Pure metaphysical claims

[Willtor]

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?

If we're assuming that one of these two is true, then simiply analyze some of the theologies from the various positions and determine which is the most reasonable. That one is the most likely candidate. That said, there are theologies (within each) that don't subscribe to the definition of Hell that you presented. You can probably leave those out since we're assuming they're not correct.

If both claims are false, then there are more theologies to consider. But it's probably about the same process. If you can't find a reasonable theology, it is reasonable to conclude that none of them are correct.

 

[David Gould]

Once again, mostly with the use of reason and the authority of the Church, which has been estabilished by the many miracles and holy examples of her history.

By what methodology does the Church determine the truth or falsity of metaphysical claims? In other words, you trust that they have the truth. But they must have arrived at the truth somehow. How?

Surely, there are some claims to which one can only naturally arrive at opinative assent: the agreement that it might be true, and that it does make sense, but with no certainty. In order to be certain one needs faith, which is the strong intellectual assent to Divinely revealed truths. And to have faith it is necessary some activity of the will, helping the intellect to hold strongly to those things it now has doubts about.

Okay. I do not see that as a methodology, though, as different people have faith in all sorts of different and competing claims. By what methodology do we judge between them?

 

[franklin]

Imagine that one of these claims is true.

How do I tell which one it is?

Just flip a coin.

 

[David Gould]

If we're assuming that one of these two is true, then simiply analyze some of the theologies from the various positions and determine which is the most reasonable. That one is the most likely candidate. That said, there are theologies (within each) that don't subscribe to the definition of Hell that you presented. You can probably leave those out since we're assuming they're not correct.

If both claims are false, then there are more theologies to consider. But it's probably about the same process. If you can't find a reasonable theology, it is reasonable to conclude that none of them are correct.

Determining which one is reasonable seems to me to be based on feelings - in other words, I might find it reasonable to conclude that neither claim is true, a particular Moslem might find it reasonable to conclude that a particular claim is true, and a particular Christian might find it reasonable to conclude that a different claim is true.

Is that what the methodology is: if it feels reasonable to me, it is more likely to be true? But different things feel reasonable to different people, we are left with the logical problem that all of the different things are most likely to be true ... aren't we?

Am I missing something here?

 

[David Gould]

Just flip a coin.

That is indeed a methodology. However, it leads to logical contradiction if two people evaluate the same claim and the coin lands differently for each of them ...

 

[Willtor]

Determining which one is reasonable seems to me to be based on feelings - in other words, I might find it reasonable to conclude that neither claim is true, a particular Moslem might find it reasonable to conclude that a particular claim is true, and a particular Christian might find it reasonable to conclude that a different claim is true.

Not everybody who is a Muslim was born a Muslim. Were all of them convinced through feelings? It would certainly be a pretty strong statement to say so. I'd rather like to see it defended, if, in fact, that's what you're claiming.

Is that what the methodology is: if it feels reasonable to me, it is more likely to be true? But different things feel reasonable to different people, we are left with the logical problem that all of the different things are most likely to be true ... aren't we?

Am I missing something here?

I think so. Firstly, if we place our reason on a foundation of emotion, we're never going to get very far with anything. Certainly, we would be very fortunate, indeed, to come out with something internally consistent. The reason is that emotion doesn't value internal consistency. It will almost certainly give us a real grounding in what we experience, but it won't give us a meaningful framework.

No, it might be better to think of reason in terms of the tools of analysis we have available to us.

 

[David Gould]

Not everybody who is a Muslim was born a Muslim. Were all of them convinced through feelings? It would certainly be a pretty strong statement to say so. I'd rather like to see it defended, if, in fact, that's what you're claiming.

That is not what I am claiming. I am asking for a more rigorous description of the methodology than 'reasonable'.

I think so. Firstly, if we place our reason on a foundation of emotion, we're never going to get very far with anything. Certainly, we would be very fortunate, indeed, to come out with something internally consistent. The reason is that emotion doesn't value internal consistency. It will almost certainly give us a real grounding in what we experience, but it won't give us a meaningful framework.

No, it might be better to think of reason in terms of the tools of analysis we have available to us.

Which is kind of where I began: the tools of analysis we (or at least, I,) have available to us are logic and the scientific method.

The scientific method cannot be used to analyse metaphysical claims.

Logic can be used, but only to an extent - in other words, we can rule out illogical metaphysical claims.

However, what can be used to analyse two logical possible metaphysical claims?

To work out whether either or both of two logically possible physical claims is true or not, we have the scientific method.

To work out whether either or both of two logically possible metaphysical claims, we have ... what?

This is the question I am asking.

 

[Willtor]

That is not what I am claiming. I am asking for a more rigorous description of the methodology than 'reasonable'.



Which is kind of where I began: the tools of analysis we (or at least, I,) have available to us are logic and the scientific method.

The scientific method cannot be used to analyse metaphysical claims.

Logic can be used, but only to an extent - in other words, we can rule out illogical metaphysical claims.

However, what can be used to analyse two logical possible metaphysical claims?

To work out whether either or both of two logically possible physical claims is true or not, we have the scientific method.

To work out whether either or both of two logically possible metaphysical claims, we have ... what?

This is the question I am asking.

The purpose of my initial post was to point out that there is no point in defending them. They are isolated propositions. We have no way of verifying one or the other without analying their sources. Note: it may be possible to verify or refute one or both, but not without considering from whence they arise. Again, this is why I am frustrated with Fundamentalist and Atheist predilections for the doctrine of Hell. Dogmatics based on Hell is the weakest sort I can imagine. I haven't exprienced Hell, nor anything that is like what Hell is said to be that would give me a point of reference. If you want to know which (if any) Hell is real, you'll need to lose some of your fixation on it.

If you have logic and science, go with those when you read theologies.

 

[David Gould]

The purpose of my initial post was to point out that there is no point in defending them. They are isolated propositions. We have no way of verifying one or the other without analying their sources. Note: it may be possible to verify or refute one or both, but not without considering from whence they arise. Again, this is why I am frustrated with Fundamentalist and Atheist predilections for the doctrine of Hell. Dogmatics based on Hell is the weakest sort I can imagine. I haven't exprienced Hell, nor anything that is like what Hell is said to be that would give me a point of reference. If you want to know which (if any) Hell is real, you'll need to lose some of your fixation on it.

I knew it was a bad example - this thread has nothing to do with whether hell exists or, if it does, which religion's hell does.

If you have logic and science, go with those when you read theologies.

But that is the point - science cannot be used to evaluate metaphysical claims, and logic can only be used to eliminate logically impossible metaphysical claims.

As such, I do not have any methodology with which to evaluate logically possible metaphysical claims - I can determine which claims are logically possible, but I cannot determine which claims are most likely true or most likely false. I have no methodology with which to do so.

As such, I am asking for a methodology which would enable me to do such a thing. I do not think that such a methodology exists, but I could be wrong. As of yet, no-one has presented me with a methodology.

 

[Willtor]

I knew it was a bad example - this thread has nothing to do with whether hell exists or, if it does, which religion's hell does.



But that is the point - science cannot be used to evaluate metaphysical claims, and logic can only be used to eliminate logically impossible metaphysical claims.

As such, I do not have any methodology with which to evaluate logically possible metaphysical claims - I can determine which claims are logically possible, but I cannot determine which claims are most likely true or most likely false. I have no methodology with which to do so.

As such, I am asking for a methodology which would enable me to do such a thing. I do not think that such a methodology exists, but I could be wrong. As of yet, no-one has presented me with a methodology.

If the word, "metaphysical," is stopping you from using science to analyze theology, then don't use it ("metaphysical," not science). If God is really so detached from us, then we have no way of knowing much of anything about Him, anyway.

 

[David Gould]

If the word, "metaphysical," is stopping you from using science to analyze theology, then don't use it ("metaphysical," not science). If God is really so detached from us, then we have no way of knowing much of anything about Him, anyway.

The word metaphsycial is not stopping me. The fact that science cannot examine claims that do not relate to the physical universe is.

In other words, things like the existence of heaven, hell and souls cannot be examined by using the scientific method because those things do not interact with the physical universe.

 

[David Gould]

In other words, what you are claiming is that metaphysical claims - claims that cannot be tested by science - do not exist. I think that they do. However, that means that we are (kind of) in agreement - there is no methodology to check claims that cannot be tested by science.

So the argument now should be about whether there are indeed claims that cannot be tested by science.

 

[Willtor]

In other words, what you are claiming is that metaphysical claims - claims that cannot be tested by science - do not exist. I think that they do. However, that means that we are (kind of) in agreement - there is no methodology to check claims that cannot be tested by science.

So the argument now should be about whether there are indeed claims that cannot be tested by science.

Unless you mistyped, I disagree. We may pick up new tools along the way. Buddhism, for example, provides some tools that might not otherwise be available (Removal of dukha and manifestation of the Buddha-nature). It would be a stretch to call analysis through Enlightenment scientific (and a Buddhist might cringe at my use of analysis in relation to Enlightenment), but if it is revealed by logic and science, it is available to reason. It might even put science and logic in some perspective.

 

[David Gould]

Unless you mistyped, I disagree. We may pick up new tools along the way. Buddhism, for example, provides some tools that might not otherwise be available (Removal of dukha and manifestation of the Buddha-nature).

I am unclear how that is a methodology for determining whether something is true or false.

Can you outline the methodology? In other words, let us say that I have claim X in front of me. How would I use these Buddhist tools to evaluate whether it is true or false?

It would be a stretch to call analysis through Enlightenment scientific (and a Buddhist might cringe at my use of analysis in relation to Enlightenment), but if it is revealed by logic and science, it is available to reason. It might even put science and logic in some perspective.

Again, I am unclear how logic and science can uncover methodologies. They are methods for determining truth or falsehood (or likely truth or falsehood, in the case of science).

Enlightenment as a methodology sounds remarkable similar to revelation as a methodology - the knowledge is just suddenly there with you. This is an interesting idea, but it seems difficult to utilise this methodology when presented with a claim. I mean, either you will get enlightened regarding that particular claim or you will not. If you do not, you are kind of stuck.

 

[David Gould]

And the fact that we may pick up new tools along the way is not very useful to me now. In other words, it is possible that one day in the future we will develop a methodology for determining the truth or otherwise of metaphysical claims. Until then, what's a guy to do?

 

[shinbits]

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

The Bible says that the conscience will bear witness to the truth. The Bible says that the we will be judged by this, and that no one will have excuse.

If you've ever found that you've ignored your conscience concerning right and wrong, God/Jesus Christ, then you are ignoring the Holy Spirit of God.

If nothing else convinces you, one's conscience is something that you cannot deny. You can ignore it, but you can't deny the tug of the Holy Spirit on your heart.

Peace.

 

[Willtor]

Again, I am unclear how logic and science can uncover methodologies. They are methods for determining truth or falsehood (or likely truth or falsehood, in the case of science).

Enlightenment as a methodology sounds remarkable similar to revelation as a methodology - the knowledge is just suddenly there with you. This is an interesting idea, but it seems difficult to utilise this methodology when presented with a claim. I mean, either you will get enlightened regarding that particular claim or you will not. If you do not, you are kind of stuck.

. . .

And the fact that we may pick up new tools along the way is not very useful to me now. In other words, it is possible that one day in the future we will develop a methodology for determining the truth or otherwise of metaphysical claims. Until then, what's a guy to do?

Well, to start with this, second question first: I really don't know what the obsession is with metaphysics. Why don't we do what we're going to do, and let come what may? Rather than worrying about abstract propositions, then, deal with what you have.

I am unclear how that is a methodology for determining whether something is true or false.

Can you outline the methodology? In other words, let us say that I have claim X in front of me. How would I use these Buddhist tools to evaluate whether it is true or false?

You might still be where you are, now, for all I know. Am I enlightened? There still may be questions that are unanswered. It doesn't stop us from looking. It just means we have to remain uncertain for the time being.

 

[David Gould]

The Bible says that the conscience will bear witness to the truth. The Bible says that the we will be judged by this, and that no one will have excuse.

If you've ever found that you've ignored your conscience concerning right and wrong, God/Jesus Christ, then you are ignoring the Holy Spirit of God.

If nothing else convinces you, one's conscience is something that you cannot deny. You can ignore it, but you can't deny the tug of the Holy Spirit on your heart.

Peace.

Except that I do deny the tug of the Holy Spirit on my heart - I do not believe the Holy Spirit exists, and non-existent things do not tug on hearts.

However, let us assume that I am lying to you and I do feel the tug of something on my heart.

Your claim is that this is the Holy Spirit.
Someone else might claim that this is Allah.

How do I tell which it is? By what methodology to I determine what is true and what is false?

If it is conscience, the conscience gives many different results, as we can see by simply looking around the world and seeing the many, many different things that people believe. It does not seem to guide people accurately. So while it may be a methodology, it is not a very good one. It seems to me to just be feelings again - I feel that that is true, therefore it is.

Again, am I missing something here?

 

[Willtor]

The Bible says that the conscience will bear witness to the truth. The Bible says that the we will be judged by this, and that no one will have excuse.

If you've ever found that you've ignored your conscience concerning right and wrong, God/Jesus Christ, then you are ignoring the Holy Spirit of God.

If nothing else convinces you, one's conscience is something that you cannot deny. You can ignore it, but you can't deny the tug of the Holy Spirit on your heart.

Peace.

Shinbits, even if I agreed (I don't), how would somebody who doesn't know the Holy Spirit recognize his work? David Gould is looking for a process of distinguishing truth from falsehood. Ethics will enter the picture when it enters the picture.

 

[David Gould]

Well, to start with this, second question first: I really don't know what the obsession is with metaphysics. Why don't we do what we're going to do, and let come what may? Rather than worrying about abstract propositions, then, deal with what you have.

This is exactly my thinking, and the reason for this thread in the first place.

My position is that if there is no methodology for evaluating metaphysical claims, all such claims should be ignored. However, first I need to determine whether my premise that there is no such methodology is correct - hence the thread.

You might still be where you are, now, for all I know. Am I enlightened? There still may be questions that are unanswered. It doesn't stop us from looking. It just means we have to remain uncertain for the time being.

I think that not having a method indeed stops us from looking - or it should.

But I assume you mean searching for methodologies - and that is true, which is what I am doing in this thread.