Ask a Christian philosopher a question

[HitchSlap]

I don't view belief and assumptions as the same thing. I view belief as the acceptance that something is true. Whereas I view an assumption as the acceptance that something may or may not be true.

Take the two instances as an example:

"I believe reality is real and I believe I can rely on it to figure out what is true"

"I assume reality is real, therefore, I may or may not be able to rely on it to figure out what is true."

Does that make sense?



Agreed!

You are imbuing an incorrect meaning to the word "assumption." To assume something, is to accept it as true or reality, it is a positive response. The question then becomes, how do we determine our assumptions are true, or not. Reality is "real" whether you believe it to be so or not and your beliefs have nothing to do with it. It's a fact you can't prove you're not part of the Matrix, but you assume/believe that you're not, as do I. Again, belief has nothing to do with this fact, and since we're unable to demonstrate we're not part of the Matrix, we have to begin with the assumption that we're not. Next step, compile evidence. The part you're chronically having trouble with is, determining which assumptions/beliefs are "real." What you have engaged in is picking the reality that best fits your beliefs, then have selectively ignored all evidence contrary to you preconceived "truths."

 

[Chriliman]

You are imbuing an incorrect meaning to the word "assumption." To assume something, is to accept it as true or reality, it is a positive response. The question then becomes, how do we determine our assumptions are true, or not. Reality is "real" whether you believe it to be so or not and your beliefs have nothing to do with it. It's a fact you can't prove you're not part of the Matrix, but you assume/believe that you're not, as do I. Again, belief has nothing to do with this fact, and since we're unable to demonstrate we're not part of the Matrix, we have to begin with the assumption that we're not. Next step, compile evidence. The part you're chronically having trouble with is, determining which assumptions/beliefs are "real." What you have engaged in is picking the reality that best fits your beliefs, then have selectively ignored all evidence contrary to you preconceived "truths."

I understand you think believing something is the same as assuming something. I simply disagree.

When I say I believe something, I'm confident that what I'm claiming to believe is actually true because I have sound reason to believe it. When I say I assume something, I'm not confident that what I'm claiming to assume is actually true because I admit my reasoning may not be completely sound, that's why it's an assumption, it's open to being wrong.

We claim beliefs when we are certain of our reasoning about a truth. We claim assumptions when we have good reasoning, but we could be wrong about a truth.

 

[HitchSlap]

I understand you think believing something is the same as assuming something. I simply disagree.

When I say I believe something, I'm confident that what I'm claiming to believe is actually true because I have sound reason to believe it. When I say I assume something, I'm not confident that what I'm claiming to assume is actually true because I admit my reasoning may not be completely sound, that's why it's an assumption, it's open to being wrong.

We claim beliefs when we are certain of our reasoning about a truth. We claim assumptions when we have good reasoning, but we could be wrong about a truth.

There's zero reason to not have confidence in one's assumptions if they're based on sound reason. This is why you're confused. You simply don't understand what an "assumption," is.

 

[Chriliman]

There's zero reason to not have confidence in one's assumptions if they're based on sound reason. This is why you're confused. You simply don't understand what an "assumption," is.

I understand it's different than a belief and that's the point I'm trying to make.

 

[HitchSlap]

I understand it's different than a belief and that's the point I'm trying to make.

But your point is a strawman. I'm truly baffled how you can't understand this.

 

[Aelred of Rievaulx]

If I have good reasons to believe there existed a flying dog that cures chickenpox in Hawaii then I would believe it existed.

I have good reasons to believe God exists and that He caused a voice to come from a donkey to restrain Balaam from his madness so I believe it.

So you don't think it was a story? You think it actually happened? The bible contains a lot of stories which didn't actually happen and you're naive to think that they all did happen.

 

[Chriliman]

But your point is a strawman. I'm truly baffled how you can't understand this.

Let me ask you this, do you believe "assumptions" are the same as "beliefs" or do you assume "assumptions" are the same as "beliefs"?

I claim to know "assumptions" are different than "beliefs" and I have sound reason for this claim.

I also know that when I became self-aware I was unable to make assumptions and had to subconsciously accept the truth that reality is real. Subconsciously accepting the existence of reality is not the same as assuming reality exists, therefore, my reasoning is not based on assumptions, but rather based on the subconscious acceptance of the truth that reality exists.

I understand this contradicts what atheists normally claim, which is that all beliefs(acceptance that something exists) are provisional because they rely on provisional assumptions, but this simply is not true considering we all subconsciously accept that reality exists when we become self-aware, thus this acceptance comes before any assumptions are made.

 

[Aelred of Rievaulx]

Disregard

 

[HitchSlap]

Let me ask you this, do you believe "assumptions" are the same as "beliefs" or do you assume "assumptions" are the same as "beliefs"?

I claim to know "assumptions" are different than "beliefs" and I have sound reason for this claim.

I also know that when I became self-aware I was unable to make assumptions and had to subconsciously accept the truth that reality is real. Subconsciously accepting the existence of reality is not the same as assuming reality exists, therefore, my reasoning is not based on assumptions, but rather based on the subconscious acceptance of the truth that reality exists.

I understand this contradicts what atheists normally claim, which is that all beliefs(acceptance that something exists) are provisional because they rely on provisional assumptions, but this simply is not true considering we all subconsciously accept that reality exists when we become self-aware, thus this acceptance comes before any assumptions are made.

Can you prove you're not in the Matrix?

 

[anonymous person]

So you don't think it was a story? You think it actually happened? The bible contains a lot of stories which didn't actually happen and you're naive to think that they all did happen.

The Bible is a collection of different types of literature. This is a fact.

Parables, allegory, didactic passages, prose, poetry, historical records, epistles, ancient biographies, apocalyptic literature, prophesies, and so on and so forth.

Whether or not we interpret something recorded in scripture as actually having happened depends on the context in which the author provides it. Obviously I do not think the events described in Jesus' parables took place, for they are parables, for example.

The event in question recorded in Numbers is not to be taken metaphorically or figuratively. It is recorded as an historical event which the author intends for his readers to view as something actually having taken place. I have good reasons to think it actually took place and therefore, I believe God actually caused a voice to come from the mouth of the donkey on which Balaam was riding. I believe God created the universe and all therein ex nihilo. Him causing a voice to come from a donkey would have been well within His power.

 

[HitchSlap]

I believe God actually caused a voice to come from the mouth of the donkey on which Balaam was riding. I believe God created the universe and all therein ex nihilo. Him causing a voice to come from a donkey would have been well within His power.

Totally.

 

[Aelred of Rievaulx]

The Bible is a collection of different types of literature. This is a fact.

Parables, allegory, didactic passages, prose, poetry, historical records, epistles, ancient biographies, apocalyptic literature, prophesies, and so on and so forth.

Whether or not we interpret something recorded in scripture as actually having happened depends on the context in which the author provides it. Obviously I do not think the events described in Jesus' parables took place, for they are parables, for example.

The event in question recorded in Numbers is not to be taken metaphorically or figuratively. It is recorded as an historical event which the author intends for his readers to view as something actually having taken place. I have good reasons to think it actually took place and therefore, I believe God actually caused a voice to come from the mouth of the donkey on which Balaam was riding. I believe God created the universe and all therein ex nihilo. Him causing a voice to come from a donkey would have been well within His power.

Whether it's within God's power to do so is irrelevant. It is a story that serves a particular motif, most serious scholars wouldn't take it literally.

 

[anonymous person]

So you have changed your mind?

Yes I have.

 

[anonymous person]

Whether it's within God's power to do so is irrelevant. It is a story that serves a particular motif, most serious scholars wouldn't take it literally.

I agree. It serves a particular motif. I see no reason to conclude from this however, that it never happened.

I never approached the Numbers account of the speaking donkey as a fictitious story just serving a particular motif.

After reading it, I did not come to the conclusion that it was just a fictitious story serving a particular motif. Nothing in the passage and the context within which it is found led me to conclude this.

The context led me to conclude that it was an historical account of something that happened. Peter alludes to it, and confirms it being something that actually happened.

 

[Aelred of Rievaulx]

I agree. It serves a particular motif. I see no reason to conclude from this however, that it never happened.

I never approached the Numbers account of the speaking donkey as a fictitious story just serving a particular motif.

After reading it, I did not come to the conclusion that it was just a fictitious story serving a particular motif. Nothing in the passage and the context within which it is found led me to conclude this.

The context led me to conclude that it was an historical account of something that happened. Peter alludes to it, and confirms it being something that actually happened.

Because Peter would know? He's studied history, right?

 

[Ana the Ist]

If a story looks mythological it probably was intended to be read that way. Why don't you consider mythology an intended genre, why consider it an accidental (at best) or malicious (at worse)?

Whoa...where did you get the idea I don't consider myth an intended genre? Was it something I said?

 

[Aelred of Rievaulx]

Whoa...where did you get the idea I don't consider myth an intended genre? Was it something I said?

I misread this sentence: "If they never intended their myths to be read as literal history but allegory instead...then no they weren't liars."
Apologies, disregard my comment!

 

[Ana the Ist]

God based religious claims are solely based on the belief that God created us personally and our observable reality.

Claims that are not based on a belief in God, such as atheistic scientific claims, are completely based on observations of our observable reality and completely ignore the personal aspects of humanity. (to me personally, it seems odd to ignore a significant part of our reality(ourselves) in order to determine the truth about our reality)

If we take a step back and look at this, then we'd realize that if God created us and our observable reality and all we're considering is the observable reality itself and not considering ourselves or God at all, then it stands to reason that we'll miss God entirely because of our lack of open mindedness to the possibility that God created us and our observable reality for a reason. Does this seem like a reasonable observation about reality?

Thankfully, the fact of the matter is that one can't observe our reality without considering God at some point in one's personal life(this includes all human scientists), but one can observe our reality and ignore the idea that God created everything we observe. Their justification for ignoring the idea that God created everything is that it seems like an extraordinary claim that should be backed by extraordinary evidence, while being fully willing to accept any other explanation about origins and give it the skepticism that it rightfully deserves. One cannot objectively consider the idea that God created everything, while not being openminded to this possibility.

What I think might be missing is the acknowledgement of the extraordinary evidence for the existence of God that is right in front of all us. This extraordinary evidence is ourselves(Which as I noted above is completely removed by atheistic scientists who are only focused on observable reality). The fact that we exist in the way that we do, is extraordinary evidence for the existence of God.

On the other hand, the extraordinary evidence of ourselves existing in the way that we do, is disregarded as soon as you take God out of the possibility. "Ourselves" mediately becomes a fluke of nature, as if we should never really exist in this way because it's too extraordinary. Well, what if there's a specific reason for why our existence is so extraordinary? Of course this points to God, which just isn't possible, right?

One question I have is: At what point does a human being reject all evidence that points to God, no matter how extraordinary? Are some people at this point in their personal life? How sad for them, if God turns out to be true. The realization that one has been deceived for so long, must be devastating, or liberating depending how you look at it.

I know all atheist look at everything I've said in a reverse way. They think that I am the one being deceived and when I finally come to realize God does not exist, I will be liberated from all religious deception. I will finally come to realize that the fact that I exist is not extraordinary at all, but rather just a fluke of nature that really never should have happened. The extraordinariness of my existence is simply deceiving me into thinking it's extraordinary. All the sudden we have a new question: What purpose does my existence have in deceiving me into believing my existence isn't extraordinary?

Again, it all come back to truth and deception, which consequently is what Jesus is all about straightening out for us.

I just realized when I originally wrote this post I lost your quote. Here it is again...

"This extraordinary evidence is ourselves(Which as I noted above is completely removed by atheistic scientists who are only focused on observable reality). The fact that we exist in the way that we do, is extraordinary evidence for the existence of God."

You said this...and unsurprisingly, you failed to mention what you meant by "the fact that we exist in the way we do". So...what did you mean by that? What is the "way that we exist" that is so extraordinary to you?

I've seen a lot of atheists discuss human anatomy and all of its myriad flaws in conversations with christians who believe in intelligent design....so it's certainly not as if "atheists" or "scientists" haven't considered mankind and the possibility that a god has created us. The evidence would seem to favor the view that we evolved and weren't miraculously created by something "intelligent". Somehow though, I don't think this is what you were referring to when you wrote about "the fact that we exist in the way we do".

So what do you mean?

 

[Ana the Ist]

I misread this sentence: "If they never intended their myths to be read as literal history but allegory instead...then no they weren't liars."
Apologies, disregard my comment!

No apologies necessary...easy mistake to make. I sometimes write in a confusing manner.

 

[anonymous person]

Christian churches...all of them to some degree or another. I'm not going to distinguish between any of them because my statement is true for all of them on some level.

So again...

Would you agree? The fact that this takes so much consideration/clarification for you seems to indicate I was right to begin with. You aren't aware of the the affect this has had on you.

I agree with what you said. The church has pushed for me to buy into or accept a particular narrative or view of reality.

I agree with that statement.