Determining Reality

[Ana the Ist]

Hello Anna,

It has been my experience that the main disagreements between atheists and Christians in the understanding and determination of realities involve the supernatural. I don’t think the processes of determining reality in the natural world differ much between the atheist and Christian although there are exceptions. Determining the realities and truths in the supernatural world is a different story and this is where the dialogue disintegrates between atheists and Christians.

I would be interested in these inconsistencies you speak of. Some more information like the source and examples would be helpful. I myself have looked into some of the higher criticisms and the lower as well.

I could give you examples of what I mean, but I'm afraid I'd be jumping ahead of at least two posters here. They don't yet understand the basic premises that my question is based upon so jumping ahead to examples might just confuse them more.

If you like though, I could pm examples of what I mean when I say, "it seems like some people (especially here on CF) think their beliefs are true, simply because they believe them.". We could then discuss what you mean by determining reality in the supernatural and see if that applies at all to my examples. I have a feeling it might and if it did you could go a long way in answering my question.

 

[Ana the Ist]

the core idea is authority. God is the perfect authority; His Church's authority is at one remove; my senses are at two removes-anyone who has been to magic show has reason to doubt his senses from time to time. Three removes is legitimate authorities in their respective field. Four removes is illegitimate authority derived from experience or history. So on so forth.


In general, it is hierarchal and skeptical.

This is a logical fallacy in determining truth. It's known as an appeal to authority. Saying that a person (or in this case entity) has the truth or correct answer because of who they are is known as an appeal to authority. Admittedly, in this case its a bit more odd because the entity you're appealing to supposedly has all knowledge at his disposal. However, this creates a host of other problems in that not only would you have to prove this entity exists, you also have to prove he has this characteristic (perfect knowledge), AND prove that direct and clear communication with this entity is possible. All that just to avoid a logical fallacy, and only with him. The fallacy would still apply to the church...maybe the rest if you can better explain how senses have "authority".

A better example of the appeal to authority fallacy would be a discussion I had with another CF member regarding ancient Judaism. He showed me what one particular Jew said about the matter and claimed he was right because the Jewish man said something similar to his argument. This is illogical because even though the man is Jewish, he can still be wrong.

 

[Daniel25]

This is a logical fallacy in determining truth. It's known as an appeal to authority.


Saying that a person (or in this case entity) has the truth or correct answer because of who they are is known as an appeal to authority. Admittedly, in this case its a bit more odd because the entity you're appealing to supposedly has all knowledge at his disposal. However, this creates a host of other problems in that not only would you have to prove this entity exists, you also have to prove he has this characteristic (perfect knowledge), AND prove that direct and clear communication with this entity is possible. All that just to avoid a logical fallacy, and only with him. The fallacy would still apply to the church...maybe the rest if you can better explain how senses have "authority".

A better example of the appeal to authority fallacy would be a discussion I had with another CF member regarding ancient Judaism. He showed me what one particular Jew said about the matter and claimed he was right because the Jewish man said something similar to his argument. This is illogical because even though the man is Jewish, he can still be wrong.

do you just write form letters that are hopefully tangentially related to the OP and try to say the word LAWGIC and PHALLUSCY often? Underneath truth is authority, which can be your experience or the experiences of others you trust. Insofar as you subliminate your previous views to these experiences is the extent they have authority.

When you crack open a medical textbook and then not a few femurs, you are taking the knowledge the textbook strictly on authority.... so on so forth.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Thanks, that is the definition of faith I was using. How different do you think it is from this verse:

This has worked for many Christians, who have found that they invested in Jesus and He rewarded them with faith. So it's exactly the same process as a scientist hypothesizing sub-atomic theory and building a supercollider to prove it, and doing so despite the fear of the unknown.

This contradicts the evidence we have of Him. The evidence demonstrates that He thought He was divine and unique, and that those who trusted in Him also found Him divine and unique. I want to set you a challenge, I want you to think about why you feel that the evidence we have of Him is not credible. I want you to think about that because I am not the only one to tell you in this thread that your own sense of reality can provide the answer you are seeking.

No I was asking why you thought your statement was true. You said two things, that scientist's can't be sure that God didn't create the universe to appear old, and I can't be sure that He did. I asked you how you can make such a statement and know it to be truth instead of just belief. I happen to believe your statement is true too, but I want to encourage you to think about it because you could well be able to answer your own question.

Which evidence do you need? You might enjoy this presentation:

The REAL STAR of Bethlehem Pt. 3 - YouTube

Nevertheless, you are welcome

YOur first two statements here constitute a great example of a strawman. There is really nothing in common between scientists using the scientific method in an experiment to learn about subatomic particles and people choosing to believe in Jesus. As such, there are a ton of problems with this analogy. A hypothesis is basically a guess based on data, the outcome isn't really a belief until the experiment can be repeated with verified results. How does a person perform an experiment with Jesus? ANyone can say they believe, but how can we show that they actually do? LIkewise, faith is not a verifiable result. anyone can claim to have faith, but how can we know they do? It's not something you can measure or prove.
It's at best a completely irrelevant and useless analogy, at worst a blatant strawman.

If you wanted to know my definition of faith, you only needed to ask. I go by the modern day acceptable definition, faith, n.- 1. Confident belief in the truth, value, or trustworthiness of a person, idea, or thing. 2. Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence. Now if you are using some other definition, feel free to share.

Actually, my beliefs about Jesus are consistent with the evidence we have of him. This does speak to my original question though. It seems to me that when Christians form their beliefs about the claims of Christianity they use an entirely different method than they do when forming their beliefs about everything else. I have thought about why I don't believe the "evidence" of him and the answer is actually quite simple. It's not evidence. Let's define evidence shall we? Evidence, n.- 1. something establishing a fact as true. That's a very basic and yet all encompassing definition for evidence. So let's look at the bible, we have stories where someone wrote something to the effect of "Jesus is the son of god" (paraphrasing). That isn't evidence, that's a claim. Likewise, someone writes a story that says "Jesus walked on water"-this is also a claim. Someone saying Jesus is the son of god doesn't prove it a fact. Someone saying Jesus walked on water doesn't prove it a fact. They are merely claims.

Ever hear an atheist say, "extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof"? It's not a put-down to Christianity, its how you consider reality in every aspect of your life (except Christianity). If I told you I could make it rain whereever I was whenever I want, what evidence would it take for You to believe this claim? Now ask yourself, why don't I require this much evidence of Christianity?

I believe the statement I made about scientists because there is no evidence, therefore both you and the scientists cannot "know". ALso, I'm not going to watch videos posted on here, I'm on my phone and that just eats my data allowance.

 

[golgotha61]

I could give you examples of what I mean, but I'm afraid I'd be jumping ahead of at least two posters here. They don't yet understand the basic premises that my question is based upon so jumping ahead to examples might just confuse them more.

If you like though, I could pm examples of what I mean when I say, "it seems like some people (especially here on CF) think their beliefs are true, simply because they believe them.". We could then discuss what you mean by determining reality in the supernatural and see if that applies at all to my examples. I have a feeling it might and if it did you could go a long way in answering my question.

You can PM me, that would be fine. The examples I am seeking however, are the ones you spoke of concerning biblical inconsistencies (i.e. Jesus appearing in two places at once after the resurrection and the inference to other inconsistencies).

I do have a question though, I see logic plays a major role in many of your determinations. In your opinion, where does logic originate?

 

[Ana the Ist]

There are some scientific hypotheses that I can test easily. There are some scientific hypothesis that I could test only if I put extraordinary time and effort into them. There are some scientific hypotheses that I could never test by myself no matter how much time and effort I put into them.

In the last category would be, for instance, information about distant galaxies that can only be observed with the most powerful telescopes, which I have no access to. Or information about sea floor that I need a particular type of submarine to reach, and I have no such submarine. Or results from high-energy particle accelerators, of which I don't have my own personal copy. It is currently impossible for me to access a particle accelerator and many other pieces of scientific equipment. Even if I were to devote my life to earning the credentials needed to work with a particle accelerator, it might turn out that I'm just not bright enough to ever reach that level. Thus there are some scientific findings which it's simply impossible for me to test.

In practice, however, there are a great many scientific findings which I'll never test in my life, vastly more than the number that I will test. For all of those findings, I have a choice. I can accept what the authorities say, or I can not accept it. You have the same choice. So does everyone else.

Everybody accepts certain authorities as reliable, and believes certain things because those authorities say those things. People differ on which authorities they trust, how many authorities they trust, and to what extent they'll trust those authorities. But everybody trusts some authorities. Nobody believes exclusively in things for which he or she has seen evidence.

I'm going to have to disagree completely. Yes, we do accept the knowledge of others as being true, but not because of who that authority is. We agree when the knowledge is logical, reasonable, and backed up by evidence. If the person I respected and trusted most in the world told me that they can read minds and see into the future, I'd think they've gone off their rocker. That really is the whole point of the appeal to authority fallacy, anyone can be wrong and someone's status does not give them license to the truth. Sure, questions about illness are best answered by a Dr., but is the fact that they are a Dr. Make them correct? Of course not. Blind faith in the knowledge of authorities is an extremely poor way of determining reality.

If you need a practical example look at ancient medical texts. If Drs. BLINDly accepted those as truth we would still consider "bleeding" the best cure for the flu. After all, they were the authorities of their day weren't they?

 

[Ana the Ist]

do you just write form letters that are hopefully tangentially related to the OP and try to say the word LAWGIC and PHALLUSCY often? Underneath truth is authority, which can be your experience or the experiences of others you trust. Insofar as you subliminate your previous views to these experiences is the extent they have authority.

When you crack open a medical textbook and then not a few femurs, you are taking the knowledge the textbook strictly on authority.... so on so forth.

It seems you and AlexBP were saying almost the same thing. Read the reply above. Also, its spelled "logic" and "fallacy".

 

[Ana the Ist]

I have two cents worth while I'm here. The point is that atheist's and Christians have the same access to the same information, yet they choose to honour and dishonour different sets of information and therefore come to different conclusions. Also this applies within the Christian faith, it is called cherry-picking. Faulty explained it quite well in this reply.

What it comes down to is that you don't believe that the bible is true in the claims it makes. The reason for this is your own personal problem, but the impact it has is that you have a warped sense of the history that has contributed to the evolution of modern civilization. You probably even have a warped understanding of what is yet to happen in the future of civilization. Furthermore, we can't actually get that understanding unless we ask God for it. For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God.

I'm not really sure why you would respond to my reply to someone else. It doesn't make much sense, especially since your response has absolutely nothing to do with my reply to secondtimearound. I was trying, again, to explain some rather basic statements to him, and you chose to quote this explanation to go off on a tangent that has nothing to do with it??

You're right about one thing, we have the same access to the same information. I would have to disagree with everything else you said here. It has nothing to do with "honoring" or dishonouring" information. It has everything to do with applying the same methods of determining reality, deciding what's real and what is true, to all information regardless of its source. All too often I see or hear someone say something like, "well its evidence to me" without any regard for what evidence is. They essentially have decided that something is true simply because they believe it is. I could pull a huge number of examples from this forum alone. I created this thread because I wanted to see if anyone could explain/justify it, or if perhaps they could show me why I was wrong for thinking this.

 

[Ana the Ist]

You can PM me, that would be fine. The examples I am seeking however, are the ones you spoke of concerning biblical inconsistencies (i.e. Jesus appearing in two places at once after the resurrection and the inference to other inconsistencies).

I do have a question though, I see logic plays a major role in many of your determinations. In your opinion, where does logic originate?

I'll have to take this one in PM since its almost certain to head into apologetics. Please make sure your mailbox isn't full so we can correspond.

 

[AlexBP]

I'm going to have to disagree completely. Yes, we do accept the knowledge of others as being true, but not because of who that authority is. We agree when the knowledge is logical, reasonable, and backed up by evidence. If the person I respected and trusted most in the world told me that they can read minds and see into the future, I'd think they've gone off their rocker.

I think you missed the point of my post. The situations that you're referring to--a person claiming to read minds and so forth-- are situations that an ordinary person could put to the test without extraordinary effort. It's clear what the claim means and how to test it, and now super-advanced technology, security clearances, or anything like that are needed to test it. My post was about other situations, which an ordinary person could not test with a reasonable amount of effort. Consider the following three papers:

Deepak Singh, Amin Ahmend, Madhu Singh, Naval Singh. A Contraction Theorem Containing Rational Terms in Menger Spaces. Journal of Advanced Studies in Topology. Vol. 3, no. 3 (2012)

Madhuparna Karmakar. Electrostatic Potential in High-Temperature Superconducting Cuprates: Extended Ginzburg-Landau Theory. Advances in Condensed Matter Physics.Vol. 1 (2011)

Yan, D., Jin, C., Xiao, X.H., Dong, X.P. Antimicrobial properties of berberines alkaloids in Coptis Chinensis Franch by Microcalorimetry. Journal of biochemical and biophysical methods, Volume 70, Issue 6 (2008)
​

Personally I'm not able to understand a word in any of these three papers. I'm going to go out on a limb and assume that you can't either, since it's unlikely that you have adequate training in the necessary specializations. In any case, there are certainly some scientific and mathematical papers somewhere that you're completely unable to understand. So here's the question: do you accept the statements in these papers as being true?

If you answer no (and presumably treat literally millions of other scientific papers the same way) then I'd have to wonder how you can simultaneously defend science while not accepting millions of scientific papers.

If you answer yes, then there's no way you can know whether the contents are "logical, reasonable, and backed up by evidence." If you can't even understand the contents, you certainly can't rigorously determine whether they're logical, reasonable, or backed up by evidence. So if you answer yes, then you're accepting knowledge without holding it to the standards that you just gave.

Lastly, you could try to wiggle through the question without clearly answering "yes" or "no".

That really is the whole point of the appeal to authority fallacy, anyone can be wrong and someone's status does not give them license to the truth. Sure, questions about illness are best answered by a Dr., but is the fact that they are a Dr. Make them correct? Of course not. Blind faith in the knowledge of authorities is an extremely poor way of determining reality.

The question of what makes a doctor correct is a purely abstract and philosophical one. The question that we have to deal with is: if I'm desperately sick or injured, should I trust a doctor enough to let him treat me, or should I reject his treatment because I'm proud of not having blind faith in authorities? The Buddha once told a parable about a man who was struck by an arrow and in danger of bleeding to death. A doctor tried to treat him, but the man was only interested in asking an endless series of factual questins: what type of wood was the arrow made up? What bird provided the feathers that made the fletching? And so forth. Needless to say, the man died. The point is clear. An obsession with accepting knowledge if and only if it has clear, scientific answers when what's really needed is treatment and help will bring about disaster. We are all in a situation similar to the man struck by the arrow. Every one of us will be dead in, at most, a little over a hundred years. Moreover, each one of us may die today. To waste our time building little walls of scientific fact in our brains, walls that won't survive our death, would be a waste of time when we're in desperate need of salvation.

 

[Ana the Ist]

I think you missed the point of my post. The situations that you're referring to--a person claiming to read minds and so forth-- are situations that an ordinary person could put to the test without extraordinary effort. It's clear what the claim means and how to test it, and now super-advanced technology, security clearances, or anything like that are needed to test it. My post was about other situations, which an ordinary person could not test with a reasonable amount of effort. Consider the following three papers:

Deepak Singh, Amin Ahmend, Madhu Singh, Naval Singh. A Contraction Theorem Containing Rational Terms in Menger Spaces. Journal of Advanced Studies in Topology. Vol. 3, no. 3 (2012)

Madhuparna Karmakar. Electrostatic Potential in High-Temperature Superconducting Cuprates: Extended Ginzburg-Landau Theory. Advances in Condensed Matter Physics.Vol. 1 (2011)

Yan, D., Jin, C., Xiao, X.H., Dong, X.P. Antimicrobial properties of berberines alkaloids in Coptis Chinensis Franch by Microcalorimetry. Journal of biochemical and biophysical methods, Volume 70, Issue 6 (2008)
​

Personally I'm not able to understand a word in any of these three papers. I'm going to go out on a limb and assume that you can't either, since it's unlikely that you have adequate training in the necessary specializations. In any case, there are certainly some scientific and mathematical papers somewhere that you're completely unable to understand. So here's the question: do you accept the statements in these papers as being true?

If you answer no (and presumably treat literally millions of other scientific papers the same way) then I'd have to wonder how you can simultaneously defend science while not accepting millions of scientific papers.

If you answer yes, then there's no way you can know whether the contents are "logical, reasonable, and backed up by evidence." If you can't even understand the contents, you certainly can't rigorously determine whether they're logical, reasonable, or backed up by evidence. So if you answer yes, then you're accepting knowledge without holding it to the standards that you just gave.

Lastly, you could try to wiggle through the question without clearly answering "yes" or "no".


The question of what makes a doctor correct is a purely abstract and philosophical one. The question that we have to deal with is: if I'm desperately sick or injured, should I trust a doctor enough to let him treat me, or should I reject his treatment because I'm proud of not having blind faith in authorities? The Buddha once told a parable about a man who was struck by an arrow and in danger of bleeding to death. A doctor tried to treat him, but the man was only interested in asking an endless series of factual questins: what type of wood was the arrow made up? What bird provided the feathers that made the fletching? And so forth. Needless to say, the man died. The point is clear. An obsession with accepting knowledge if and only if it has clear, scientific answers when what's really needed is treatment and help will bring about disaster. We are all in a situation similar to the man struck by the arrow. Every one of us will be dead in, at most, a little over a hundred years. Moreover, each one of us may die today. To waste our time building little walls of scientific fact in our brains, walls that won't survive our death, would be a waste of time when we're in desperate need of salvation.

I didn't misunderstand your point, of course we accept the knowledge of certain authorities when its to our benefit. My point was the fact that they are authorities does not make their answers true. When I'm asking about how we determine reality, I'm talking about absolute truth. Relying on the experience of authorities is not a logical means of determining truth.

I'd like to know how you would determine the truthfulness of the person who claims to be able to read minds. You're assuming they would cooperate with the experimenter. Let's go through an example where they won't, for whatever reason they give, go along with any sort of test or experiment to validate their claims. However, you do notice that the mind-reader has twelve followers who all swear they've seen him do it. Is that enough to convince you his powers are real?

As for the science essays...what exactly are you asking me? Is the question, "Do you believe the conclusions made by these essays are true?" I'm assuming that is the question you mean to ask, and I only have one honest answer to that. I don't know. I don't think that's "wiggling" out of an answer either. Like you assumed, I'm not educated enough in those fields to determine if the claims made in any of those essays are true. You said you aren't either, so I'm curious, do you believe the conclusions made in those essays are true? If you answered yes or no....why? Wouldn't the only possible honest answer be "I don't know"? (I'm on my phone so reading your reply while writing my response can be a bit difficult, I just read that I did remember your question correctly sorry for any confusion). Not only is "I don't know" the only intellectually honest answer, but its also relevant. I can't begin to imagine how the claims in those papers could possibly affect my life in the least. I will tell you this, if the claims were so important that they affect nearly every aspect of my life from beliefs to morality to behavior, you can be sure I wouldn't just take it as truth based on their authority. I would spend every waking moment searching until I knew I had the truth.

That's what Christianity is in that aspect isn't it? SOmething that (if you believe) affects nearly every part of your life? (Or at least it should). Do you just accept the claims made by the bible on authority? When your priest (or equivalents) interprets scripture at church, then explains its relevance to your life, do you accept that on his authority?

 

[AlexBP]

I didn't misunderstand your point, of course we accept the knowledge of certain authorities when its to our benefit. My point was the fact that they are authorities does not make their answers true. When I'm asking about how we determine reality, I'm talking about absolute truth. Relying on the experience of authorities is not a logical means of determining truth.

It seems we both realize that there are two questions on the table here. First there's the philosophical question, what is absolute truth? Then there's the practical question, in daily life how should we decide what beliefs to accept and what to reject?

As far as the philosophical question is concerned, it seems that in secular philosophy there's no way to determine absolute truth. Everyone we 'know' depends on sense data, and it's easy to imagine scenarios where our sense data is false or twisted. Perhaps you and I are both immersed in tubs of orange goo while our brains are wired to the matrix. It can't be logically disproved, can it? Well-known atheist and agnostic philosophers such as Hume, Russell, and Schopenhauer have all said in one way or another that we can't actually know absolute truth. The most they're willing to say is that it's more likely that our sense data is correct than incorrect. Others won't even say that much.

So if you're interested in absolute truth and not religious, isn't your philosophical question basically at a dead end? Haven't centuries of non-religious thinkers told you, more or less, that it's impossible to get absolute truth? And if so, doesn't it necessarily force you to scale back from the absolute truth quest to the more challenge of dealing with daily reality?

I will tell you this, if the claims were so important that they affect nearly every aspect of my life from beliefs to morality to behavior, you can be sure I wouldn't just take it as truth based on their authority. I would spend every waking moment searching until I knew I had the truth.

That's what Christianity is in that aspect isn't it? SOmething that (if you believe) affects nearly every part of your life? (Or at least it should). Do you just accept the claims made by the bible on authority? When your priest (or equivalents) interprets scripture at church, then explains its relevance to your life, do you accept that on his authority?

First of all, I'm glad to hear you say that Christianity affects all areas of life. I entirely agree, yet some people seem to have trouble understanding that.

The reason why I have chosen to follow Jesus is this. I was born into an atheist household and was an atheist myself until age 23. In fact, during my college years, I used to visit Christian message boards because I was determined to use my intellect to convert the ignorant locals. But the more of the world I observed, the more that I noticed that my religious, political, and intellectual upbringing didn't match up with what I could see in the world, and eventually I became convinced that the way of life I was raised with was not worth following. Then I had no rational basis for the way I lived my life, and I entered a period of confusion where I didn't truly know what to identify with or what to believe.

When I first read the gospels, the words of Jesus Christ gave me answers to the things that I'd been wondering about, and I tried those answers and found them to be good. Jesus says not to hoard money, but rather devote oneself to helping the poor. I tried doing so and became more satisfied with my financial situation. Jesus says to not worry about material things. I've worried less about material things and my life is much less stressful as a result. Jesus says that sexual attraction should be limited to within marriage. I've given up on pornography and other lustful activity, and I'm much happier as a result. Jesus says to love our enemies and do good to those who hate us. I've tried to divert my mind away from hatred and found it to be a very successful strategy. And so forth, for a great many things that Jesus says. And because of this, I've chosen to be a follower of Jesus.

It is, of course, true that Jesus could have been wrong, and perhaps one of the atheist worldviews on the shelf is correct. Perhaps Ayn Rand was correct when she said that we should all pursue 'rational self interest' and try to get as much money as possible. If so, I'm wasting my life when I give money to the poor. Perhaps Schopenhauer was right when he said that all life is miserable and we might as well commit suicide. If so, I'm making the wrong decision when I choose to live. It could be that Sigmund Freud was right when he said that almost all human existence is driven by repressed sexual urges. If so, I'm doing the wrong thing with my sexuality. Maybe H. L. Mencken was correct in asserting there's a natural ruling elite who should look down on everyone else. If so, I'm doing the wrong thing when I try to love all my fellow human beings. All of those people might be correct, and there are countless other positions rivaling Christianity that might be correct. I am sufficiently convinced that Christianity is correct that I'm willing to devote my life to it.




(Just to let you know, the forum rules don't allow us to have links to outside webpages in our signature lines.)

 

[Ana the Ist]

It seems we both realize that there are two questions on the table here. First there's the philosophical question, what is absolute truth? Then there's the practical question, in daily life how should we decide what beliefs to accept and what to reject?

As far as the philosophical question is concerned, it seems that in secular philosophy there's no way to determine absolute truth. Everyone we 'know' depends on sense data, and it's easy to imagine scenarios where our sense data is false or twisted. Perhaps you and I are both immersed in tubs of orange goo while our brains are wired to the matrix. It can't be logically disproved, can it? Well-known atheist and agnostic philosophers such as Hume, Russell, and Schopenhauer have all said in one way or another that we can't actually know absolute truth. The most they're willing to say is that it's more likely that our sense data is correct than incorrect. Others won't even say that much.

So if you're interested in absolute truth and not religious, isn't your philosophical question basically at a dead end? Haven't centuries of non-religious thinkers told you, more or less, that it's impossible to get absolute truth? And if so, doesn't it necessarily force you to scale back from the absolute truth quest to the more challenge of dealing with daily reality?

First of all, I'm glad to hear you say that Christianity affects all areas of life. I entirely agree, yet some people seem to have trouble understanding that.

The reason why I have chosen to follow Jesus is this. I was born into an atheist household and was an atheist myself until age 23. In fact, during my college years, I used to visit Christian message boards because I was determined to use my intellect to convert the ignorant locals. But the more of the world I observed, the more that I noticed that my religious, political, and intellectual upbringing didn't match up with what I could see in the world, and eventually I became convinced that the way of life I was raised with was not worth following. Then I had no rational basis for the way I lived my life, and I entered a period of confusion where I didn't truly know what to identify with or what to believe.

When I first read the gospels, the words of Jesus Christ gave me answers to the things that I'd been wondering about, and I tried those answers and found them to be good. Jesus says not to hoard money, but rather devote oneself to helping the poor. I tried doing so and became more satisfied with my financial situation. Jesus says to not worry about material things. I've worried less about material things and my life is much less stressful as a result. Jesus says that sexual attraction should be limited to within marriage. I've given up on pornography and other lustful activity, and I'm much happier as a result. Jesus says to love our enemies and do good to those who hate us. I've tried to divert my mind away from hatred and found it to be a very successful strategy. And so forth, for a great many things that Jesus says. And because of this, I've chosen to be a follower of Jesus.

It is, of course, true that Jesus could have been wrong, and perhaps one of the atheist worldviews on the shelf is correct. Perhaps Ayn Rand was correct when she said that we should all pursue 'rational self interest' and try to get as much money as possible. If so, I'm wasting my life when I give money to the poor. Perhaps Schopenhauer was right when he said that all life is miserable and we might as well commit suicide. If so, I'm making the wrong decision when I choose to live. It could be that Sigmund Freud was right when he said that almost all human existence is driven by repressed sexual urges. If so, I'm doing the wrong thing with my sexuality. Maybe H. L. Mencken was correct in asserting there's a natural ruling elite who should look down on everyone else. If so, I'm doing the wrong thing when I try to love all my fellow human beings. All of those people might be correct, and there are countless other positions rivaling Christianity that might be correct. I am sufficiently convinced that Christianity is correct that I'm willing to devote my life to it.




(Just to let you know, the forum rules don't allow us to have links to outside webpages in our signature lines.)

Thanks for the tip about my signature, its appreciated. I think you're confusing the question, but perhaps you've unintentionally answered my original question anyway. I'm certainly not asking about the nature of reality (dream within a dream) nor am I saying its possible to know all truths in reality. THat's far more knowledge than anyone can acquire. HOwever, there are things we can know. We know that 1+1=2. We know that you cannot make a square circle (logic). We know that water freezes at 32 degrees (scientific method). When it comes to even every-day type situations we use logic, reason, and evidence to determine reality. Even your example of accepting truths on authority falls under this scrutiny. In your Dr. Example with an afflicted patient, the question that is relevant isn't whether the Dr. Can scientificly explain everything concerning the patient's affliction, the question is does the Dr's treatment make sense within the patient's understanding of logic and reason. If you went to the Dr for a toenail that fell off, and he recommended brain surgery, you wouldn't accept that based on his authority. There are really very few, if any, every day situations where we accept truths based solely on authority.

I must thank you again, because now I think I do understand why Christians seem to apply different rules in determining reality when it comes to Christianity. They turn off the logic, reason, and evidence, and just accept it all based on authority. That does explain the situation quite well.

Thank-you again, for sharing your story with me, I am interested in several parts of it. If its ok with you I'd like to discuss it with you in PM, but not on here. I'd prefer if all posts related to the OP from here on.

 

[oi_antz]

YOur first two statements here constitute a great example of a strawman.

But is a strawman always untrue? I made a statement of truth. That there is a direct relevance between the behaviour of a scientist observing truth about existence and a Christian observing truth about God.

There is really nothing in common between scientists using the scientific method in an experiment to learn about subatomic particles and people choosing to believe in Jesus.

There is, I explained it to you. Read it again and if you still don't understand it I will break it down further.

As such, there are a ton of problems with this analogy. A hypothesis is basically a guess based on data, the outcome isn't really a belief until the experiment can be repeated with verified results. How does a person perform an experiment with Jesus?

That is a good question. Jesus described how, it is to obey Him. Once you decide to obey Jesus and serve Him as your eternal King, He will come and make His home with you. If you like the relationship with Jesus, you only need to repeat that process. This is the step that I think your wife has not taken, because if she really did know Jesus there would be no-one that could rob her of her love of Him.

ANyone can say they believe, but how can we show that they actually do?

That depends on the criteria of the observer.

LIkewise, faith is not a verifiable result. anyone can claim to have faith, but how can we know they do? It's not something you can measure or prove.
It's at best a completely irrelevant and useless analogy, at worst a blatant strawman.

See! Your criteria leads you to refuse the evidence I have given you, which is a statement of truth. Do you know what motivates you to do that?

If you wanted to know my definition of faith, you only needed to ask. I go by the modern day acceptable definition, faith, n.- 1. Confident belief in the truth, value, or trustworthiness of a person, idea, or thing. 2. Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence. Now if you are using some other definition, feel free to share.

Hebrews 11, NLT (Paraphrased by Kenneth Taylor).
What is faith? It is the confident assurance that something we want is going to happen. It is the certainty that what we hope for is waiting for us, even though we cannot see it up ahead.

That definition is given from someone whose passion is the study of faith, and whose experience with faith is above yours and mine. Thus I am making a claim that his statement is just as true as your quotee, because they say the same thing.

1. You cannot see it.
2. You think it is right.
3. You believe that testing will prove it.

That is my understanding of the definition of faith given by your dictionary statement and my biblical statement. I still believe scientists behave that way, and if scientists did not exercise faith then progress would not happen.

Actually, my beliefs about Jesus are consistent with the evidence we have of him. This does speak to my original question though. It seems to me that when Christians form their beliefs about the claims of Christianity they use an entirely different method than they do when forming their beliefs about everything else. I have thought about why I don't believe the "evidence" of him and the answer is actually quite simple. It's not evidence. Let's define evidence shall we? Evidence, n.- 1. something establishing a fact as true. That's a very basic and yet all encompassing definition for evidence. So let's look at the bible, we have stories where someone wrote something to the effect of "Jesus is the son of god" (paraphrasing). That isn't evidence, that's a claim. Likewise, someone writes a story that says "Jesus walked on water"-this is also a claim. Someone saying Jesus is the son of god doesn't prove it a fact. Someone saying Jesus walked on water doesn't prove it a fact. They are merely claims.

They are claims made with a purpose and not necessarily made dishonestly. You may choose to ignore the claims or believe them lies if it makes you happy, I believe I am powerless to help you see the light if you don't want to see it. But I can plant seeds, and if you thought in the right way, over time that seed might grow. That's my duty to you as a Christian. I am not to mock you for your beliefs, instead I am to sow a seed of thought, that over time you may encounter another piece of information that helps to show you the understanding I meant to impart. Paul said it better than me, let me know if you want to hear it. He said we are builders and our work will be tested by fire.

Ever hear an atheist say, "extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof"? It's not a put-down to Christianity, its how you consider reality in every aspect of your life (except Christianity).

Wrong. When God acts in your life you know that it is extraordinary proof.

If I told you I could make it rain whereever I was whenever I want, what evidence would it take for You to believe this claim? Now ask yourself, why don't I require this much evidence of Christianity?

I can only guess. Is there is something about Christianity that you don't like? Something that no-one is going to shovel down your throat while you can help it?

I believe the statement I made about scientists because there is no evidence, therefore both you and the scientists cannot "know". ALso, I'm not going to watch videos posted on here, I'm on my phone and that just eats my data allowance.

Well don't forget it's there if you do want to know.

 

[oi_antz]

It has nothing to do with "honoring" or dishonouring" information.

That statement is not true.

 

[AlexBP]

I think you're confusing the question, but perhaps you've unintentionally answered my original question anyway. I'm certainly not asking about the nature of reality (dream within a dream) nor am I saying its possible to know all truths in reality. THat's far more knowledge than anyone can acquire. HOwever, there are things we can know. We know that 1+1=2. We know that you cannot make a square circle (logic). We know that water freezes at 32 degrees (scientific method).

I'll agree to discussing my personal story by PM, but continuing the discussion of how to determine reality here. I've asserted that everyone accepts some things on authority, regardless of whether or not they admit it. You disagree.

You use basic addition, lack of square circles, and the freezing point of water as examples of applying logic, reason, and evidence in everyday life. I agree*. I've never said that I take any other approach to simple problems like that, though I'd refer to the process as "common sense". But basic addition, lack of square circles, and the freezing point of water are trivialities. The serious and important issues in human existence are not so trivial and thus don't submit themselves to such trivial solutions.

To me, this critical point seems clear enough when we consider that every sane person agrees on what 1+1 is. However, imagine that we could (ignoring temporal difficulties) gather together a bunch of people who were all sure that their view of reality was shaped by reason and not influenced by religion or anything else unreliable: Parmenides, Plato, Aristotle, David Hume, Karl Marx, H. G. Wells, Bertrand Russell, H. L. Mencken, Sigmund Freud, Ayn Rand, Richard Dawkins, and any others that you'd like to include. We'd find that these logicians would agree about 1+1, but they'd not agree about any of the important issues in human life, or even come close. Hence it seems safe to say that reason itself is not adequate to arrive at correct answers, since it leads so many different people to so many contradictory answers.


*Although, of course, the freezing point of water actually is different at different pressures. And different when things are dissolved in the water. And...

 

[AlexBP]

I think you're confusing the question, but perhaps you've unintentionally answered my original question anyway. I'm certainly not asking about the nature of reality (dream within a dream) nor am I saying its possible to know all truths in reality. THat's far more knowledge than anyone can acquire.

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?

 

[Ana the Ist]

But is a strawman always untrue? I made a statement of truth. That there is a direct relevance between the behaviour of a scientist observing truth about existence and a Christian observing truth about God.

There is, I explained it to you. Read it again and if you still don't understand it I will break it down further.

That is a good question. Jesus described how, it is to obey Him. Once you decide to obey Jesus and serve Him as your eternal King, He will come and make His home with you. If you like the relationship with Jesus, you only need to repeat that process. This is the step that I think your wife has not taken, because if she really did know Jesus there would be no-one that could rob her of her love of Him.

That depends on the criteria of the observer.

See! Your criteria leads you to refuse the evidence I have given you, which is a statement of truth. Do you know what motivates you to do that?

Hebrews 11, NLT (Paraphrased by Kenneth Taylor).
What is faith? It is the confident assurance that something we want is going to happen. It is the certainty that what we hope for is waiting for us, even though we cannot see it up ahead.

That definition is given from someone whose passion is the study of faith, and whose experience with faith is above yours and mine. Thus I am making a claim that his statement is just as true as your quotee, because they say the same thing.

1. You cannot see it.
2. You think it is right.
3. You believe that testing will prove it.

That is my understanding of the definition of faith given by your dictionary statement and my biblical statement. I still believe scientists behave that way, and if scientists did not exercise faith then progress would not happen.

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. 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 actually bothered to show you how different these two examples are, but you seem to have ignored it. I'll try one more time. A scientist makes guesses about reality based upon knowledge that he has, he then confirms (or denys) this guess with an experiment, 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. At no point in this process is faith required. A person hears about Jesus and decides to believe in him. This takes faith since they cannot find out for themselves if what the bible says is true. 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). The person can then stay with Jesus or leave him, based on personal belief.

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.

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 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.

 

[Ana the Ist]

They are claims made with a purpose and not necessarily made dishonestly. You may choose to ignore the claims or believe them lies if it makes you happy, I believe I am powerless to help you see the light if you don't want to see it. But I can plant seeds, and if you thought in the right way, over time that seed might grow. That's my duty to you as a Christian. I am not to mock you for your beliefs, instead I am to sow a seed of thought, that over time you may encounter another piece of information that helps to show you the understanding I meant to impart. Paul said it better than me, let me know if you want to hear it. He said we are builders and our work will be tested by fire.

Wrong. When God acts in your life you know that it is extraordinary proof.

I can only guess. Is there is something about Christianity that you don't like? Something that no-one is going to shovel down your throat while you can help it?

Well don't forget it's there if you do want to know.

Regardless of why you think the claims were made, they remain just claims, not truth. It's funny that when people describe these "acts of god" in their lives they appear to be normal, naturally explained events that happen all the time. Take the testimony that was linked in This thread for example, he believed that hallucinations under LSD and dreams were acts of god. Not really difficult to explain as natural events.

THere is nothing about Christianity that I don't like any more than there are things in all religions I don't like.

 

[Ana the Ist]

I'll agree to discussing my personal story by PM, but continuing the discussion of how to determine reality here. I've asserted that everyone accepts some things on authority, regardless of whether or not they admit it. You disagree.

You use basic addition, lack of square circles, and the freezing point of water as examples of applying logic, reason, and evidence in everyday life. I agree*. I've never said that I take any other approach to simple problems like that, though I'd refer to the process as "common sense". But basic addition, lack of square circles, and the freezing point of water are trivialities. The serious and important issues in human existence are not so trivial and thus don't submit themselves to such trivial solutions.

To me, this critical point seems clear enough when we consider that every sane person agrees on what 1+1 is. However, imagine that we could (ignoring temporal difficulties) gather together a bunch of people who were all sure that their view of reality was shaped by reason and not influenced by religion or anything else unreliable: Parmenides, Plato, Aristotle, David Hume, Karl Marx, H. G. Wells, Bertrand Russell, H. L. Mencken, Sigmund Freud, Ayn Rand, Richard Dawkins, and any others that you'd like to include. We'd find that these logicians would agree about 1+1, but they'd not agree about any of the important issues in human life, or even come close. Hence it seems safe to say that reason itself is not adequate to arrive at correct answers, since it leads so many different people to so many contradictory answers.


*Although, of course, the freezing point of water actually is different at different pressures. And different when things are dissolved in the water. And...

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. I can't agree that such basic knowledge cannot be used on the "big issues" in life. 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.

The "important issues in human life" are themselves subjective and personal. The fact that those people you mentioned would not necessarily agree on such things is only evidence that they (like all great minds) think for themselves.