Beg to differ.
To elaborate, I would agree that people whom claim direct contact from their god(s), might be one of the only ways to 'validate' their beliefs; as you eluded to in a prior response... Same goes for directly witnessing, what they see, as a miracle, for which they may also attribute to this believed god(s).
I guess my point here, is if they receive direct revelation, they will likely not critique or entertain scrutiny about the Bible; they likely already think their god(s) is/are real.
You have already accepted,
arguendo, that theism is true. This means that mystical experiences of various natures are on the table as a way of knowing God. If a theist witnesses what they genuinely believe to be a miracle and decides that it must have a naturalistic explanation, that theist is an
idiot.
Honestly, I think barring mental health concerns, direct revelation should trump all. The problem of other religions doesn't really bother me--if someone has a vision of Krishna or Mohammed and thinks it's
real, they should probably take that seriously.
I'm already aware of this... The Bible would be an example. But again, many believers claim direct contact, in some way, shape, or form. Hence, the Bible might not even be fully necessary for them any longer, for 'justification' anyways...
Yes, this happens. I think it's better to have some external standard to measure mystical experience against, though.
Okay, so I ask you... We have plenty of well read and well educated individuals, whom ultimately belief in an opposing agent(s). So when another person claims contact to this individual of oppsing belief, from a God they don't believe exists, how does this individual know the claim, from this opposing individual, is false?
I'm not sure I understand the question. If an intelligent, well-educated Muslim came up to me and started describing a vision they had had, I would not assume that their claim was false. Similarly, if a Christian describes a miracle they witnessed to me, I don't automatically cite it as evidence. I would assume that both are telling the truth, but beyond that, I cannot really say anything.
The only personal experience that should really be conclusive to any individual is their own--that's the only one they have access to.
"Prove that Christianity is coherent" is a pretty open-ended challenge. You would need to say what doctrine you think is incoherent and present some argument as to why it's incoherent.
Then how would you 'validate' the claim above? (i.e.) "To demonstrate that the apparent absurdities of Christianity actually are internally consistent?"
Internal consistency doesn't have anything to do with the historicity of the New Testament. The entirety of Christian theology, Bible and all, could have been invented by St. Thomas Aquinas and still be internally coherent. Obviously, in that case, it would have been completely non-historical.
You have a 'moral problem' if the tenets and claims of Christianity end up false? Trying to clarify here...
That isn't what I meant, though that happens to be true also.
I believe in social justice. If I accept the possibility that reality is ultimately just and things will inevitably be set right, social justice makes sense as a concept. If I instead operate under the assumption that justice is a human fiction, then either I discard the notion of social justice, or I accept all of the problems inherent in believing in something that I know to be merely a subjective preference. Neither of these options is morally acceptable to me.
Which doesn't mean that I don't care about truth also, but I have an equally large moral problem with using evidentialism as a crutch to never actually have to make a decision about anything.
