of the real world, should be trusted as real, or trusted as representing the unified reality that we live in.

We need to think carefully about what our direct and indirect perceptions indicate, as far as being evidence for/against believing some proposition. This careful examination is probably more important now, in the age of confusing internet searches, with regard to learning knowledge." [Making Bible Study Formal, Wuest, 177-178]

--------------------

"Theologian-in-a-Vat (TIV)

Now think about a more religious version of the thought experiment of Millenial-in-a-Vat.

A theologian is in a sensory deprivation room, with all he/she needs to survive a lifetime.
AND they have a commentary on the Bible, and the original text of the Bible, as their only sensory input.

Now the questions are:

— is the real world really how the commentary describes it?
— how can I tell what the real world is like?
— is this commentary accurate, in what it asserts about the Bible?
— How can I tell what other people have thought about the verses of the Bible that this commentary addresses?
— With only this commentary, am I even asking the right questions about the text of the Bible?
— do the concepts that this commentary use, even allow the expression of what the Bible is saying?
— if I lose access to this commentary, how should I learn anything about what the Bible means?
— can the Holy Spirit zoom through the walls of the sensory deprivation room, and teach me what the Bible means?
— how do I identify the voice of the Holy Spirit?
— does the Holy Spirit agree with this commentary?
— if I had an iPhone, and 100 commentaries online, how would I know which opinions in the commentaries are true?
— is a TIV responsible to verify what the commentary is saying? (Or does he suspect that Vladimir Putin placed the wrong commentary in the room with him.)
— can the TIV be condemned at the final judgment, for believing something that the
commentary asserts is true?
— can the TIV still “treasure up treasure in heaven” by doing righteous works that will
be rewarded positively at the final judgment? Even though he is stuck in a room,
like being in prison?

Unfortunately, a lot of Christians think that whatever translation of Scripture and commentary they use, must be correct.

This is a dysfunctional denial of personal moral/ethical responsibility.

At the final judgment, is the TIV justified in saying “my commentary made me do it” in order to offload personal moral/ethical responsibility on some convenient other thing? Are we really responsible, for what we believe?"
[Making Bible Study Formal, Wuest, 178-179]

Honestly, while I appreciate your intended direction in this forum thread, I'm going to have to side with the late Christian Philosopher, Basil Mitchell, who held that the typical laymen Christian won't be able to engage Formal Logic as much as you'd like for all of us to do.

The reason for this, and the reason any one average Christian person isn't fully responsible for what he/she believes, but really can't be, is that he/she is essentially stuck in a situation in life where always knowing who to trust, along with facing the limits of one's own cognitive ability, can't necessarily be surmounted and clearly discerned in any and all instances. And this is the case even if and when an average laymen Christian might try to engage the rudiments of Logic, whether formal or informal.

This isn't to say that all Christians are off the hook, however. I think a modest case can be made out that those Christians who feel prompted to become leaders probably should be able to engage Formal Logic (and Informal Logic) and make some good use of it; we might even say that in this day and age, Christian leaders are responsible for their success or failure to do so. Then again, on the other hand, none of us can be a university unto ourselves, so there will always be individual, epistemic limits we each have to face. I know I have mine.

Reference

Mitchell, Basil. (1990). The laymen's predicament. How to play theological ping-pong: and other essays on faith and reason (pp. 11-24). William B. Eerdmans Publishing: Grand Rapids, MI.

 

[Helmut-WK]

The reason for this, and the reason any one average Christian person isn't fully responsible for what he/she believes, but really can't be, is that he/she is essentially stuck in a situation in life where always knowing who to trust, along with facing the limits of one's own cognitive ability, can't necessarily be surmounted and clearly discerned in any and all instances. And this is the case even if and when an average laymen Christian might try to engage the rudiments of Logic, whether formal or informal.

I don't see the case just black and white.

Everyone (even a leader) is stuck in a situation where he has to start with assumptions not strictly proven.

But everyone (and especially Christian leaders!) should not just judge by the premises of his church (commentary, …) when he encounters a different exegesis. He has the obligation to weight arguments for and against the new encountered teaching - by looking into the Bible, not just into commentaries (a theological book may help to find relevant Bible passages, but is never the ultimate authority).

In a sense nobody is responsible for what he believes, but everybody is responsible for the way one arrived at that belief, and for the tests one does in order to pick one of two conflicting opinions.

I also think that the amount of biblical evidence is a (rough) measure for [correct English term?] importance of a doctrine. This should be taken into account when one tries to classify something as heresy or as rather minor error …

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I don't see the case just black and white.

Everyone (even a leader) is stuck in a situation where he has to start with assumptions not strictly proven.

But everyone (and especially Christian leaders!) should not just judge by the premises of his church (commentary, …) when he encounters a different exegesis. He has the obligation to weight arguments for and against the new encountered teaching - by looking into the Bible, not just into commentaries (a theological book may help to find relevant Bible passages, but is never the ultimate authority).

In a sense nobody is responsible for what he believes, but everybody is responsible for the way one arrived at that belief, and for the tests one does in order to pick one of two conflicting opinions.

I also think that the amount of biblical evidence is a (rough) measure for [correct English term?] importance of a doctrine. This should be taken into account when one tries to classify something as heresy or as rather minor error …

Those are some good points, too.

 

[Stephen3141]

These are difficult questions. I recognize that.

And I realize that many laypeople will not engage in formal logic, even though it may help them some, in their faith.

But for Christians (and this thread is on logic, for Christians, and apologetics), there
are a number of points that I am trying to make (no particular order)...

1. the Bible presents that we live in a shared reality
2. the Bible presents many "components" of that shared reality
3. the Bible presents that many components in our shared reality, are accessible to all people
4 the Bible presents the fact that God holds us morally-ethically responsible, for grasping certain
concepts and observations in our shared reality (maybe not a good grasp of formal logic!)
5. Biblical language has all sorts of vocabulary that we would associate with critical thinking,
and evaluating, and paying attention, and making the right decisions. This support the concept
that what I would call "valid reasoning methods" are part of our shared reality.
6. The Old Testament wisdom literature presents a picture of knowledge, and understanding
and wisdom, as conditionally accessible to those who make a great effort to gain them. In
a sense, they are "accessible", but conditionally. I think that this lays out some components
in our shared reality that are "accessible" to many people, but which will not be gained
by many (perhaps most). I would put the goals of some commands in Scripture, in this
category (such as developing the ability to teach, or developing the virtues through
practice).
7. I am not a "democratic Christian", who thinks that God MUST make all good gifts
unconditionally available to all his people. (This tends to be a popular position
among Christian groups that are historically anti-intellectual).
8 Just as Paul says that some "elders" are fit to teach, but not all, I would keep
the distinction that the ability to use formal logic is a desirable skill, that is
conditionally accessible to many Christians, but probably not to all.
--------------------

On the "truth" of initial propositions...

9. I realize that some people, especially modern Americans, wish to sever the evaluation
of initial propositions from the form of the argument/proof. But, in Christian thinking, we
can never approach making logical proofs as though we were creating entertaining Wordle
puzzles. Struggling to evaluate the truthfulness of propositions, is part of searching for
truth
10. In the abstract, an Assumptions part of a proof may be used to encode an entire
model of something. That includes a way of reasoning about a topic, or a scientific
model of something, or an abstract thought experiment whose initial propositions
cannot really be proven as true. Or parts of an entire theology.
11. Scientific models change over time. At any one time, scientific thinkers do the
best that they can, to define initial propositions in a model that matches reality.
Christians can do the same, for example, in representing what we know of the
biblical languages, and how they were used by the biblical writers. We could
model the major historical moral-ethical (ME) systems, and discuss their strengths
or weaknesses. .. My point is that when we model a system of multiple parts, we
should be concerned with the truth of the separate propositions, but we should
also consider the "degree of truthfulness" in the system to explain our shared reality.
This is a bit different than focussing evaluation of truthfulness, on single
propositions. (I think that this consideration applies to entire theologies.)

I realize that directly addressing the truth (or not) of initial propositions is
somewhat CONTROVERSIAL. But considering logic, in the context of historical
philosophy and theology, and moral theory, Christians must be concerned with
evaluating propositions for their truthfulness. (This may seem intolerant to
secular Americans. Or "judgmental" to those who do not accept biblical definitions, ....)

I have never had a college course in logic, that spent a decent amount of time
laying out the many questions involved with a definition of what our shared reality is,
or how we observe evidence, and evaluate evidence.... And so, many secular college
students may not think that formal logic is really connected to "truth".
---------- ----------

(I went a bit heavy on the thought experiments on a brain in a vat, because they lay
out so many relevant questions relating to modern American conspiracy theories, and
whether or not God holds us responsible for choosing the "local reality" that we live
in, and whether or not the claims floating around in that "local reality" are true.)

I should note that the Bible presents our senses as basically trustworthy.
Although, part of our freewill involves our ability to deny truths that we
observe, and our ability to believe other "truths" that are not upheld in
evidence from our shared reality. I assume this "Scottish realism" in a
lot of my assertions, without trying to demonstrate primitives from
philosophy.

 

[Stephen3141]

I need to move on from the topics of Reality and Evidence,
to address other topics relevant for Christians to think about.

Are there any modern arguments, that you wish to discuss?

 

[Helmut-WK]

Are there any modern arguments, that you wish to discuss?

I think the topic »shared reality« needs more consideration.

In talks among Christians, the Bible is part of the shared reality. But this is not true when we speak to non-christians. And not everybody will accept your sort of »Scottish realism« (that was a new term for me!). So where can we find a shared reality with others?

 

[OldAbramBrown]

the Bible is part of the shared reality.

I have got to query this as you have formulated it.

I wouldn't even use the term imagined (Christians need to imagine more).

 

[OldAbramBrown]

warning to those who think that the nature of reasoning, is that the Holy Spirit will mystically reveal truth to us

The truth He will reveal to the receptive is how trading in Holy Spirit gifts with your fellow adopted orphans and widows is the same thing as entering the kingdom of heaven, and that is the only glorification Christ will get because of His Ascension.

Influencers seizing the power of media on self-allegedly sacred grounds are the ones who have created the false dichotomies out of their materialism. They are lying about Scripture, about spiritual life, and about logic, all at the same time; or are codependently copying those who taught them so.

That's why to pray the Glory Be is good logic when we're inarticulate.

Getting their adherents to hold that "the word is the thing" I have been calling an "essentialist fallacy".

Shall respond more, as I catch up.

 

[Helmut-WK]

I have got to query this as you have formulated it.

The formulation was according to the terminology of Stephen3141. Personally, I prefer »common ground«.

I wouldn't even use the term imagined (Christians need to imagine more).

We should not imagine, but stay sober (2.Tm 4:3-5).

 

[Helmut-WK]

The truth He will reveal to the receptive is how trading in Holy Spirit gifts with your fellow adopted orphans and widows is the same thing as entering the kingdom of heaven, and that is the only glorification Christ will get because of His Ascension.

If you allude to Jm 1:27: this verse speak of giving material help to those who are in need,
Your way of spiritualizing that may cause some folks to fall in the error shown at Mt 25:44.

To the rest of your posting: I'm not sure what you are talkimg against, so I think it is wiser to keep silent.

 

[OldAbramBrown]

Your way of spiritualizing that may cause some folks to fall in the error shown at Mt 25:44.

I didn't state that that doesn't include material help. Thus I am not leading anyone into error. The universal imposition is either that there is no spiritual content (I am widening to include that) or that the spiritual content is what they fancy to insist and nothing else. I have never advocated false dichotomies whatsoever, as you can see; it is the people OP criticised that are doing that, as you can read in his post.

The people OP and I are criticising promulgate both those errors at once (and I meet them everywhere and I am fed up with them): they are baiting and switching without any bait: by telling us to stop thinking they are telling us to not notice when they are teaching us not to help each other.

To help each other while embarking on the new birth always was spiritual whether it is material as well or not. When did Jesus say one should look after one's peers materially as a stunt? In my observation those that don't care about our bodies don't care about our souls: they have discredited providence, Scripture meanings, Ascension, etc.

not imagine, but stay sober (2.Tm 4:3-5)

Yes. My old fashioned RSV has "don't fall for myths; stay steady". My Amplified adds "fictions" and "cool" (the opposite of offhand). I was referring to what some churchgoers / preachers fancy Scriptures say; this I think is how you are interpreting this point also.

 

[OldAbramBrown]

To add: the tyrants that are the bane of pew and pulpit have drummed it into young and old alike that when "spiritual gifts" are mentioned what is meant is sentimentality, hysteria and intrusion.

Thus what is said to be Scripture by different parties, mainly dominant ones, cannot form "common ground".

 

[Stephen3141]

I think the topic »shared reality« needs more consideration.

In talks among Christians, the Bible is part of the shared reality. But this is not true when we speak to non-christians. And not everybody will accept your sort of »Scottish realism« (that was a new term for me!). So where can we find a shared reality with others?

This is a GOOD topic for Christians to discuss.

---------- ----------
"What is 'our shared reality' "?

Note that when I talk about "our", I am immediately talking about people reading this thread.
But more generally, I am referring to the reality that is accessible (potentially) to all human beings.

But more generally, philosophers, and the Bible, talk about what is "real" or what "exists".

With regard to logic, we use logic to reason about aspects of this reality.

With regard to Christians, in specific (this is a Christian site), I include a Christian interpretation of this shared reality. You could call this a "Christian worldview". And, I would assert that the Bible projects a unified picture of reality, whether or not all people are conscious of that reality, or interpret it the same way.

Some thoughts on the (Christian) concept of our shared reality...

"The Unity of Reality

The basis for all scientific disciplines, is the assumption that we share the same physical reality. The basis for philosophical moral theory is that we share the same reality (including moral/ethical reality). The basis for social justice, is that we share the same reality. The basis of property rights and representational rights as citizens, is that we all share the same reality. The basis for human rights, is that we share the same reality, and we share the ability to talk about concepts (such as freedom , and justice, and respect) that we all share in a conceptual world.

Some of the types of reality that we share are:

— physical reality (including time)
— moral/ethical reality
— the reality of a valid method of reasoning
— free will, so that we can choose how we use our mind.

Note that the concept of “physical reality” is difficult, as even the hard sciences have a hard time describing what time is. Imagining it as an abstract different dimension, is not very helpful. Measurements of “time” are actually measurements of the other dimensions (such as movement in the workings of a clock). Mathematics does very poorly, describing time. In much of physics, timeless realities are discussed. Time is what allows movement and change in the other physical dimensions. But whether or not time is a separate dimension, or just a characteristic that physical objects share, is still in debate. However, whatever time is, human beings, and the physical universe share it. And we can speak about sharing time, in the sense that we live in a continual “now,” and we recognize when our “now” coincides with the present experience of other human beings." [Making Bible Study formal, Wuest, 57-58]

"Paul argues in Romans that God has revealed to all human beings, the difference between right and wrong. (We may call this the conscience, although Paul just says that God “revealed” this difference to all human beings, and does not describe how God did this.) So from a Christian point of view, there is a unity of experiencing what is right and what is wrong. That is, there is a unity of moral/ethical understanding. This single definition of morality/ethics is assumed/presented in the Scriptures, although secular people often deny that this is part of the unity of human reality/experience. Paul asserts that because of this shared revelation about moral/ethical right and wrong, we are without excuse, for the evil actions that we choose to live out. So for the Christian, the topic of morality/ethics is understood to be part of the larger unity of reality, that formal logic assumes. For Jews and Christians, the final judgment is a time at which God will evaluate the choices of each individual, and hold them responsible for the evil that they have done. And the moral/ethical code that will be used, is God’s moral/ethical law. This is an explicit assertion that all human beings live in a shared moral/ethical reality. God asserts this." [Making Bible Study Formal, 58]

"For dozens of centuries, philosophers have heavily agreed on what the components of a fair rule of law are. This is only possible if they all shared the same physical reality, could communicate about abstract concepts dealing with that shared physical reality, and if they shared the same mental abilities to contemplate abstract concepts. They also largely agreed on what was right and wrong (they agreed on a shared moral/ethical reality).

An example of a fair rule of law accepting the concept of a shared physical reality, is the idea of an alibi. We do not accept the idea that a person could both be present when a crime is being committed, and absent. If it is proven that they were absent, then our understanding of shared physical reality makes us conclude that they were not physically present when the crime was done. This conclusion is only possible, if we live in a shared physical reality.

The basis for using the internet, is that we all share the same physical reality. Note that when we talk about the “same reality” we are not talking about the same location in that reality. We each have different internet locations. But we still share the same reality. (Why would internet crime exist, such as the stealing of peoples’ IDs, if all those people/locations never existed?)

We may each perceive or experience this same reality a bit differently, but that should not be confused with living in different realities. Although Einstein’s theory of relativity presents the assertion that no matter where we are, “reality” will look consistent to each of us (and it will look different), this does not mean that we live in the same time location or time density together. I do not inhabit the same physical space that you do. And Einstein’s concept of time (as another dimension), shares this similarity with physical space: not all of us are in the same timeline as everyone else. (For someone who travels very fast in a space ship, the rate of time progressing will slow down.) I should put that idea differently — we all live in the same NOW, even though the path that each of took through the dimension of time (to get to this eternal NOW) may not be quite the same. By saying that we all live in this same shared instant of NOW time, we share that temporal reality also." [Making Bible Study Formal, 59]

---------- ----------

Note that I am skipping the philosophical debates over what exists, and how we perceive what exists. I am going straight to how the Bible presents "reality", and how God holds us morally-ethically responsible for perceiving reality.

If we perceive other people, and can discuss topics with them, then we live in a shared reality.

---------- ----------

 

[Stephen3141]

About our shared reality...

Note that all of God's revelations to his people, are part of our shared reality. This includes the text of the Bible.

Note that abstract concepts, are part of our shared reality.
As an example, "ownership" is a concept that is very real to us, and a very real component to any fair rule of law.
However, physics, and biology, and chemistry, and mathematics, cannot accurately describe the common concept of “ownership.”

We know that abstract concepts are part of the reality that the Bible presents, because God commands
"You shall not steal!" and the concept of stealing, requires the abstract concept of ownership.
---------- ----------

Written history, is part of our shared reality.
There is the caveat here, that written history may be accurate (in the genre in which the author wrote), or may not be accurate, to different degrees. But, the Bible expects us to be morally-ethically responsible for the history of God's people, as the Bible records it.

---------- ----------

When I say that we live in a shared reality, I repeat that God expects us to truthfully represent that reality. Bearing false witness about this reality, is what the Bible calls "lying". And lying, is a serious sin, in the Bible.

---------- ----------

Asserting that we live in a shared reality, does not mean the same thing as having "common ground" with other people.
This is the case in Christian apologetics, when other people disagree with some of the teachings of Christianity.

Living in a shared reality, does not mean that we all live in the same location in that reality. Or that we all experience exactly the same stream of events, from that reality. But it is asserting that that same reality exists, and that we live within it.

 

[Stephen3141]

About our shared reality...

Note that IF we believe that there can be a fair rule of law, THEN we must believe that there must be global values/virtues/vices that are the basis of this fair rule of law.

Note that if we call for "justice", then we tacitly believe that there can be a fair rule of law.
And that we live in a shared reality.
And that we can observe this reality objectively.
And that we can describe what high quality evidence is (for a court that applies that fair rule of law).
---------- ----------

About Denying that we live in a shared reality.

I'm not sure WHAT CAN BE ASSERTED if we do not believe that we live in a shared reality.

1. We cannot assert that we share human language
2 We cannot assert that we can express the same concepts
3. We cannot have verbal communication between people
4. We cannot be sure that perceptions of one person about the same event, are the same as the perceptions of another person about that same event.
5. We cannot talk about shared values
6 We cannot share a fair rule of law
7. We cannot agree on the criteria for sound evidence, as presented in a court of law
8. We cannot agree on what a fair rule of law is
9. We cannot agree on what justice is
...

---------- ----------

Note that if we agree that we live in a shared reality, we can still agree on the concepts of what
ignorance is, and misunderstanding, and not paying attention, and refusing to think logically,
and refusing to accept sound evidence.

That is, we can still assert that we live in a shared reality,
even if all people do not agree on all things.

But, as Christians, we are forced to face a final judgment in which Christ
will judge us AS IF we lived in a shared reality, and AS IF other people
could have looked at the way we lived our life, and could have figured
out whether or not we were a follower of Jesus.

The biblical view is very strongly that we live in a shared reality.