Pure metaphysical claims

[Code-Monkey]

Pure metaphysical claims are those claims that do not have a grounding in the world we can detect.

For example, 'Hell exists and all non-Christians will end up there after death,' is a pure metaphysical claim.

The question I am interested in is this: by what methodology do we evaluate the truth or otherwise of pure metaphysical claims?

I think G K Chesterton answered this pretty well in Orthodoxy.

That's a good question. Although I'm not sure why you decide to limit it to pure metaphysical claims. Well, in fact I'm not sure if I know how to distinguish a metaphysical claim from another claim.

But for the average person, I think it comes down to something like this. The vast majority of claims people make to us we haven't been able to personally verify, and even if we did see it, there's still the issue if we really saw what happened or are imagining it. But let's assume that senses are perfect and just stick to the fact that probably 90% of what we believe is on the basis that others have said that it is true. We can't possibly be in all places to verify so many facts. So without any physical evidence of the event itself, how do we determine whether or not something really happened or is true. I think it boils down to the idea of trying to fit the claim with the other facts we know. Even if you are working with a set of facts and you don't know the validity of any of them, you still want them to all logically fit together. If all the claims are like puzzle pieces, we want there to be a picture when they're put together, we want the completed puzzle to make sense.

So when my teacher in 1st grade tells me that George Washington was the first president of the US, I think subconsciously I believe her because it makes a better picture in the puzzle if she is telling the truth. It makes the best fit of the pieces.

So to the question of the existence of hell. Again, I happen to use the same sort of logic and reasoning. It fits the puzzle the best if it's true.

As for specifically explaining why I believe christians would get into heaven and non-christians would not... the simplest answer is that Jesus identified himself as the sole way into heaven. And his claims about being God's son were backed up in the miracles he performed. There doesn't seem to be any evidence of any muslim leaders performing miracles. In short, the stories of Jesus seem to fit the giant puzzle better than the claims to the contrary.

I hope that answers your question David.

 

[TheGMan]

For what its worth both your propositions are false!
There is no Hell for Christians, Muslims or anyone else!

That sounds like one of them thar pure metaphysical claims!

 

[divided sky]

As for specifically explaining why I believe christians would get into heaven and non-christians would not... the simplest answer is that Jesus identified himself as the sole way into heaven. And his claims about being God's son were backed up in the miracles he performed. There doesn't seem to be any evidence of any muslim leaders performing miracles. In short, the stories of Jesus seem to fit the giant puzzle better than the claims to the contrary.

I hope that answers your question David.

But what makes claims about being God's son and being able to perform miracles (and Islam's lack of these) mean that Christianity is the one and only true religion? Your last sentence about the stories of Jesus fitting the giant puzzle is meaningless. What does that even mean?

 

[Willtor]

Propositions. These are meaningless because I don't even know what Hell is, from the context. I know what a Christian is (I think), and I have some idea of what a Muslim is (I think). What is Hell? Am I trying to get there? Am I trying to avoid it? Does it matter? Am I still dead when I get there?

Nice try David Gould, but as you can see Christians will not actually consider the question you ask them. This is because being a Christian means not thinking about such things, but accepting that what the Bible or the Pope or your preist says without question.

For what its worth both your propositions are false!
There is no Hell for Christians, Muslims or anyone else!

Look. Maybe Christianity is totally bogus. But the point of my first post was that you're never going to discover this fact with the question laid out in the OP. It's a strawman. Fundamentalists and Atheists, alike, seem to be obsessed with the doctrine of Hell. But it is, just as the OP pointed out, without any connection to anything. It is a proposition. Without an underlying understanding, how do you even know you want to avoid it?

 

[TeddyKGB]

But for the average person, I think it comes down to something like this. The vast majority of claims people make to us we haven't been able to personally verify, and even if we did see it, there's still the issue if we really saw what happened or are imagining it. But let's assume that senses are perfect and just stick to the fact that probably 90% of what we believe is on the basis that others have said that it is true. We can't possibly be in all places to verify so many facts. So without any physical evidence of the event itself, how do we determine whether or not something really happened or is true. I think it boils down to the idea of trying to fit the claim with the other facts we know. Even if you are working with a set of facts and you don't know the validity of any of them, you still want them to all logically fit together. If all the claims are like puzzle pieces, we want there to be a picture when they're put together, we want the completed puzzle to make sense.

There is also the matter of considering frameworks under which intersubjective understanding can occur. We can arguably place more confidence in a scientific finding because, in both ideal and very real senses, scientific methodology is available to everyone.

So when my teacher in 1st grade tells me that George Washington was the first president of the US, I think subconsciously I believe her because it makes a better picture in the puzzle if she is telling the truth. It makes the best fit of the pieces.

Many of your teacher's lessons have, of course, been affirned or denied via external sources. At this point, you are relying on perhaps thousands of references to George Washington. It would be difficult, if not impossible, now to reject an historical Washington without taking down the entirety of American history along with it.

So to the question of the existence of hell. Again, I happen to use the same sort of logic and reasoning. It fits the puzzle the best if it's true.

Reasoning from some pretty substantial presuppositions, it seems. In my puzzle, which treats hell as true via reductio, hell is one of the least coherent parts.

 

[Cleany]

Awareness of what?

people, culture, the self, reality.

 

[TeddyKGB]

people, culture, the self, reality.

Is there a different truth for each of those entities?

 

[Code-Monkey]

There is also the matter of considering frameworks under which intersubjective understanding can occur. We can arguably place more confidence in a scientific finding because, in both ideal and very real senses, scientific methodology is available to everyone.

I would say that any sort of thinking, whether based upon fantasy or upon reality, is "available to everyone". So I'm not sure I understand the distinction you're trying to make.

Many of your teacher's lessons have, of course, been affirned or denied via external sources. At this point, you are relying on perhaps thousands of references to George Washington. It would be difficult, if not impossible, now to reject an historical Washington without taking down the entirety of American history along with it.

Exactly right. Thanks for expounding on that. It would be very difficult for me to go back on the idea that George Washington was in fact the first US president. Although it doesn't exactly take down the entirety of American history, but it is a pretty significant piece nonetheless. It's the same sort of deal for me with christianity but on a bigger scale. I rely on thousands of references to Jesus as the Christ, I rely on countless references to God and his influence throughout history, in my own personal life, in the lives of the people around me, etc... Christianity just has that sort of perfect fit to life. Even the responses from my atheist and non-christian friends seems to fit right in with things one would rationally expect if christianity is true. And then there's the fact that there doesn't appear to be any real objection or contradicting piece of evidence against christianity.

Reasoning from some pretty substantial presuppositions, it seems. In my puzzle, which treats hell as true via reductio, hell is one of the least coherent parts.

I will say that I do agree that some of my ideas about hell are not things I hold to very strongly. It's sort of like when you're playing sodoku and you know that the number 3 has to be in either one square or another, but you're not sure which square it is. It could be that it goes in neither, but that means that a lot of other things no longer fit either. In my case I will say it appears hell does indeed exist and it's certainly the worst possible "place" to be.. Whether hell is a physical place or a spiritual place, I'm not sure. There are a lot of other questions about it that also seem to me to be able to go either way. But that hell is real is no longer a question for me.

And again, I'm more than happy to say, keeping with the sodoku analogy, that I could be wrong and hell doesn't exist. The issue with that though is that there isn't any evidence pointing me to the idea that it doesn't exist. The only real reason I'd be deciding to deny it is simply for the sake of denying it. It's like arbitrarily deciding to put a 3 in a box when the puzzle currently says it ought to be a 5 or a 6. I know people don't like the idea of putting a 5 or a 6 there, but I can't (or don't want to) just arbitrarily put a number there without having a reason.

 

[Cleany]

Is there a different truth for each of those entities?

what? dont patronise me.

whatever objective truth there is, the understanding of will will be filtered by circumstances and culture. is that complicated?

 

[TeddyKGB]

what? dont patronise me.

I'll try.

whatever objective truth there is, the understanding of will will be filtered by circumstances and culture. is that complicated?

But we can get beyond circumstances and culture in some cases, no? Isn't that part of philosophy?

 

[Dexx]

Whilst i dont believe the eternal hellfire kind of hell exists, i guess the worst way to find out would be to go there.
Short of going there, i would need a direct and unmistakable revelation from Christ as to the truth of it.

Or are you looking for subjective or relative "TRUE?" In which case "TRUE" is in the eye of the beholder and for some Christians, but by no means all, the first is "TRUE" while for some Muslims, but by no means all, the second is "TRUE."

I think something like the existance of the biblical hell can be an absolute truth. Its not an opinion after all. Its claimed to be a real place. So either it is or it isnt. Either its properties are as described or they are not.

 

[Cleany]

I'll try.

But we can get beyond circumstances and culture in some cases, no? Isn't that part of philosophy?

well please demonstrate how.

 

[David Gould]

My question is: do you care or is this one of those atheistic threads where you seek to justify your belief system?

Do you care if there is a God? Or is your point this God stuff is bunk and "I want to demonstate" it by showing how illogical religion is. Well I wish you luck. Have fun. Truth is, that which we believe does not change reality.

If God does exist, all of your arguements will not change that fact.

A point to ponder.

It is true that I do not believe in the existence of a deity. In apologetics - this forum - I pose challenges to theists. I want them to think - and I want to think, too.

In other words, if you do have a methodology by which you determine the truth or otherwise of metaphysical claims, talk me through it. I would very much like to know what it is.

 

[David Gould]

Propositions. These are meaningless because I don't even know what Hell is, from the context. I know what a Christian is (I think), and I have some idea of what a Muslim is (I think). What is Hell? Am I trying to get there? Am I trying to avoid it? Does it matter? Am I still dead when I get there?

How about we define Hell as a place where you are horribly tortured for eternity? It is up to you whether you want to get there or not. You are aware of being tortured - whether you are truly 'dead' or not is something you can debate if you like.

So: how do I tell which one of these propositions is true?

 

[David Gould]

I think G K Chesterton answered this pretty well in Orthodoxy.

That's a good question. Although I'm not sure why you decide to limit it to pure metaphysical claims. Well, in fact I'm not sure if I know how to distinguish a metaphysical claim from another claim.

'David Gould is wearing a hat,' is not a metaphysical claim - I can reach up and check my head, people can come look et cetera.

In other words, a metaphysical - beyond the physical - claim is a claim we cannot use physical means to check.

Now, this does not mean that some physical claims are not difficult to check. But all physical claims are theoretically checkable.

This does not mean we can have proof of every claim, either - proof is only available in logic and mathematics.

The scientific method works on evidence - in other words, I can use evidence to determine whether I have a hat on my head or not. Or, indeed, to determine whether George Washington existed or not.

With metaphysical claims, there is no evidence - it is not possible to gather evidence about whether or not hell exists, for example, or which particular rules see you end up there.

The alternative method we have of examining claims is logic - we can rule out claims such as, 'Hell exists and hell does not exist' for example.

But for the average person, I think it comes down to something like this. The vast majority of claims people make to us we haven't been able to personally verify, and even if we did see it, there's still the issue if we really saw what happened or are imagining it. But let's assume that senses are perfect and just stick to the fact that probably 90% of what we believe is on the basis that others have said that it is true. We can't possibly be in all places to verify so many facts. So without any physical evidence of the event itself, how do we determine whether or not something really happened or is true. I think it boils down to the idea of trying to fit the claim with the other facts we know. Even if you are working with a set of facts and you don't know the validity of any of them, you still want them to all logically fit together. If all the claims are like puzzle pieces, we want there to be a picture when they're put together, we want the completed puzzle to make sense.

So when my teacher in 1st grade tells me that George Washington was the first president of the US, I think subconsciously I believe her because it makes a better picture in the puzzle if she is telling the truth. It makes the best fit of the pieces.

I agree that we simply trust that certain claims are true, usually based on who is telling us, the context of the claim and the importance of the claim - and probably a lot of other factors, too. (your mood at the time, for example).

However, I am not asking about why we believe certain things.

I am asking about whether there is a methodology that we could, in theory, use to determine the truth or otherwise of these claims.

With regard to physical claims, there is - the scientific method, backed up by logic.

With regard to metaphysical claims, is there such a method?

So to the question of the existence of hell. Again, I happen to use the same sort of logic and reasoning. It fits the puzzle the best if it's true.

As for specifically explaining why I believe christians would get into heaven and non-christians would not... the simplest answer is that Jesus identified himself as the sole way into heaven. And his claims about being God's son were backed up in the miracles he performed. There doesn't seem to be any evidence of any muslim leaders performing miracles. In short, the stories of Jesus seem to fit the giant puzzle better than the claims to the contrary.

I hope that answers your question David.

Again, it is not really about why you personally believe - although, to be honest, it sounds to me like you are saying, 'It feels to me as though it is true.'

It is about what methodology I, who have no feeling about these two claims either way, could test them to determine which one is true (or, at least, more likely to be true.)

And ignore the fact that they are about Hell - I should have chosen two different examples, as that is not what this question is about.

 

[Willtor]

How about we define Hell as a place where you are horribly tortured for eternity? It is up to you whether you want to get there or not. You are aware of being tortured - whether you are truly 'dead' or not is something you can debate if you like.

So: how do I tell which one of these propositions is true?

How did you determine this is what Hell is?

 

[David Gould]

How did you determine this is what Hell is?

I didn't. It is part of the claims - you asked for a definition.

In other words, one of the claims is that a place of eternal torment exists and that non-Moslems will end up there after death.

The other claim is that a place of eternal torment exists and that non-Christians will end up there after death.

If - if - we assume that one of these two claims is true, by what methodology can I determine which one it is?

Alternatively, if both of these claims are false, by what methodology can I determine that?

Or both could in fact be true - but how can I determine that?

 

[Freodin]

You should really have used different examples.
For, if "Hell" does indeed "exist", and "humans" of certain categories could "go" there - that would make such claims physical, not metaphyiscal. Or wouldn´t it?

 

[David Gould]

You should really have used different examples.
For, if "Hell" does indeed "exist", and "humans" of certain categories could "go" there - that would make such claims physical, not metaphyiscal. Or wouldn´t it?

I don't think so. If the existance is in a place we cannot physically detect or get to, then it must be a metaphysical place - just like the human that goes there after death (physical death, of course) is actually metaphysical (the soul).

In other words, a metaphysical thing is something that cannot be detected, even in theory, by physical means.

Hell falls into the category; so do dead and yet aware humans.

 

[Lifesaver]

The means we have to know about "purely metaphysical claims" are logic, recourse to a competent authority and indications which can be observed (miracles attesting to the truth of the Catholic faith, for instance).