Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Shall we flatter ourselves and say we managed to be the exception?
Kind of, yes. I don’t know of any way to confirm something unless it’s confirmed scientifically, and I try not to believe anything until it’s confirmed.But wait a minute, falsifiablity is only necessary if you want to call an idea "scientific"! Is your whole point, that you don't believe in anything that is not scientific?
*As you can see, "science" is not my forte.
Shall we flatter ourselves and say we managed to be the exception?
Kind of, yes. I don’t know of any way to confirm something unless it’s confirmed scientifically, and I try not to believe anything until it’s confirmed.
I would have to ask what the person means when they ask me “how do you determine whether Christianity is true?” It’s not even a meaningful question otherwise. I know what I think of when I think of Christianity, but there are people who have other views, so that’s the first thing we would have to nail down. What exactly about Christianity are we evaluating?It kind of goes without saying that in various ways we'd all like to receive some kind of discernible, even unmistakable, confirmatory evidence about the truth of the Bible. However, there's a problem here, one that is reflected indirectly by an answer which PineCreek gives in response to an online questioner at the tail-end of his video we watched, and it all looks like this:
(2:41:50) Question from outside questioner: “If Christianity can't be verified by resurrection alone, on what propositions other than the physical resurrection of Jesus would need to be true in order for Christianity to be true?”
And PineCreek answered - “That's a tough question, because you would have to define what Christianity actually is. Until you actually know what it is, it's pretty hard to demonstrate it.”
So, gaara, if what PineCreek says is true, then how might this 'truth' about essence throw a wrench into our wanting to apply simply and straigtforwardly some methodological tests to confirm the relevance and/or truth of Christianity ... ? What at the least would be required for us to even begin to make any headway toward discerning "what Christianity is"?
I would have to ask what the person means when they ask me “how do you determine whether Christianity is true?” It’s not even a meaningful question otherwise. I know what I think of when I think of Christianity, but there are people who have other views, so that’s the first thing we would have to nail down. What exactly about Christianity are we evaluating?
So help me out, Philo. Are you saying we can’t parse Christianity into individual, testable claims, and instead we must spend decades in pursuit of total understanding of the Bible as it was originally intended as well as consult the work of a dozen philosophers on the subject before we can even begin to evaluate Christianity as a whole for “truth” content?That's an interesting response, gaara, but my interpretation of what PineCreek is referring to may be a little different than yours here. The questioner asked PineCreek, "What else could be true?," but PineCreek seems to me to be implying that we'd have to know what the conceptual essence of Christianity is in order to proceed with designating other entities within the Christian understanding of the world (as opposed to knowing whether or Christianity is true or not).
If this is not what PineCreek meant, then I myself will assert that in order for us to TEST Christianity, we have to understand its meaning before can undertake any process by which we might come to understand whether or not it has any truth overall, and this means to me that Hermeneutics COMES BEFORE we undertake any testing of various Christian concepts. Not only this, but even if we decide to 'test' Christian concepts that we find that we do indeed correctly understand, there are still some other hurdles to cross, such as those that Kierkegaard, via Lessing, would lay down before us.
And if we're really honest, this also means we'll have to scrutinize our epistemological frames by which we think we'll be 'testing' Christianity to see if they indeed apply, because there's always the chance that they don't.
So help me out, Philo. Are you saying we can’t parse Christianity into individual, testable claims, and instead we must spend decades in pursuit of total understanding of the Bible as it was originally intended as well as consult the work of a dozen philosophers on the subject before we can even begin to evaluate Christianity as a whole for “truth” content?
What do you mean by test the Bible itself?Why couldn't the Bible itself be tested? It has, hasn't it...Archeologically for one.
So help me out, Philo. Are you saying we can’t parse Christianity into individual, testable claims, and instead we must spend decades in pursuit of total understanding of the Bible as it was originally intended as well as consult the work of a dozen philosophers on the subject before we can even begin to evaluate Christianity as a whole for “truth” content?
What do you mean by test the Bible itself?
See, that just strikes me as terribly convenient for something that looks so patently absurd on the surface. I don’t think we grant any other mythology such mystique that we can’t immediately categorize its stories of talking reptiles, people rising from the dead, and transfigurations as fiction. If we’re going to go to all this effort of understanding it on a deeper level, shouldn’t we have some sign that it’s going to lead us to truth? I don’t doubt that there are worthwhile concepts to be found in the Bible, but the fact that they’re in there with obvious nonsense doesn’t make me hopeful that the Bible as a whole is inspired by some ultimate source of truth.Something kind of like that ...... but even after all of this, I think any of us can still come up short in having a fuller understanding of the Bible. This makes handling the Bible a somewhat precarious endeavor, because from our position today, we will often have a difficult time knowing for sure whether or not we're correctly parsing and evaluating the biblical contents, especially where something like the book of Revelation comes into view. [And I'll just admit up front on my part, I won't claim to understand all that is in the book of Revelation, let alone all other parts of the Bible... ]
No, I think that for any of us to even attempt to understand the bible will take hard work, and it's something most of us will probably never master in this lifetime (even though some of my fellow Christians seem to claim that they have mastered it, as have some atheists, too). And here's the upshot to this, gaara: even if we can understand and verify the bible to some high degree of accuracy, this in itself doesn't by any necessity mean that we can just casually jump over Lessing's Ditch. Matt Dillahunty, for instance, has recently said [when he publicly (and oh so politely) eschewed the Christian beliefs of his own parents over a birthday card] that essentially nothing could move him to worship the God of the Bible, even if the Bible was shown to be true .................... or something to that effect.
Sure, some of it has been tested. Other, metaphorical content and claims of singular miracles aren’t as testable from our position.Finding evidence as to whether or not the contents (and the history of its development) of the Bible corresponds to reality.
Convenient? No, I can assure you that Christianity is terribly inconvenient in all ways possible.See, that just strikes me as terribly convenient for something that looks so patently absurd on the surface.
The granting of mystique to stories will depend upon which culture and place (and maybe type of formal education) one has lived in and has been conditioned within to think in certain ways about certain stories. Besides, the stories produced through other mythoi weren't written by ancient Jews, and according to some basic notions evident in the study of comparative Historiography, one people's written cultural works can't just be thrown beside those of another people and cited as being essentially "the same."I don’t think we grant any other mythology such mystique that we can’t immediately categorize its stories of talking reptiles, people rising from the dead, and transfigurations as fiction.
NO, not necessarily.If we’re going to go to all this effort of understanding it on a deeper level, shouldn’t we have some sign that it’s going to lead us to truth?
That's up to you to decide as you .... do the work. If we're only willing to passively listen to atheists as they pan the Bible, then we probably shouldn't expect anything to jump out at us.I don’t doubt that there are worthwhile concepts to be found in the Bible, but the fact that they’re in there with obvious nonsense doesn’t make me hopeful that the Bible as a whole is inspired by some ultimate source of truth.
How so?On the other hand, if we don’t recognize the Bible’s inaccessibility as a red flag, and we dedicate our life to understanding it as best we can, wouldn’t such a huge investment inevitably create a bias?
Yes, and those land mines are such that they often are either ignored or not even noticed by many Christians (or Jews).It just seems like the path to understanding Christianity is paved with epistemological land mines from beginning to end.
As for the issue of the hiddenness of God, I rather think Pascal said what needed to be said on this, even if his is not the last word on this issue:It raises the question of how anyone is expected to come to know God if he’s hidden in a tangled web of metaphor and philosophy.
It doesn't matter so much that I may disagree; no, what matters is whether or not you're willing to explore additional geographical fixtures of the conceptual philosophical landscape of Christianity. If you're not willing, then any good reason for me to continue in dialogue here with you would begin to quickly dry up.I’m sure you’ll disagree with some of this, and you might even take offense to what looks like my thoughtless dismissal of something you’ve spent a great deal of time studying. That’s not my intention, I’m just continuing to react honestly to what you’re telling me so we both can understand each other.
I know that Matt's view of God has more to do with God's supposed deficiencies of moral character; and that alone would fit some of the notions about human epistemic situatedness expressed in the Bible. However, my reference to Lessing's Ditch as Kierkegaard referred to it is for the purpose of implying that EVEN IF Matt were to come to a place where the Bible could be demonstrated as historically true, that in itself would not be enough for Matt to base an 'eternal decision' upon and thereby subjectively have a change of heart and make the Leap of Faith toward Christ. Matt's additional grievance with God's moral qualities just enforces this existential situation.As a side note, I think I know the quote from Matt that you’re referring to, and it has to do with Matt’s view of God’s moral character, not Lessing’s Ditch. People often make the mistake of assuming that worship follows from belief in God, but he likes to make the point that if the Bible is any indication of God's character, Matt would not be inclined to worship him even if he did exist.
Kind of, yes. I don’t know of any way to confirm something unless it’s confirmed scientifically, and I try not to believe anything until it’s confirmed.
See, that just strikes me as terribly convenient for something that looks so patently absurd on the surface. I don’t think we grant any other mythology such mystique that we can’t immediately categorize its stories of talking reptiles, people rising from the dead, and transfigurations as fiction. If we’re going to go to all this effort of understanding it on a deeper level, shouldn’t we have some sign that it’s going to lead us to truth? I don’t doubt that there are worthwhile concepts to be found in the Bible, but the fact that they’re in there with obvious nonsense doesn’t make me hopeful that the Bible as a whole is inspired by some ultimate source of truth.
On the other hand, if we don’t recognize the Bible’s inaccessibility as a red flag, and we dedicate our life to understanding it as best we can, wouldn’t such a huge investment inevitably create a bias? It just seems like the path to understanding Christianity is paved with epistemological land mines from beginning to end. It raises the question of how anyone is expected to come to know God if he’s hidden in a tangled web of metaphor and philosophy.
I’m sure you’ll disagree with some of this, and you might even take offense to what looks like my thoughtless dismissal of something you’ve spent a great deal of time studying. That’s not my intention, I’m just continuing to react honestly to what you’re telling me so we both can understand each other.
As a side note, I think I know the quote from Matt that you’re referring to, and it has to do with Matt’s view of God’s moral character, not Lessing’s Ditch. People often make the mistake of assuming that worship follows from belief in God, but he likes to make the point that if the Bible is any indication of God's character, Matt would not be inclined to worship him even if he did exist.
I don’t doubt that there are worthwhile concepts to be found in the Bible, but the fact that they’re in there with obvious nonsense doesn’t make me hopeful that the Bible as a whole is inspired by some ultimate source of truth.
On the other hand, if we don’t recognize the Bible’s inaccessibility as a red flag, and we dedicate our life to understanding it as best we can, wouldn’t such a huge investment inevitably create a bias?
Yes, and I mentioned earlier that the exceptions to that rule are the handful of assumptions we make pragmatically to function. The laws of logic are among them.The basic laws of logic cannot be confirmed Scientifically, and Metaphysically they're presupposed for the Method of Science to be intelligible for interpretation of hypothesis. All of Science depends on conceptual transcendental Metaphysics.
But that's just the thing. The cynic in me just wants to take one look at the creation myth, miracles, and psychedelic imagery in the Bible and dismiss it as... well, poetic myth. There's more to the Bible than just those things, but saying it's more complicated to investigate the dubious claims found therein than it would be to investigate the same claims if they'd come from somewhere else just seems to be a convenient way to shrug off valid criticism as "surface-level" or "simplistic." The romantic in me wants to believe there's whole new dimensions of the Bible I need to explore before giving a final verdict on its truth-value, so maybe I'll see reasons to believe that forthcoming in this thread.Convenient? No, I can assure you that Christianity is terribly inconvenient in all ways possible.
I guess my point is to ask why we should grant mystique to the writings of ancient Jews in particular? Mystique has its place, but surely not in evaluating concrete truth-claims?The granting of mystique to stories will depend upon which culture and place (and maybe type of formal education) one has lived in and has been conditioned within to think in certain ways about certain stories. Besides, the stories produced through other mythoi weren't written by ancient Jews, and according to some basic notions evident in the study of comparative Historiography, one people's written cultural works can't just be thrown beside those of another people and cited as being essentially "the same."
You don't think so? If not, isn't it completely arbitrary to dedicate so much time and attention to one specific holy book that doesn't stand out as likely to be true?NO, not necessarily.
I cringe at atheist Bible readings, they're always so condescending and self-congratulatory. Why read it at all if you're not going to give it a chance? I've read through the Bible before, and it's clear there are major cultural barriers between the authors and me. There is comfort and wisdom to be found throughout, but nothing that jumps out as something that must have been inspired by the creator of the universe. But this is where we need to be very careful, because if we're told "it's in there, you just have to keep looking" then eventually, whether it's really in there or not, we're going to find "it."That's up to you to decide as you .... do the work. If we're only willing to passively listen to atheists as they pan the Bible, then we probably shouldn't expect anything to jump out at us.
I feel horribly cynical saying this, but in response to Pascal I'd say his argument is identical to that of the Emperor's treacherous tailors who sent him out with no clothes. It attempts to quiet criticism by suggesting that there's something wrong with the critic rather than the subject being examined. I don't know if that's ever appropriate.As for the issue of the hiddenness of God, I rather think Pascal said what needed to be said on this, even if his is not the last word on this issue:
Instead of complaining that God had hidden Himself, you will also give Him thanks for not having revealed so much of Himself; and you will also give Him thanks for not having revealed Himself to haughty ages, unworthy to know so holy a God.
Two kinds of persons know Him: those who have a humble heart, and who love lowliness, whatever kind of intellect they may have, high or low; and those who have sufficient understanding to see the truth, whatever opposition they may have to it. (Writing 288)
Additionally to what this quip from Pascal states, I'd assert that our coming to 'know' Christ couldn't possibly be designed to come solely by way of our simply having read and then (magically) accepting the New Testament writings. Why? Because just having a merely intellectualized faith is not what was going on with the earliest Christians; maybe we could call this the the "AD 43 test." How would one become a Christian, even if a Gentile, in the 5th decade of the 1st century AD? By reading a bunch of 'true' documents (however much I personally would enjoy that) ?
I would love to, but if I'm required to shed all skepticism, cynicism, and critical thinking in doing so I don't think it's possible for me. I cannot reach a psychological state of belief if I can't see how it fares against criticism.It doesn't matter so much that I may disagree; no, what matters is whether or not you're willing to explore additional geographical fixtures of the conceptual philosophical landscape of Christianity. If you're not willing, then any good reason for me to continue in dialogue here with you would begin to quickly dry up.
Yes, and I mentioned earlier that the exceptions to that rule are the handful of assumptions we make pragmatically to function. The laws of logic are among them.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?