Godlessness and choice

[bhsmte]

Except that I don't have the right to use it however I like if my desire is to be faithful to how the biblical authors used it.

If I am reading Bertrand Russell's works, and therein find some term I wish to use in a discussion about his views on a particular subject involving that term, I am obligated to use the term as he used it. If not, I am misrepresenting, mischaracterizing his work and will be found as one who has been unfaitful to it.

Likewise, if I am discussing with you the term faith as it is understood in the Christian worldview, I have to use it the way the biblical authors used it and none of them held to this caricature of faith that is floating around among atheists and science popularizers as being some irrational blind leap in the dark wishful thinking cross your fingers and hope it is true even though there is no reason to think so type of faith. Heck, the biblical authors and myself would agree with you and these atheists and popularizers that such faith is bad, not good.

I think the main thing I want you to do is just to readjust your view a little on what science requires before it can even get off the ground and that is a commitment to certain things which simply can't be empirically proven or objectively verified. That will then open the door for us to progress forward.

Science works far differently than how people arrive at religious based faith beliefs. If science didnt, it wouldnt have achieved the reliability it has and the ability, to acknowledge new evidence.

I know you dont like this reality, but it is reality.

 

[possibletarian]

Standard teaching of the church and witness of scripture. You would have to use these authorities to demonstrate that I was merely arguing a personal opinion like yourself.

Nonsense.. explain

By the way your original post makes no sense to me whatsoever, I'm just glad that you found people on here with the patience to attempt to unravel it.

 

[Ed1wolf]

Where? When?

Direct quote from your post #290:
"I guess then there´s nothing presuppositional about declaring them false, either."

 

[Ed1wolf]

Usually, the person making the claim, is the one with the burden of proof. Needing to turn this around, is a sure sign you lack any objective substantiation for your argument.

No, I provided the evidence in my posts and he/she never even attempted to refute the evidence.

 

[quatona]

Direct quote from your post #290:
"I guess then there´s nothing presuppositional about declaring them false, either."

...and you manage to read from that that I declared them false? Wow.
Now I get a better idea how you collect evidence.

 

[Dave Ellis]

No. My argument rests on the fact that we trust in the deliverances of our senses, even though we cannot empirically prove their deliverances are of what reality really is.

However we can verify that our senses provide reliable results that often work. That's not true all the time however, our senses can certainly be fooled.

Well, I am not arguing that it' possible that our senses are faulty, but just that we cannot empirically verify their veridicality. I can wholeheartedly agree with you, that in general we have no good reasons to doubt their veridicality. However, this in no way amounts to an empirical proof of their veridicality. We trust in them, rely on them, committ to hold as true those things which they give us without being able to objectively test them and validate them and empirically verify them.

You can't empirically verify their reliability without assuming their reliability, for one would have to assume they were reliable to use them in any emprical endeavor to verify them, for it is our senses that we use when we engage in any empirical activity.

So even if it's true that we can't empirically verify our senses, what's your point?

 

[Dave Ellis]

Perhaps it might be construed in a certain way that I think something like what you've insinuated, but I wouldn't quite put it that way. In fact, I'd probably “put it” a bit more like F.F. Bruce (1969) did nearly fifty years ago:

When we are asked what “collateral proof” exists of the life of Jesus Christ, would it be unfair to begin by asking another question? In which contemporary writers – in which writers who flourished, say, during the first fifty years after the death of Christ-- would you expect to find collateral evidence you are looking for? Well, perhaps it would be rather unfair, as the man in the street can hardly be expected to know who was writing in the Graeco-Roman world during those fifty years; the classical student himself has to scratch his head in an attempt to remember who they were. For it is surprising how few writings, comparatively speaking, have survived from those years of a kind which might even be remotely expected to mention Christ. (I except, for the present, the letters of Paul and several other New Testament writings.) [emphasis mine] (as cited in McDowell & Wilson, 1988, p. 17).​

So, taking this assessment of F.F. Bruce and adding it to the literary, historical fact I mentioned previously regarding the comparison of Philo to Josephus [back up at post #462], then I'd say I don't realistically expect Philo to have cared much that Jesus walked the streets of Jerusalem, at least not in a positive way. He obviously didn't mention John the Baptist, or any other significant figure related to Christianity for that matter, and he very well could have written something, even a few tidbits like Josephus did, without making too much of a fuss in doing so.

No, I think it's rather more prudent to assess the history of what “really” went down during that 1st century hush around Jesus by saying that, whatever really happened, it was likely something Philo didn't feel compelled to “spread around.” No, it was probably better, from his point of view, to let a heretical, fledgling movement started by a dead Christ also die a natural social death. Why give it further consideration among other minds or other later generations by mentioning it at all? Best to leave the dead to silence and … allow them to fade away into the dusty gutters of history and disappear all together.

It's just that, as you and I both know, Jesus didn't disappear from the collective conscience of the world. Oh, well.

And that is basically how I see it. We shouldn't expect Philo to definitely have written about someone he more than likely wished to disappear off the radar of the Jewish community. This is probably the case as well with many other writers of that same time period, whether they were Jew or Gentile; they had more important things to discuss. So, if there are any who should be running through the streets screaming, “Philo didn't write about Jesus!!! Philo didn't write about Jesus!!!,” it should probably be Christians who do so, not atheists.

Need I say more? Well, don't be surprised if I can ...

Reference

McDowell, Josh, & Wilson, Bill. (1988). He walked among us: Evidence for the historical Jesus. San Bernadino, CA: Here's Life Publishing.

My point still stands, if you are claiming Jesus was so insignificant in his own time that he didn't even get a footnote in contemporary historical works, then the picture we have painted of him in all four gospels is entirely incorrect.

The gospels depict him as a well known miracle worker who was considered such a huge threat that he was executed via a public trial which the mobs showed up for. If he posed such a threat in reality and drew enough attention that the governor himself oversaw the trial and the public turned up en masse, that would almost certainly have made it into the contemporary historical record.

So which is it? Was he well known in his own time, or are the gospels wrong?

 

[2PhiloVoid]

My point still stands, if you are claiming Jesus was so insignificant in his own time that he didn't even get a footnote in contemporary historical works, then the picture we have painted of him in all four gospels is entirely incorrect.

The gospels depict him as a well known miracle worker who was considered such a huge threat that he was executed via a public trial which the mobs showed up for. If he posed such a threat in reality and drew enough attention that the governor himself oversaw the trial and the public turned up en masse, that would almost certainly have made it into the contemporary historical record.

So which is it? Was he well known in his own time, or are the gospels wrong?

I'd say Jesus was moderately known as a prophetic figure in 1st Century Palestine (just one among many, right?); and despite whatever level of notoriety He may have attained, despite whatever contrast we'd clearly mark out about Him today as compared to other so-called prophets or rebel rousers of the time, His reputation was a of a nature that many of the Jewish leaders wanted to suppress the potential for whatever ongoing success might come of it. It probably isn't too much to say that "Containment" of Jesus' influence was the more likely protocol to have been undertaken by the Jewish religious establishment.

And what do you think "Containment" might involve among the Jewish leaders?

 

[bhsmte]

No, I provided the evidence in my posts and he/she never even attempted to refute the evidence.

Yea, you always say this.

 

[anonymous person]

Science works far differently than how people arrive at religious based faith beliefs. If science didnt, it wouldnt have achieved the reliability it has and the ability, to acknowledge new evidence.

I know you dont like this reality, but it is reality.

Science works because scientists take certain things on faith, just like everyone else does, religious or not. I have alluded to what these articles of faith that are prerequisites to doing science are in previous posts.

Now I agree with you that science, because its domain is the testable, the observable, and the repeatable, leaves itself open to acknowledging new evidence because of its tentative nature.

 

[anonymous person]

However we can verify that our senses provide reliable results that often work. That's not true all the time however, our senses can certainly be fooled.

You cannot verify that your senses provide reliable results that often work without assuming that your senses are reliable in the first place. Any test that you use, any experiment that you conduct, will require you to use your senses and you simply have to trust that they are veridical without being able to objectively verify they are or empirically prove they are. Therefore, their veridicality is an article of faith that you hold.

So even if it's true that we can't empirically verify our senses, what's your point?

Well, it is not a matter of if at all. It is a matter of fact that we cannot empirically verify them.

So my point is that anyone who is a proponent of science must trust in their senses and depend on them, and rely on them and commit to them in the absence of empirical proof of their veridicality. Which makes their veridicality an article of faith that the proponent of science has to hold to.

This means that you exercise faith just like I do when I exercise faith in things I cannot empirically verify, like the resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth from the dead.

The difference is in the objects of our faith. It is not that I exercise faith and that you don't, it is just that I exercise faith in more things than you do.

You cannot live without exercising faith, and if you cannot live without exercising faith, then you cannot object to the central tenets of Christianity because they are required to be taken on faith.

 

[possibletarian]

You cannot verify that your senses provide reliable results that often work without assuming that your senses are reliable in the first place. Any test that you use, any experiment that you conduct, will require you to use your senses and you simply have to trust that they are veridical without being able to objectively verify they are or empirically prove they are. Therefore, their veridicality is an article of faith that you hold.

Well, it is not a matter of if at all. It is a matter of fact that we cannot empirically verify them.

So my point is that anyone who is a proponent of science must trust in their senses and depend on them, and rely on them and commit to them in the absence of empirical proof of their veridicality. Which makes their veridicality an article of faith that the proponent of science has to hold to.

This means that you exercise faith just like I do when I exercise faith in things I cannot empirically verify, like the resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth from the dead.

The difference is in the objects of our faith. It is not that I exercise faith and that you don't, it is just that I exercise faith in more things than you do.

You cannot live without exercising faith, and if you cannot live without exercising faith, then you cannot object to the central tenets of Christianity because they are required to be taken on faith.

Then why do you not believe in all other gods, if all faith is equal.

 

[anonymous person]

Then why do you not believe in all other gods, if all faith is equal.

Well if you will notice, it is no part of my argument that all faith is "equal", but rather that all people are capable of and indeed do exercise faith in something.

I do not believe in all other gods because I believe in the God as revealed in the bible, specifically, in Jesus Christ. This God we see revealed in the Old and New Testaments is not the Allah of Islam, or the gods of Greek mythology, or the god of Mormonism etc....etc...

 

[bhsmte]

Science works because scientists take certain things on faith, just like everyone else does, religious or not. I have alluded to what these articles of faith that are prerequisites to doing science are in previous posts.

Now I agree with you that science, because its domain is the testable, the observable, and the repeatable, leaves itself open to acknowledging new evidence because of its tentative nature.

Scientists don't apply faith to evidence and repeatable testing. You may really want to convince yourself they do, but they don't.

I find this attempt by some theists, to use the term faith constantly with science, to try and relate it to the faith involved in religious beliefs, to be quite amusing.

 

[Dave Ellis]

I'd say Jesus was moderately known as a prophetic figure in 1st Century Palestine (just one among many, right?); and despite whatever level of notoriety He may have attained, despite whatever contrast we'd clearly mark out about Him today as compared to other so-called prophets or rebel rousers of the time, His reputation was a of a nature that many of the Jewish leaders wanted to suppress the potential for whatever ongoing success might come of it. It probably isn't too much to say that "Containment" of Jesus' influence was the more likely protocol to have been undertaken by the Jewish religious establishment.

And what do you think "Containment" might involve among the Jewish leaders?

If he was simply moderately known and indistinguishable from other leaders of his time, then why would they go out of their way to target him and nobody else? Again, it makes no sense. If he was simply one of many, then he'd pose no special threat.

The thing is, Christians try to paint Jesus as a well known miracle worker who's works were attested do by hundreds or thousands of eyewitnesses when arguing some points, and on other points claim that nobody really knew about him when the idea he was very well known is inconvenient.

 

[Dave Ellis]

You cannot verify that your senses provide reliable results that often work without assuming that your senses are reliable in the first place. Any test that you use, any experiment that you conduct, will require you to use your senses and you simply have to trust that they are veridical without being able to objectively verify they are or empirically prove they are. Therefore, their veridicality is an article of faith that you hold.

I trust my senses in most cases, as they appear to work. Not only do I have good reason to do so, I'm essentially forced into it by means of biology.

Faith in the religious sense though is a different issue. Faith does not provide a reliable pathway to truth, and in many cases faith is given as the excuse to believe when all available lines of evidence appear to not support the belief.

Well, it is not a matter of if at all. It is a matter of fact that we cannot empirically verify them.

So my point is that anyone who is a proponent of science must trust in their senses and depend on them, and rely on them and commit to them in the absence of empirical proof of their veridicality. Which makes their veridicality an article of faith that the proponent of science has to hold to.

This means that you exercise faith just like I do when I exercise faith in things I cannot empirically verify, like the resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth from the dead.

The difference is in the objects of our faith. It is not that I exercise faith and that you don't, it is just that I exercise faith in more things than you do.

You cannot live without exercising faith, and if you cannot live without exercising faith, then you cannot object to the central tenets of Christianity because they are required to be taken on faith.

You're equivocating here. There are various levels of trust, and various levels of evidence. We have plenty of evidence to show our senses provide an accurate portrayal of reality as we experience it. We have no evidence to show Jesus rose from the dead. Trusting one is justifiable, trusting the other is not.

 

[anonymous person]

Scientists don't apply faith to evidence and repeatable testing. You may really want to convince yourself they do, but they don't.

I find this attempt by some theists, to use the term faith constantly with science, to try and relate it to the faith involved in religious beliefs, to be quite amusing.

Scientists exercise faith when they trust in their senses, senses which are indispensable to their methodology.

Notice how I have repeatedly given a specific definition of how I am using the term "faith". I am not using it in the sense of believing something for which there is no evidence, or in the sense of wishful thinking.

Do some religious people believe things for which there is no evidence? Sure, I can grant that. Are some religious people guilty of wishful thinking, or claiming that exercising faith precludes one from having good reasons for believing something? Sure. They are called fideists.

I am not such a person and it would behoove you to understand that your conception of faith needs to change to encompass more than just one definition or understanding of the term.

Jesus and His apostles appealed to His miracles and the prophecies He fulfilled as evidential support for His claims to divinity. They didn't just tell people to have faith or to take their word for it.

Thus it is clear that your notion of faith as being opposed to reason is simply a notion that needs to be augmented by the additional conceptualization of trusting in something for which one has good reasons, even though those reasons are not empirically verifiable.

 

[anonymous person]

I trust my senses in most cases, as they appear to work. Not only do I have good reason to do so, I'm essentially forced into it by means of biology.

Why you trust in them is moot to the point I am making. My point is that you do trust in them, even though you can provide no empirical support or objective evidence that they are trustworthy without using them to prove them, in which case you would not be proving anything.

Faith in the religious sense though is a different issue.

This would depend on what conceptualization of faith you are referring to. If you are referring to the notion of faith as believing in something blindly, without evidence as some sort of wishful thinking, then you are absolutely correct! That type of faith is a different issue, and one I would caution anyone against having, just like you would!

But if we are talking about the notion of faith as is alluded to in the Old and New Testaments, then you should have no misgivings with it, for it is the notion of trusting in something for which we have good reasons to do so, even though those reasons are not empirically verifiable.

Faith does not provide a reliable pathway to truth, and in many cases faith is given as the excuse to believe when all available lines of evidence appear to not support the belief.

I agree. Blind faith and wishful thinking are not reliable pathways to truth and in many cases such a faith is indeed given as an excuse to believe when all available lines of evidence appear to not support the belief.

You're equivocating here. There are various levels of trust, and various levels of evidence. We have plenty of evidence to show our senses provide an accurate portrayal of reality as we experience it.

Name one piece of evidence you can provide me that would demonstrate that our senses provide an accurate portrayal of reality as we experience it without appealing to your senses. You can't because anything you provide me will have been acquired via your senses.

We have no evidence to show Jesus rose from the dead. Trusting one is justifiable, trusting the other is not.

Sure we do. It comes in the form of eyewitness testimony and you must accept it on faith. The evidence will only take you so far but it will take you far enough if you are willing to take a step in the direction it is pointing and commit yourself to the One to whom it points, Jesus Christ.

 

[Dave Ellis]

Why you trust in them is moot to the point I am making. My point is that you do trust in them, even though you can provide no empirical support or objective evidence that they are trustworthy without using them to prove them, in which case you would not be proving anything.



This would depend on what conceptualization of faith you are referring to. If you are referring to the notion of faith as believing in something blindly, without evidence as some sort of wishful thinking, then you are absolutely correct! That type of faith is a different issue, and one I would caution anyone against having, just like you would!

But if we are talking about the notion of faith as is alluded to in the Old and New Testaments, then you should have no misgivings with it, for it is the notion of trusting in something for which we have good reasons to do so, even though those reasons are not empirically verifiable.





I agree. Blind faith and wishful thinking are not reliable pathways to truth and in many cases such a faith is indeed given as an excuse to believe when all available lines of evidence appear to not support the belief.





Name one piece of evidence you can provide me that would demonstrate that our senses provide an accurate portrayal of reality as we experience it without appealing to your senses. You can't because anything you provide me will have been acquired via your senses.





Sure we do. It comes in the form of eyewitness testimony and you must accept it on faith. The evidence will only take you so far but it will take you far enough if you are willing to take a step in the direction it is pointing and commit yourself to the One to whom it points, Jesus Christ.

Again, you're trying to equivocate.

We have no eyewitness testimony, or any other evidence for that matter.

At least in regards to our senses, we have a model that apparently works. Can we prove that we don't live in the matrix? Of course not, however they are all we have to go on, and they appear to work in most cases. However even then we know our senses are not 100% reliable and should not be fully trusted in many cases.

 

[possibletarian]

Well if you will notice, it is no part of my argument that all faith is "equal", but rather that all people are capable of and indeed do exercise faith in something.

Yes, but you are stretching faith to breaking point, you are in effect saying my 'faith' that the floor will be there when i put my feet on the floor when getting out of bed is the same way faith is used when believing in fantasy stories about invisible gods, of which yours is one of many.

I do not believe in all other gods because I believe in the God as revealed in the bible, specifically, in Jesus Christ. This God we see revealed in the Old and New Testaments is not the Allah of Islam, or the gods of Greek mythology, or the god of Mormonism etc....etc...

So your belief is not based in god, but in the bible a book written by men ?


If for instance we are walking along together and we come across a wall, we both look at it and get into a conversation about how high it is I say its 3 feet high, and you say 'oh no it's more like two feet high'

I insist it is three feet high though, and luckily you happen to have a tape measure in your pocket, you pull it out and sure enough the tape says two feet high. I then go onto to tell you that the people who made the tape measure are fallible humans who's perception of the reality of what a foot is is debatable, and I through greater use of my faith in measurements am convinced that and really I am right in believing that the wall is in fact three feet tall, and that your faith in the accuracy of the tape is warped by fallible human understanding.

Such a thing is of course just plain silly, but seems to be what you are presenting as the same being able to verify if something exists or not, such as a house, fence, or indeed a wall is not the same as believing the unverifiable.

There has to be a point where a statement of faith has to be proven in other ways other than feelings and experience otherwise every spiritual experience must be taken with the same validity.