Archaeopteryx
Wanderer
Okay, so show that we are intellectually obligated to assent to the claims of your religion.
Upvote
0
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.
If an expression (an assertion, a truth claim) is properly formed (comports with proper epistemic responsibilities); and if that belief is not contradicted by other evidence or in conflict with known facts, then it is intellectually appropriate to accept the expression as true, even if tentatively. To refuse to accept a justified assertion, with no justification for rejecting it, is intellectually irresponsible. Since your only reason for rejecting the assertion that divine revelation is a reality seems to be circular reasoning, then you've failed your intellectual duty to be objective.
Okay, so show that we are intellectually obligated to assent to the claims of your religion.
In the context that they use it, it would seem that they consider "truth" synonymous with their religion, or their opinion, such as at the bottom of post #56 of this thread, where the poster has a "truth" that does not appear to comport with reality.
Noted.
Then I am not wrong, as that is not what I have done. I have reached tentative conclusions, based on the evidence (or lack thereof) at hand. If someone were to demonstrate that "divine revelation" was more than simply a product of the imagination, I will change my position accordingly.
In what way do the teachings of Christianity comport with realty?
Who gets to decide what is meant by "properly warrant"? You?
I have no idea what you mean by "justified" true belief. If it is true what would it need to be justified?
Need I justify that the Earth rotates and orbits the Sun? Need I justify that the Earth is not flat?
In the context that they use it, it would seem that they consider "truth" synonymous with their religion, or their opinion, such as at the bottom of post #56 of this thread, where the poster has a "truth" that does not appear to comport with reality.
Then I am not wrong, as that is not what I have done. I have reached tentative conclusions, based on the evidence (or lack thereof) at hand.
In what way do the teachings of Christianity comport with realty?
My goodness, are you not aware that there are rather well established criteria for properly grounding claims? Plantinga talks about this extensively, if you can wade through his work. Sudduth discusses it. Numerous others do. Three kinds of Knowledge; three elements to proper knowledge; epistemic duties (generally); there is considerable material out there on this...Who gets to decide what is meant by "properly warrant"? You?
I have no idea what you mean by "justified" true belief.
If it is true what would it need to be justified?
Need I justify that the Earth rotates and orbits the Sun? Need I justify that the Earth is not flat?
sigh... For ANY truth assertion, regardless of the topic or the source, if the assertion meets the criteria then one (anyone) has an intellectual obligation to accept it or to justify rejecting it. This is not just true for religious claims, it is true for any claim to truth. Given that the criteria for justified belief are met and the epistemic responsibilities are fulfilled, then one has an intellectual obligation to accept it.
Now Christianity is in fact the only extant religious view which argues its claims are historically verifiable and reliable. But that has nothing to do with the subject at hand, which is one's epistemic duty to acknowledge truth.
The problem is that there are far more religions that argue that their claims are historically verifiable and reliable. For example, Islam.
However like Islam, Christianity has not met it's burden of proof. Belief in Christianity ultimately requires some form of faith in place of actual evidence. Therefore, it's not a justifiable belief, and the intellectual obligation is to withhold belief until it can demonstrate its claims.
The problem is that there are far more religions that argue that their claims are historically verifiable and reliable.
Belief in Christianity ultimately requires some form of faith in place of actual evidence.
Actually, no, there are not: not a single other religion makes that claim. Even Judaism, which could make the claim, refuses to do so, because if the claim is proved true then they must accept the same evidence for the NT claims. Now I have been a student of this subject for several decades, and I can assure you no other religion makes the claim. Look into it...
You must be using that term ('faith') in a manner different from my understanding. Historically, the notion that 'faith' only applied where there is no evidence was nonsense. Biblically it is absolutely false. Practically, faith is commonly understood to be based either in experience or reputation. In the Christian Church, "blind faith" (blind belief without evidence) is actually heresy.
I know of a fairly complete monograph on the subject if you're interested.
You must be using that term ('faith') in a manner different from my understanding. Historically, the notion that 'faith' only applied where there is no evidence was nonsense. Biblically it is absolutely false. Practically, faith is commonly understood to be based either in experience or reputation. In the Christian Church, "blind faith" (blind belief without evidence) is actually heresy.
I know of a fairly complete monograph on the subject if you're interested.
I've spoken with a number of adherents of other religions, and that claim has indeed been made by them in support of their religions.
If taking the claims of adherents is not good enough, well, that's ultimately all Christianity has going for it as well.
Let me simplify my point. After having hundreds of debates, and after watching many other debates by professional theologians, after you press long enough for a Christian to back up their statements with some evidence, ultimately they'll admit their belief is rooted in faith.
I have never seen anybody put forward concrete evidence for their theological beliefs at all. I must conclude after this amount of time and the amount of looking that I've done, if someone had concrete evidence I'd have almost certainly seen it by now.
I've spoken with a number of adherents of other religions, and that claim has indeed been made by them in support of their religions.
Let me simplify my point. After having hundreds of debates, and after watching many other debates by professional theologians, after you press long enough for a Christian to back up their statements with some evidence, ultimately they'll admit their belief is rooted in faith.
I have never seen anybody put forward concrete evidence for their theological beliefs at all.
If you have evidence to support a certain position, why exactly is "faith" required?
When I turn on a light switch in my house, I don't have faith it will go on, I "trust" that it will go on, based on the evidence of it working every time I flip the switch.
I don't have faith the sun will come up tomorrow, I trust the sun will come up tomorrow, based on many successful times that it has.
I do have faith my favorite baseball team will win the World Series in the next 10 years, even though they have not won one in my lifetime.
If you have evidence to support a certain position, why exactly is "faith" required?
When I turn on a light switch in my house, I don't have faith it will go on, I "trust" that it will go on, based on the evidence of it working every time I flip the switch.
I don't have faith the sun will come up tomorrow, I trust the sun will come up tomorrow, based on many successful times that it has.
I do have faith my favorite baseball team will win the World Series in the next 10 years, even though they have not won one in my lifetime.
sigh... For ANY truth assertion, regardless of the topic or the source, if the assertion meets the criteria then one (anyone) has an intellectual obligation to accept it or to justify rejecting it. This is not just true for religious claims, it is true for any claim to truth. Given that the criteria for justified belief are met and the epistemic responsibilities are fulfilled, then one has an intellectual obligation to accept it.
Now Christianity is in fact the only extant religious view which argues its claims are historically verifiable and reliable. But that has nothing to do with the subject at hand, which is one's epistemic duty to acknowledge truth.
How are you using that term ("faith")? I use it exactly as it is used commonly, and as it is used in scripture. Faith is belief that something is true or someone is trustworthy, on the basis of either experience or reputation.
By the common (and the biblical) definition, that is precisely faith.
Precisely: you trust (have faith) that it is true based on experience.
But that is NOT faith: that is hope. And depending on the team, one might say it is gullibility.
We are referring to 'faith' in the religious sense, which is a strong belief in something without evidence*, not the common usage, which is simply a synonym for confidence, trust or hope. The many meanings of the word provide ample ground for equivocation, so let's be clear that we are talking about 'faith' in the religious sense.
*I would amend that to belief regardless of the evidence.
My conversations with the religious.Then I would challenge your conclusion that "faith in the religious sense" is anything like that. I know without doubt that biblically that is not faith; I know without doubt that in Christianity, that is Fideism, a heresy. I know exactly what the term means in the Bible and in Christian doctrine; so I'm interested in your justification for that definition.
Yes, he was all over the place. I wonder where he went?I'm using the word the way it is used in most professional literature: how do others use it?
I'm afraid I'm having a little trouble finding this truth claim you refer to: I'm struggling with the entire post, but I'm not seeing what you suggest.
If he were trying to use the word "truth" to mean "what he believed to be true", then yes, he is trying to change the meaning of the word.Aside from that, the fact that some people might make a truth claim that is in error does not change the meaning of the term, does it?
I would like to see where I said that. Got a link?Then both rationally and epistemically you would be wrong. Only if one engages circular reasoning is there a justification to presume that any claim of divine revelation is ispo facto imaginary.
Ah, so you have some actual evidence that divine revelation is always imaginary? I'd like to see that.
Where did I state this?Otherwise, you appear to be presuming it is imaginary, based on your presupposition
No, it is based on the inability of religionists to show otherwise.that such things are not real;
Only if you misrepresent what I have said.which is circular reasoning.
In Plato's time, perhaps. Can we bring this discussion into the 21st century? Or would that be awkward for you?"Actually I don't think I've made any claims that I cannot justify."
But to properly warrant a claim to knowledge, I merely have to properly warrant the belief.
My goodness, are you not aware that there are rather well established criteria for properly grounding claims? Plantinga talks about this extensively, if you can wade through his work. Sudduth discusses it. Numerous others do. Three kinds of Knowledge; three elements to proper knowledge; epistemic duties (generally); there is considerable material out there on this...
Knowledge is justified true belief.
Um, Theory of Knowledge? Knowledge is "justified true belief"?
I like working with those examples, as they comport with realty (though scientific observations) but are not proven to be true.Really?
Actually, yes, you do, if those claims are challenged. Now the ones you offer are so generally accepted it is unlikely anyone will doubt them; but when they were relatively new then they required justification in order to warrant belief.
Indeed. How does it relate to what I asked?But for any truth claim, other than those which qualify as intuitive knowledge,
it is appropriate to ask "why do you believe that is true" in the absence of obvious justification.
From some other material:
An Opinion is a statement of something we think or feel or prefer. An expression of personal value or perspective. Opinions are subjective and relative. An opinion may correspond to a truth, but not necessarily. Opinions may be defensible, but do not need to be. I think dogs are better than cats is an opinion.
An Assertion (Truth Assertion or Truth Claim Factual Statement Declarative Statement) is a statement put forth as a truth claim, or fact.
Often assertions are made without offering any supporting reasoning or evidence. This is a common practice, usually based on the expectation that the truth of the assertion is recognized by those who hear it. As long as no one challenges the truthfulness of the assertion, there is no problem. Dogs are better than cats is a truth assertion. An assertion is a claim to knowledge (which well get to in a moment). Often, we erroneously present opinions as assertions (as above), then when we are challenged we have problems defending them. The above assertion is a claim that something is objectively true, when it is actually merely an opinion improperly stated as a truth claim. a proper truth assertion would be "I likedogs better than cats."
An Argument is generally speaking, an assertion or a truth claim, along with reasons or evidence to support that claim.
An argument makes a claim to truth, with justification or reasoning in support of the claim. In Philosophy, debate and Critical Thinking, an argument that cannot be justified is no more than an opinion: it carries no persuasive value or authority. There are good arguments (sound logically and factually) and there are bad arguments (badly structured, flawed in logic or fact). Not all good arguments are presented persuasively, and not all persuasive arguments are good. Likewise, not all bad arguments are obviously bad, and not all unconvincing arguments are bad arguments (one may have a true point but argue it poorly). Dogs are better than cats, because this book says so is an argument. It may not be a very good argument, but it meets the form.
There is a LOT of material on this subject out there...
Agreed. Best to keep the "teachings of Christianity" far way from the topic of what comports with reality.Well, while I do indeed assert that the teachings of Christianity are true, what has that to do with our topic?
Off topic. Be happy to engage that conversation, but it carries us far from our topic.
Interesting that you are willing to believe anything someone tells you, yet you accuse Christians of being unreasonable in their beliefs. There is not (to my knowledge) a single religious group which makes an official claim that their teachings and principles are historically verifiable and reliable. As to an individual making such a claim, I'd have to see the claim and then ask for justification.
Not any theologian I know, and I know a few, personally. And while some Christians may make that statement, it simply is not true biblically or historically. Faith (biblical faith) is indeed inherent to our Christianity; but the notion that believing something absent proper justification is known as Fideism, and has been identified as heresy for hundreds of years.
Where you get your information is not within my control. However, there are plenty of them out there. If you want some references on material that justifies the fundamental teachings of Christianity, I can provide several.
My conversations with the religious.
My conversations with the religious.
Sorry for the long delay in getting back, folks: still having internet problems.
Then I would challenge your conclusion that "faith in the religious sense" is anything like that. I know without doubt that biblically that is not faith; I know without doubt that in Christianity, that is Fideism, a heresy. I know exactly what the term means in the Bible and in Christian doctrine; so I'm interested in your justification for that definition.
Well, I am religious, and I refute that use of the term. And I can justify that, if you like.
Go ahead.
Go ahead.
Then I would challenge your conclusion that "faith in the religious sense" is anything like that. I know without doubt that biblically that is not faith; I know without doubt that in Christianity, that is Fideism, a heresy. I know exactly what the term means in the Bible and in Christian doctrine; so I'm interested in your justification for that definition.
Well, I am religious, and I refute that use of the term. And I can justify that, if you like.
OK. That will take a bit, and I'll have to pull my notes. I'll get it posted this morning...
Yes, he was all over the place. I wonder where he went?
If he were trying to use the word "truth" to mean "what he believed to be true", then yes, he is trying to change the meaning of the word.
I would like to see where I said that. Got a link?
Where did I state this?
Do I need to be here, if you are going to carry both sides of this exchange?
No, it is based on the inability of religionists to show otherwise.
Only if you misrepresent what I have said.
In Plato's time, perhaps. Can we bring this discussion into the 21st century? Or would that be awkward for you?
I like working with those examples, as they comport with realty (though scientific observations) but are not proven to be true.
Indeed. How does it relate to what I asked?
Agreed. Best to keep the "teachings of Christianity" far way from the topic of what comports with reality.
I would like to see where I said that. Got a link?
Now either you have evidence, or you dont. Which is it?Then I am not wrong, as that is not what I have done. I have reached tentative conclusions, based on the evidence (or lack thereof) at hand.
Where did I state this?
No, it is based on the inability of religionists to show otherwise.
Only if you misrepresent what I have said.
In Plato's time, perhaps. Can we bring this discussion into the 21st century? Or would that be awkward for you?
Indeed. How does it relate to what I asked?
Agreed. Best to keep the "teachings of Christianity" far way from the topic of what comports with reality.
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?