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.
For me, the word "true" implies having the state of being true; it may be that we can never know what is actually true, and can only explore the world with (hopefully) increasing levels of accuracy. If you explore the world looking for "truth", the process would entail finding "truth", being wrong (as we historically have been), finding a new "truth", being wrong, finding yet another "truth", etc. Compound that with how the word is used in the religious vernacular; each religionist claims to have their "truth", even when those "truths" are mutually exclusive, reducing "truth" to "opinion". If I am only striving for accuracy, it allows for me to shift my position on the fly with the exposure to new information.I did have some misgivings about using the term “faith” there because of the fideistic baggage it tends to carry with it. My point is that there are some beliefs we hold -- indeed, that we must hold if we're to be rational -- that can't be justified by any other beliefs that we hold, and one of those beliefs is that our cognitive faculties are generally reliable for producing accurate/true (not quite seeing the accurate/true distinction you're trying to make, I don't think) beliefs.
I do not know what you mean by "genuine knowledge". I know that the sun comes up each morning following the schedule published in the local paper, and sets accordingly. I know this can be calculated years into the future and past. Does the Sun orbit the Earth? No.Ultimately, all of the beliefs we hold -- including all the beliefs we have regarding the established methods and/or instruments we use, and any beliefs we might come to hold that would lessen our confidence in them -- are founded upon a belief that our cognitive faculties are generally oriented toward producing accurate/true beliefs (if they're working as they should, that is). If we didn't hold this belief, then we'd have to relinquish confidence in our faculties to deliver to us genuine knowledge.
That I can work with, but it seems that the religious would exempt their religious beliefs from such process. Does this describe you?Well, first of all, what I'm talking about there is a necessary condition for a belief to be true, not how we determine whether or not a belief is true. But that aside, I think that there is some way that the world actually is, and I trust that my cognitive faculties are generally reliable to discover it, even if they need to be assisted by certain methods and/or instruments.
To expand on what I said earlier, the truth is absolute, and exclusive; accuracy allows for context and perspective, and is not necessarily exclusive. It is accurate to say that the Sun sets at about 9 pm at this time of year at this latitude, but I can also say that the Earth rotates so as to occlude the Sun at that same time without an apparent contradiction.Again, I don't think I quite understand your distinction between truth and accuracy.
Sure, and I hold them to the same standards of evaluating their cognitive abilities, assisted the same methods and/or instruments you allude to above.But we need to rely on our own faculties to tell us whether those of others are reliable and trustworthy.
this has to do with where the "hand off" occurs. It may seem, from the first person perspective, that one is directly in control of ones cognitive abilities; this can be shown to be demonstrably false, through certain experiments and illusions, particularly illusions where they effect does not go away even when you understand intellectually that it is only an illusion, such as here where the two squares (A, B) are actually the same shade of grey.I'll admit that I'm not very familiar with Metzinger's work, but I'm not quite seeing its relevance to what we're discussing here. Regardless of whether your faculties hand your beliefs off to your “phenomenal self” or not, I still submit that you confide in their ability to deliver beliefs that are accurate/true more often than not, generally speaking.
As an ignostic, I wonder what you mean by "God" in this context. If this is the "God" of the Bible, it would seem odd that belief in the "God who is the source of all goods is also the principle of all knowledge.” would at the same time require one to believe that the vast majority of scientific knowledge is wildly inaccurate.Gottfried Leibniz once remarked that “in fact, metaphysics is natural theology, and the same God who is the source of all goods is also the principle of all knowledge.”
I have participated in several threads recently and called out where the theologies in which the "God" is portrayed as morally bankrupt (holding one responsible for things beyond ones control) and unethical (as a judge presiding over their own interests). this has been met with a variety of responses, from reluctant acceptance (and then being put on ignore) to wild, repeated rounds of evasion and obfuscation. Fascinating to observe.It can hardly be denied that God is portrayed in a less-than-savory manner in parts of the Bible, but those who would take such passages and use them to formulate twisted theologies that turn Him into a tyrannical monster would do well to realize that the fundamentals of goodness and reason aren't learned from the pages of any book -- not even the most hallowed of books. A God truly worthy of worship would have to be as Leibniz says -- the ultimate source of all goods and principle of all knowledge -- and any theology that doesn't comport with a healthy foundational understanding of reason and goodness, as gleaned from God's self-revelation through nature, should be consigned to the flames.
That image was pulled from his own website.Yes, I agree.
I have to admit, that outfit does suit him!
But my task here is not to convince others, but to see if such individuals can coherently justify their level on conviction, and what happens when they fail to do so. Some get downright nasty.I'll take it that by “observer” you mean someone other than the person who's had the experience firsthand. If so, then I think such an assessment can be justified (from that perspective, that is). It might even ultimately be correct as well. For someone who's had such an experience firsthand, however, I think trying to convince him that it was “wholly imagined” would be a rather difficult task, to say the least.
I don't worry about that. If what is perceived as reality is persistent, testable, and predictable, then it can be treated as reality until it behaves otherwise.I think in much the same way as one knows that the world he perceives around him is really real, and he isn't just a brain floating in a vat being experimented on by aliens (or what have you).
I am still not sure of what you mean by "religious experience", but I assume from this context that you mean "an experience that is very convincing yet does not otherwise comport with observations of reality". Is that accurate?I believe that the world I perceive with my natural senses is real and not some illusion, but I can't strictly prove that it's real. It's at least possible (or at the very least conceivable) that it's just an illusion. I'd account for my religious experiences in much the same way, and if you were to have such an experience, I think you would too. You'd have an unshakable conviction that what you'd experienced wasn't just an illusion or hallucination or something of the like, but that you'd experienced something real, even if you couldn't strictly prove it.
There are many here that would disagree with you. It seems that they need only tell you of their beliefs, or be aware of the Bible, and you are now [hypothetically] accountable, in their theology, for not believing in their "God" in their particular fashion/denomination, and you subject to any consequences that may be applicable for failing to believe (cue fire and brimstone) .If such claims fail to convince you, then they fail to convince you, and in such a case as this, it seems to me you'd be perfectly justified in not being convinced.
I see no such distinction, make no such distinction, and picked those examples specially for their lack of apparent distinction.Tales of perpetual motion machines and immortality drugs seem to be of the sort that can be scientifically tested, whereas it has been my experience that claims of religious experience tend not to be of the sort that can be scientifically tested.
Okay. Apply that to your religious experiences. What do we get?If they claim their experiences to have relayed to them information on how to make such things, and if that information turns out to be demonstrably false, then I think we can safely say that those experiences were not genuine.
Iranaeus, Polycarp and Josephus I would call plenty close enough to that time to tell us what happened.
days of John the apostle - and Revelation
John lived at the time of Jesus Christ...all the way to even
gaining the Book of Revelation.
Links can be found such as Word and how John said in Rev. 14
that he saw One like the Son of man - as in this is John the apostle that saw the transfiguration of Christ.
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?