The Logical Premise?

[Obliquinaut]

3) As I use the term "revelation", not only is it independent of deity, it is independent of religion (and those two are pretty closely tied). When someone tells me the Royals won last night, that is revelation.

Then, indeed, you are using revelation in a rather imprecise sense. Forgive me for assuming, based on your statements about theology and "non-believers" that you were indeed using "revelation" as it is usually used in religious discussions:

"Revelation may be defined as the communication of some truth by God to a rational creature through means which are beyond the ordinary course of nature." (SOURCE)

Further, usually revelation is reserved for a divine or supernatural disclosure (cf just about any standard dictionary).

If you are merely saying that when you use the word "revelation" you are using in a more common parlance form of "something you didn't know before", then the point is pretty much meaningless.

If someone telling you that a sports team won and you didn't see the TV is a "revelation" then I honestly don't even know what the point of any discussion is. And it most assuredly isn't a precise use of the term.

I'm not asking them for certification from the MLB of that result. Further, if I trust the person, I don't immediately go check ESPN to confirm their statement.

But you could. You could easily falsify the claim. That is not the same thing as when one uses the more technical definition of "revelation".

If you don't operate in that manner in at least some parts of your life ... if you do demand MLB certification or run to ESPN to check every statement your friend makes about sports ... wow.

No, I thought you were using precise language rather than simple common parlance.

 

[juvenissun]

Indeed that is tricky, but I guess I would consider that more a procedural/definitional issue than a logical issue.

As a next step, science can be thought of as consisting of three parts: the cause, the effect, and the rule that connects those two. Given the idea that if one knows 2 of those, the third can be inferred, there are 3 arrangements of cause, effect, and rule:
1. Deduction: Cause and the rule are known, and effect is inferred
2. Induction: Cause and effect are known, and the rule is inferred
3. Abduction: Effect and the rule are known, and the cause is inferred

From a very basic logic rule:
If A, so B, is true,
then B, so A, is not necessary true.
In this case, the induction process would not work.
If the rule is not there, then the A -> B remains as a hypothesis.

 

[Resha Caner]

Then, indeed, you are using revelation in a rather imprecise sense. Forgive me for assuming, based on your statements about theology and "non-believers" that you were indeed using "revelation" as it is usually used in religious discussions:

"Revelation may be defined as the communication of some truth by God to a rational creature through means which are beyond the ordinary course of nature." (SOURCE)

I'm not surprised you took the word to mean that. That is why I repeatedly attempted to clarify that the word has a meaning apart from deity and repeatedly asked, "What is it you really want to discuss?"

In that regard, my usage is not as uncommon as you claim. I can't be responsible for every possible dictionary that people might use. I use dictionary.com just because it's easily accessible to anyone who posts in this forum, and I'm willing to abide by their definitions to avoid issues of arbitrary use.

If you look here, you will see that definition #1 is exactly as I was using it. The usage connected to deity isn't mentioned until definition #3.

If you are merely saying that when you use the word "revelation" you are using in a more common parlance form of "something you didn't know before", then the point is pretty much meaningless.

If someone telling you that a sports team won and you didn't see the TV is a "revelation" then I honestly don't even know what the point of any discussion is.

I'm sorry to hear that, but if that's how you feel I'm OK with ending the discussion. I do have the feeling you are finally starting to get what I'm saying. I think it was important to establish this point because I don't appeal to things "beyond the ordinary course of nature" as your definition stated.

As such, I will say that despite your statements that you were only interested in discussing revelation, it appears you actually wanted to discuss the connection between deity and revelation.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

"induction is the glory of science and the scandal of philosophy."

...and reduction is the glory of cooking school.

 

[Obliquinaut]

I'm not surprised you took the word to mean that. That is why I repeatedly attempted to clarify that the word has a meaning apart from deity and repeatedly asked, "What is it you really want to discuss?"

For all your insistence on "precise language" I never would have guessed you were talking simply about someone telling you something.

In that regard, my usage is not as uncommon as you claim.

Well, it is common parlance. It is a "revelation" to me that Brad and Angelina are no longer together. But that isn't usually what one means when talking about epistemological concepts in relation to the term "revelation"...and, you did throw me off with your discussions of "un-believers" and theology. Usually when one uses those terms in common with "revelation" it is used as the definition I gave.

I can't be responsible for every possible dictionary that people might use.

Well, you could be more precise in your language. You were talking about theology and how "unbelievers" may have accepted a certain epistemic standard. It would be irrational for me to assume you meant such a nearly meaningless use of the word.

I'm sorry to hear that, but if that's how you feel I'm OK with ending the discussion. I do have the feeling you are finally starting to get what I'm saying.

If by that you mean that I am now assuming your point is essentially meaningless, then yes.

I think it was important to establish this point because I don't appeal to things "beyond the ordinary course of nature" as your definition stated.

I'm really confused now why you even made comments about "unbelievers" in your earliest post with respect to epistemology at this point.

As such, I will say that despite your statements that you were only interested in discussing revelation, it appears you actually wanted to discuss the connection between deity and revelation.

No, I wanted to discuss "revelation" as it is usually used in relation to the topics you introduced in the thread (theology and "unbelief").

I thought you were all about "precise use of language". Perhaps that is not always the case.

 

[Resha Caner]

Well, you could be more precise in your language. You were talking about theology and how "unbelievers" may have accepted a certain epistemic standard. It would be irrational for me to assume you meant such a nearly meaningless use of the word.

I don't see any gain in continued complaints that you didn't understand my use of the word. It's not some major rupture in the fabric of conversation to clarify one's use of terms. It's just how things are done. Now that the clarification has been made are you ready to move on? Or are we just going to end it here?

I believe that you are used to hearing about revelation in some supernatural, suspension of natural law context. That is not, however, typical of the Lutheran context. That is what I hope you will understand. I'm not just throwing out some new idea I came up with while we were talking. While it may be unfamiliar to those who have only ever dealt with the Calvinistic Puritan-American Christian tradition, it is a long-standing theology.

Further, what you quoted from was a Catholic source. Don't expect me to accept definitions from a Catholic source. I'm not faulting you for mentioning it. I appreciate knowing where your views of Christianity come from, but they don't apply to a conversation with me.

So, I'm not giving you "useless" definitions of words. I'm breaking the paradigms you are used to working with in discussions about Christianity. We are now working within a Confessional Lutheran paradigm.

As such, let me review. I'm not saying "revelation" is "simply about someone telling you something." I paired revelation with trust. I believe what was revealed because I trust who said it. That trust is not blind, but based on a faithful history. Throughout my relationship with that person, they have shown they deserve my trust.

That is not however, the direct scientific evidence I assumed you were asking for. If this trusted person makes a statement S, I believe S is true because the person proved faithful in past, unrelated events W, X, Y, and Z, and because I have come to know that this person has the ability to know S.

Early in our conversation you implicitly charged me that I should treat you in exactly this manner because you are a scientist. I was supposed to accept your word, not because you were showing me evidence, but because you were a scientist. I replied by asking for a warrant - your credentials. Note that when you gave me your credentials as a degreed geologist, I accepted your charge within the purview of geology. I agreed to accept your knowledge about geology (your statements S) because I trust the system of conferring degrees (event W), not because you presented evidence directly pertaining to your statements about geology.

As such, I am expressing an epistemic system that differs from the scientific method regarding the preponderance of evidence directly related to the question at hand. I was expressing my opinion that many unbelievers try to use this system to the exclusion of all others (and you seem to profess that, even if it seems to me your actions say otherwise). And I was further expressing my opinion that unbelievers who take that position do, thereby, try to reject (unsuccessfully IMO) this epistemic system based on revelation from a trusted source.

Distinguishing those systems does not require invoking deity or the suspension of natural law. But the examples do differ in degree. While I may trust my friend regarding who won the baseball game, that doesn't mean I trust his opinion on geology if he has no training in geology. The scope of a person's knowledge and their demonstration of that scope becomes important.

But it doesn't make applications of the system to a limited scope "useless". Rather, I think it helps better understand the system by putting aside the complications of deity that so often seem to cloud people's ability to see what I'm saying.

 

[Obliquinaut]

While it may be unfamiliar to those who have only ever dealt with the Calvinistic Puritan-American Christian tradition, it is a long-standing theology.

I was using it in the Catholic sense. Since in the Catholic Church they accept "revelation" as one of the routes to knowledge of the Divine.

Further, what you quoted from was a Catholic source. Don't expect me to accept definitions from a Catholic source.

I quoted the Catholic Encyclopedia. I used that because the Catholic Church was the one that codified the "allowable" modes of knowledge of the divine.

My apologies if you are not necessarily familiar with other aspects of Christianity or the history of the faith in general. It also was a very quick means of proving my point about the more technical use of the term "revelation".

I'm not faulting you for mentioning it. I appreciate knowing where your views of Christianity come from, but they don't apply to a conversation with me.

I am not a Catholic. I was a Methodist when I was a believer.

I am, however, fascinated by thi history of the Christian Church and that tends to run through the Catholic church.

I believe what was revealed because I trust who said it. That trust is not blind, but based on a faithful history. Throughout my relationship with that person, they have shown they deserve my trust.

Yet those revelations can be verified. That is why your use of "revelation" is trivial in this discussion.

I thought you were trying to make some larger point about unverifiable information sources (hence your bringing up "non-believers" and theology).

If this trusted person makes a statement S, I believe S is true because the person proved faithful in past, unrelated events W, X, Y, and Z, and because I have come to know that this person has the ability to know S.

Well, that is indeed a trivial point. My apologies for assuming there was something deeper.

Early in our conversation you implicitly charged me that I should treat you in exactly this manner because you are a scientist. I was supposed to accept your word,

I was merely pointing out that YOU set out that you tend to accept people's statements but for some reason you were skeptical of my statement that I was a scientist.

Normally I wouldn't want you to trust ANYTHING I simply "said". I was merely playing by your rules.

As such, I am expressing an epistemic system that differs from the scientific method regarding the preponderance of evidence directly related to the question at hand.

Now you seem to have drifted off into a murkier area. So if you come into work on Monday and one of the scientists you really respect tells you something about non-linear systems something you didn't now, you will simply "accept it" because you trust them? You will not go to verify it yourself?

I have seen where that leads. Pro-Tip: It isn't always a good thing.

As I said I wouldn't expect anyone to believe a word I say. I would be A-OK if you even doubted my claims of having a PhD in geology. Presumably I could provide more evidence in support of that point, but simply saying it carries no evidentiary weight. Even if I trust the person.

I've had people I trust say things that are patently mistaken. Not out of mendacity but because they were mistaken. Trust them as much as I like, if I can verify the statement it's got evidentiary support.

This is not to say that I verify every single thing said to me...but rather that all the things said to me should be verifiable.

If a trusted friend says to me: "God is real!" I may trust them and respect them the live-long day (most of my friends are Christians, my closest friend in childhood was a Lutheran), but I won't believe that statement simply because it is said. I will verify it.

If it cannot be verified by a preponderance of evidence then I will likely fail to believe it.

But it doesn't make applications of the system to a limited scope "useless". Rather, I think it helps better understand the system by putting aside the complications of deity that so often seem to cloud people's ability to see what I'm saying.

What you are proposing isn't really a system at all. You are using a common, imprecise definition for information that is gained merely through communication. Your definition does not include any limits on verifiability and as such renders your use here trivial.

Your OP was flawed in that you seemed to want "proof" in science, yet you should know as well as anyone else that no such thing exists. But in common parlance we use the word "prove" all the time in science. Even though proof is never provided. Now you have moved onto common parlance use of the word "revelation".

You seem to be very imprecise with your terminology.

I don't think anyone would or could debate against these trivial, non-technical uses of the terms. That would be absurd. If your point was merely to use imprecise terminology to say "people say things and I don't have to verify every single thing they say every minute of every day" then, bravo. You have a valid point. And it is trivially true for all people.

 

[Resha Caner]

I am, however, fascinated by thi history of the Christian Church and that tends to run through the Catholic church.

Let me be precise to make sure we are clear. In modern parlance, referring to the "Catholic" church typically means the Roman Catholics (and the source you referenced was Roman Catholic). The term "Roman Catholic" is relatively recent, having originated as a pejorative during the contentious 1500s. It was probably first used by the Anglicans, but came into common usage from the writings of people like Luther.

In it's more general use, the term "catholic" is from the very early church - I think its first usage is from around 100 AD - and is essentially synonymous with Christian.

So, in one use (Roman Catholic, RCC) the history of the church is not at all primarily associated with that term, and in another use (catholic) it's trivial to say that since they're the same thing. The history of the church is much bigger, involving the Assyrian churches, the Orthodox churches, the Indian churches, the African churches, and the Western churches, all of which (unfortunately) lost touch with each other for a time.

While the RCC may loom large in the American (U.S.) imagination, it's impact on religious life in the U.S. is lesser than that of the Calvinist, Puritan tradition. It has had moments of significant influence, but mainly as an opponent of that Puritan tradition. The same is true of the Quakers (the driving force behind early abolitionism in the U.S.) and the Lutherans (who drove some issues regarding cultural identity, language, and education).

I'd be happy to talk church history with you as that has been the focus of my history program. I'd like to dispel the idea that church history is RCC history.

The point is, if you're going to assume a theological tradition, in the U.S. the statistics say your chances are better in assuming a Calvinist tradition. If you're aware there are multiple extensively developed traditions, and don't want to assume, I would recommend asking.

I don't think anyone would or could debate against these trivial, non-technical uses of the terms. That would be absurd. If your point was merely to use imprecise terminology to say "people say things and I don't have to verify every single thing they say every minute of every day" then, bravo. You have a valid point. And it is trivially true for all people.

In spite of your choice of some abrasive phrasing, it seems you've gotten the point. I don't deny that in the simple cases independent verification is a possibility, but it is not always possible. The spectrum ranges from these simple cases to cases where verification is possible but not convenient, possible but risky, hypothetically possible but not practically possible, and then finally there are cases where verification is not possible.

I already gave some examples where verification is hypothetically possible, but not practical - the examples involving physics. It's hypothetically possible that I could send another spacecraft to replicate Voyager's journey and verify what they uncovered ... and its easy to proclaim such possibilities on an Internet forum ... but we both know that ain't gonna happen. So, I have to trust those who sent Voyager.

So, do I understand you correctly that there is no situation wherein you would concede it is impossible to verify a claim, but reasonable to trust who told it to you?

 

[Obliquinaut]

Let me be precise to make sure we are clear. So, in one use (Roman Catholic, RCC) the history of the church is not at all primarily associated with that term

It seems you want precision but just not in terms of the language you use. You use "revelation" in a very loose manner. I was attempting to clarify it in light of your usage of religious commentary (your use of "theology" and "non-believers" in the earlier posts).

Again, I apologize that I misinterpretted you. It is clear you do not want any such precision in regards to this term "revelation".

with you as that has been the focus of my history program. I'd like to dispel the idea that church history is RCC history.

Yet the Catholic Encyclopedia, if you were at all familiar with it, references in detail early church fathers. Granted the discussion of "revelation" is not quite as in-depth in early church father writing on this, it does cover at great length detailed critiques of and explanations of the concept of revelation as it relates to religious thought.

Again, the reason I went with the Catholics was that they have a very detailed discussion of the precise language and terminology. It is clear that that is NOT what you want.

Again, the Catholic Encyclopedia was chosen not because I wanted to limit it only to some "Catholic interpretation...you should be more aware of reference materials. The Catholic Encyclopedia often extensively quotes and references the early church fathers, 2nd century etc. It is a good source of technical detail on concepts, especially related to religion, a topic you introduced to the thread.)

In spite of your choice of some abrasive phrasing, it seems you've gotten the point.

Yes, your point is trivially true. People say things that others believe without checking it. I honestly don't see that that statement has any real value in relation to knowledge.

So, do I understand you correctly that there is no situation wherein you would concede it is impossible to verify a claim, but reasonable to trust who told it to you?

You phrased that maladroitly. My "trust" of the person is not contingent upon whether I can verify their statements. If you mean "will I accept as true a statement made by someone that I trust but the content of which I cannot verify", then I'd have to say as a rule I would not. (Note, that is a very different matter from what you said).

That does not mean that I lose trust for that person overall. It merely means that I will accept contingently, that point. If it becomes a case of it mattering how I move forward with my own choices or life and there is anything important hinging on that statement I would NOT act without verification of that information. (And if I were to act on that information I would assume that I was making an error. In other words I will buy a product based on a salesman's pitch but I will not assume that it is "as advertised" and if it breaks I will hold them responsible for the bad information.)

You have made a trivial point based on a common, imprecise, non-technical definition. I don't see how that has provided any real value to epistemology.[/quote][/quote]

 

[Resha Caner]

It seems you want precision but just not in terms of the language you use. You use "revelation" in a very loose manner. I was attempting to clarify it in light of your usage of religious commentary (your use of "theology" and "non-believers" in the earlier posts).

Oy vey. I'm glad you tried to clarify. But why would I subscribe to something that doesn't represent my view? And I didn't invent a new meaning for the word. My usage is perfectly acceptable. Why is clarification of terms such an irritant to you?

Yet the Catholic Encyclopedia, if you were at all familiar with it, references in detail early church fathers.

And? You think Lutheran sources don't? Luther was an Augustinian monk. The Reformation is sometimes cast as an argument between the Augustinians and the Dominicans. No doubt that was a factor, but it shouldn't be overplayed. Anyway, the point is that the RCC went the Dominican (Scholastic) route and the Lutherans went the (somewhat modified) Augustinian route. So, their interpretations of the early church fathers are different.

It's a digression, but that's part of what has the RCC in a tizzy right now. Pope Francis is a Jesuit, who at one time were the unacceptable radicals.

You phrased that maladroitly. My "trust" of the person is not contingent upon whether I can verify their statements. If you mean "will I accept as true a statement made by someone that I trust but the content of which I cannot verify", then I'd have to say as a rule I would not. (Note, that is a very different matter from what you said).

That does not mean that I lose trust for that person overall. It merely means that I will accept contingently, that point. If it becomes a case of it mattering how I move forward with my own choices or life and there is anything important hinging on that statement I would NOT act without verification of that information. (And if I were to act on that information I would assume that I was making an error. In other words I will buy a product based on a salesman's pitch but I will not assume that it is "as advertised" and if it breaks I will hold them responsible for the bad information.)

Hmm. Interesting. I'm going to ask for clarification. When you say "verification" do you mean exclusively direct verification? Or do you include the indirect verification related to trust that I mentioned earlier?

 

[Obliquinaut]

Oy vey. I'm glad you tried to clarify. But why would I subscribe to something that doesn't represent my view?

I prefer precision in language. Unlike some who merely claim that they are focused on it, I actually am. And since I also know something about the history of Christianity (apart from just the one I was raised in) I assumed we were focused on precise technical terminology.

And I didn't invent a new meaning for the word. My usage is perfectly acceptable. Why is clarification of terms such an irritant to you?

LOL. So much for your much vaunted use of "precision" in language. No one said your use was something you simply made up. I am merely pointing out how imprecise you are with language.

Look at your OP: you asked about "proof" in science. It sounded like you were using the term technically but in reality you were doing no such thing. You were using the "Common" meaning which is not related to its technical variant in the sciences.

And? You think Lutheran sources don't?

Oh, so you cited a lutheran reference that outlined the technical definition of "revelation"? I must have missed that. Oh, wait, you weren't using any technical or precise definition of the word. You just wanted to slip in some theology here and there and hope no one noticed enough to note the technical definition of the term you were using as it relates to theology. Got it.

Hmm. Interesting. I'm going to ask for clarification. When you say "verification" do you mean exclusively direct verification? Or do you include the indirect verification related to trust that I mentioned earlier?

Why do you continue to ask for clarification of terms when you are so imprecise on your own terms?

Such a curious position.

 

[Resha Caner]

Why do you continue to ask for clarification of terms when you are so imprecise on your own terms?

Feel free to ask for clarification any time you need it. Are you refusing to answer my request?

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

... You're missing out on a lot. Maybe try shutting off your mind and just smelling a rose once.

Ignoring the fact that you need your mind to be active to appreciate the scent of a rose, this point was best answered by the late Richard Feynman's 'Ode to a flower':

 

[Resha Caner]

Ignoring the fact that you need your mind to be active to appreciate the scent of a rose, this point was best answered by the late Richard Feynman's 'Ode to a flower'

I love Feynman. Have you ever read Surely You're Joking Mr. Feynman? When one comes across elegance in mathematics, it is truly awe inspiring. I get that. I just find it curious that anytime an artists expresses their appreciation for the beauty of a flower, their geeky techy friend has to counter that. Just let it be.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

I love Feynman. Have you ever read Surely You're Joking Mr. Feynman? When one comes across elegance in mathematics, it is truly awe inspiring. I get that. I just find it curious that anytime an artists expresses their appreciation for the beauty of a flower, their geeky techy friend has to counter that. Just let it be.

Er, nobody was countering the appreciation; what they were countering was the idea that they ought to shut off their mind to smell a rose.

And, yes, I've read quite a few Feynman books - Surely You're Joking Mr. Feynman?, What Do You Care What Other People Think, Tuva Or Bust!, Six Easy Pieces, Six Not-So-Easy Pieces, The Character Of Physical Law, QED - The Strange Theory Of Light And Matter, Some Time With Feynman, etc.

 

[Kylie]

The trick is in determining if they are contradictory. For example, at one point in history you could have argued that "a photon is a particle" and "a photon is a wave" are contradictory statements. Turns out, they aren't. A photon can be a particle or a wave.

Technically, it isn't either, but something that can behave like them.

 

[Kylie]

True in the sense that nothing can be known absolutely unless it is revealed by an omniscient source. However, I'm quite sure our non-believing friends have accommodated themselves to the idea that nothing will ever be known absolutely.

This logic is contradictory.

If we can't know that anything is true unless it is revealed by an omniscient source, then how can we know that the source, when it appears to us to communicate this knowledge, is actually omniscient? In what way could we prove it isn't just a very intelligent but non-omniscient being?

 

[Queller]

3) As I use the term "revelation", not only is it independent of deity, it is independent of religion (and those two are pretty closely tied). When someone tells me the Royals won last night, that is revelation. I'm not asking them for certification from the MLB of that result. Further, if I trust the person, I don't immediately go check ESPN to confirm their statement. I take it on trust that they have knowledge I don't, and accept their revelation on trust without evidence of the truth of that specific statement.

If you don't operate in that manner in at least some parts of your life ... if you do demand MLB certification or run to ESPN to check every statement your friend makes about sports ... wow.

While that may be a definition of "revelation" in a technical sense, in practical terms and especially on a site such as this, that is a pretty non-standard use of the term. Having read through the thread including your discussion with Obliquinaut, I can understand why someone would think that you are speaking of revelation in religious terms. Especially when you say this:

As I said, truth in theology comes from revelation.

There you are explicitly tying your use of the term "revelation" to theology.

 

[Obliquinaut]

Feel free to ask for clarification any time you need it. Are you refusing to answer my request?

Why aren't you answering my question? You want precision in terms that everyone else uses but you don't seem to bother with precision.

I'll answer your question, I just want you to think about the way you are presenting your points.

If someone says something "factual" to me and it requires that I truly believe it to act on it then it is important to me to verify it. You seem to think that the only verification is direct observation, a la Hume or some other form that is opaque to me. I simply need to verify as that term is usually interpretted whether it is true or not. That can simply mean confirmation from an independent source.

My friend, whom I trust, says "Company X is a strong investment that has shown enormous growth over the last 4 quarters, you should invest", I will NOT simply go invest in Company X. I will look at their stock price over the past couple of years, I will read up on the company's public filings and disclosures of their business.

And I may even go read other investor's experience with this company.

You see I don't need to physically see the piles of money the company has.

I hope that clarifies the point.

I can generate countless other examples for you if you like. Many variant versions, some in which I can actually verify the information with my own eyes, some that will require measurement, etc.

But it really doesn't matter, your position, such as it is, is rendered relatively trivially since you don't have any actual technical precision to the terms you use. I don't see why I need to have such technical precision when answering your questions.

 

[Resha Caner]

If we can't know that anything is true unless it is revealed by an omniscient source, then how can we know that the source, when it appears to us to communicate this knowledge, is actually omniscient? In what way could we prove it isn't just a very intelligent but non-omniscient being?

We can't. I never meant to imply we can know such a thing.