Why I Was Wrong...

[Ouroboros]

*points wand*  Crucio!

 

Dang, nothing happened.  I wonder why?

You didn't flip the wand correctly, and maybe you need one with IPU hair in it.

[Amethyst]

You didn't flip the wand correctly, and maybe you need one with IPU hair in it.

 

Whatever you say, Hermione.

[MrSpooky]

Wow. Epistemological Skepticism. My specialty.

 

It looks like you run into a bit of a Cartesian Circular Argument here, Reality. I'll take a closer look later, but I don't think I'll be terrifically impressed.

 

An elaboration on the Cartesian Circular Argument:

 

1. Man is fallible, ergo knowledge is (theoretically) impossible.

2. A perfect being exists and therefore to ensure a reliable use of reason. (Descartes proved this using the Ontological Argument for God's existence)

3. However, 2 can only be derived only if it is firmly established that rational inquiry is possible. No such evidence precedes it.

 

The result is a circular argument:

 

'How do you avoid reasoning in a circle when you say that we are sure that what we clearly and distinctly perceive is true only because God exists, yet we are sure that God exists only because we clearly and distinctly perceive this?'

[Guest reality]

Alright, this is the last one.

 

Here's that big load of replies I promised - mostly to things on the old thread - and maybe 1 or 2 to some new ones. I think that most of these have been answered at least in part by that huge thing at the top of this thread, but I'm going to clarify some more.

 

 

MrSpooky writes:

-------

It looks like you run into a bit of a Cartesian Circular Argument here, Reality. I'll take a closer look later, but I don't think I'll be terrifically impressed.

 

...

 

'How do you avoid reasoning in a circle when you say that we are sure that what we clearly and distinctly perceive is true only because God exists, yet we are sure that God exists only because we clearly and distinctly perceive this?'

-------

THANK YOU for the post - this is an example of how these boards can be truly useful!

 

MrSpooky is exactly right. DesCartes argument is OBVIOUSLY circular (just like his ontological argument - or Anselm's) - and that is exactly my point. My point is that we're NOT sure whether or not God exists. It's faith either way.

 

There is NO REASON that is not based on blind acceptance of one thing or another. This is how bad the thinking human's plight is. All of our prior probablities for determining what to believe are, in the end, chosen completely arbitrarily. Therefore, it is as reasonable to believe that the Christian God exists as it is to believe that anything exists. This includes Santa Claus, Earth in 2005 AD, and your left shoe.

 

Descartes is also right that the only thing that could possibly save you from this process of uncertainty would be an Ultimate that is guiding your life and thought toward itself from outside the circle. And that is why I think it is perfectly reasonable for ME (or anyone else who may think similarly) to believe Christianity.

 

Everybody please read and understand this paragraph:

 

I AM NOT TRYING TO CONVERT YOU - I am instead telling you why it is entirely reasonable to trust the Christian God for anybody who is lead to do so. Most people on this site are obviously not lead in that way, and so it would be foolish to try and somehow argue or debate with them.

 

 

Kryten writes:

--------

I think you missed my point-- which was that a book full of errors CANNOT BE FROM GOD!! You can think whatever you want about the bible, and use it as a guide for you life or to smack people upside their heads-- but the errors in it PROVE that it can't be AUTHORED BY AN INTELLIGENT GOD! It MUST be man-made. Once you accept this reality, the whole basis for the Christian faith goes out the window.

-------

Yes, I heard you, and I hope you did not miss my point: Yes, it IS man-made... and yes, it also CAN still contain the Word of God. Errors, if they exist, would plainly be from human authors and not God's guidance.

 

In response to other people - this is likewise the case with other things. The history of various church denominations, along with many unspeakable atrocities that have been committed in the name of "God", are something to blame on a fallen world, on misguided (and often downright stupid) people... but not God. "Never judge an idea by those who claim to follow it" is a principle that is true of anything worth following, IMHO. Freedom, peace, any religion in the world, you name it.

 

 

 

Dr. Funkenstein writes:

-------

when the resident of Sim City sees things happening throughout the city that have no logical cause within his computer-generated world, he can logically come to the conclusion that an entity may exist outside his world that is influencing his world.

 

We don't see any events happening in our world that do not have a naturalistic explanation.

-------

Here is where I differ in my perception of the world from many of you. Sure, it may be true (Mr. Neil) that science has a perfect record of explaining things from natural causes that were once thought to be supernatural by some people (often including those who have called themselves "Christians" - distinguishing the idea from its human followers here). But that's what it does. That's science.

 

Regardless of that, I have to take issue with the above claim. There are still SO MANY THINGS that can NEVER be explained entirely by science. Maybe a good start would be the present existence and nature of our universe itself.

 

Notice in Sim City how you can allow random natural disasters... or every now and then, you can start them yourself. (cruel laugh - but please understand how this connects - I'm NOT saying God is evil. :-) Basically, my point is still that physicalists should share the burden of proof. Yes, people who claim miracles are making outrageous claims, but then SO ARE people who claim that there are NO miracles whatsoever. We can't escape it because we're all dealing with the same outrageous stuff.

 

 

Dr. Funkenstein also writes:

-------

I could ask someone else to check for me... and over the many years of my life having not been bitten by a little green man on the ankles I could come to a reasonable conclusion that there is no alien running around permanently out of my field of vision.

 

We can know things to a degree of certainty that allows us to live our lives.

-------

This is exactly my point. You only "know" this by sensory experience and induction... which means you really don't KNOW it at all. There is no certainty here. You may BELIEVE or HAVE FAITH in things to a degree of certainty that allows you to live your life, but no human can KNOW. What we TRUST is a matter of practicality - I choose to trust that this world is much as it appears to me. I may be correct or incorrect in the end, but either side I take here would be justified... just like any issue you can ever think of (besides the few ones that ARE really certain - like "something exists.")

 

 

Thomas writes:

-------

Your view is not in line with traditional Christianity. Try for example to read Thomas Aquinas. According to him, the existence of God can be proved.

 

Therefore I am happy to declare, that from a Christian point of view, you are a heretic

-------

The fact that someone does not agree with Thomas Aquinas does not a heretic make... and I assume you're really aware that you or I would have a hard time defining THE "Christian point of view." :-)

 

 

Bongo writes:

-------

If biblegod exists, then he owes us a hell of a lot more than a bible to explain himself. He put us here, gave us a document written by legions of ancients, edited and compiled by later ancients so it all makes sense according to what they already believed, and that's that. Now if we dont believe this thing, we die horribly forever.

-------

This is another place I obviously differ in my views. As The Ultimate, who created all of humanity, the universe, set in place truth, morality, and established just what each of these should be... what would God actually OWE any human being?

 

What could a God like this - if He exists - possibly OWE to anybody? Nothing - especially not to a human like me who cannot even understand what He is doing. To think that God would owe anything to anyone seems - at least to me - to be such an incredibly proud view of things - not understanding what this whole idea of "god" really means. This is like our friend the Sim City resident demanding explanations from Bill Gates (or Will Wright - whichever you prefer.)

 

 

Saviourmachine writes:

-------

Certainty is orthogonal to truth. You can be right and certain, you can be wrong and certain, you can be right and dubious, you can be wrong and dubious. 2. Truth is embedded in human semantics. If you define 'truth' and subsequently says that this definition is vacuous, than that's inaptitude.

-------

This is a GREAT post addressing a very important issue. (Thanks for two good points!)

 

On point 1: I agree completely. You may TURN OUT IN THE END to be any combination of those four. In addition, you MAY know with 100% certainty that you are right about some things. My point was that either way, that certainty is still not worth much because of the "definitional" knowledge - this is to say - I may be certain that I am sitting down in a chair right now - but I really have no idea EXACTLY what I, or the chair, or even now really IS. I cannot know the true DEFINITIONS of things. We cannot be certain about those kinds of things because there is always something we could be missing or failing to take into account.

 

On point 2: Well, the WORD "truth" is embedded in human semantics. Truth itself, though - is existence, is reality, is being, is metaphysical consistancy on as many planes as possible. So there IS truth - whatever it turns out to be when all is said and done. That fact is inescapable because there is already existence. The problem is that a human does not (and at least as far as I can see, cannot) know truth in any way really worth knowing... much less attempt to DEFINE it.

 

 

Mr. Neil:

 

Mr. Neil has written a lot of responses on the first thread - most of which I think I've ended up at least trying to address in that behemoth at the top of this new thread, and in subsequent clarifications. I want to give a special thanks to him, as he has been one of the more respectful (and respectable) people I have encountered during my time here. He has kept everything relatively professional, civil, rational, on topic, and basically has NOT done much of anything on that list I described at the top of this thread. He also brought up some really great points that made me think.

 

 

pritishd writes:

-------Mmmmmm So r u saying in your chosen belief/religion you do not follow rules? Please demonstrate how Protestant christianity is not a rule based religion. And please Catholism is not a different religion. Catholics are christians too.

-------

I did say SOME FORMS of Catholicism. For that matter, some forms of Protestantism fall under the same umbrella of "rules based". You are probably aware that true Christianity, however, is not about rules - it is about a personal RELATIONSHIP with God.

 

 

 

LloydDobler writes:

-------

In summary: God himself can't be disproven, but it can be proven that the bible does not describe him. This site does a fantastic job of it.

-------

 

I think a lot of you reading this would say exactly the same thing as Lloyd, more or less. Let me repeat this once again:

 

This all depends on your view of history, which translates into which historical sources you decide to trust (I think ALL of them are relatively shaky in the first place, by the way - compared to say - "There is a CD on that desk.") This ultimately translates into life experience, which is channeled via sensory input, which is subjective (now we're to less than 100%), and in the end based entirely upon your own arbitrary choice of what you will trust, and what you won't. (Which leaves us at 0% for EVERYTHING, so choose as you will.)

 

I'll repeat this once again too: First of all, if there is no absolute, then there is only uncertainty, pointlessness, agnosticism, and relativism. So be nice to each other, eh? Second of all, we really have NO WAY OF KNOWING for sure whether or not there is an absolute, or who or what that might be. So be even nicer, please.

 

(I guess this wouldn't really apply to those certain few who DO actually claim to have heard EVERYTHING before. Their superiority allows them to be hostile and antagonistic, it all makes sense now...)

 

So, you may say "sure, we can't prove or disprove deism, but we can disprove the Christian God."

 

What I've been saying is "No, you can't. In fact, you can't even prove or disprove that another human has written this text. That's how hopeless our plight is. Please refer back to what I just repeated above... and also to the part about definitional knowledge."

 

Yes, (Mr. Neil) this is entirely an appeal to ignorance. But like I said, that's ALL a human can EVER HAVE. That said, YES, there are also alternative Christian explanations for things. But I assume most of you here already know a lot of them. But you don't believe them - and that's okay - I can't expect you to.

 

Why? Once again, please see above.

 

 

 

Okay. (sigh) I think this post will be my last regular one. (Do I hear cheering from some people?) I may spend some time tying up lose ends every now and then, and will remain a member here for at least a small while if anyone wants to e-mail me. I'm definitely still available to talk... and may drop by every now and again just to see how things are going.

 

I have to say that this has all been a good experience. Sure, I've spent most of my time wondering if some people have heard a single word I said, but I imagine most of you guys get a lot of that yourselves. It's also true that there's no shortage of antagonistic posts from people whom I guess have their own issues to deal with... but there HAVE been a lot of good issues brought up here. Thank you very much to everyone for the discussion - I think it's always good just to be forced to stop and think things through again. I hope I've helped you do likewise - and wish all of you luck (or perhaps better fate...) in your search for truth.

 

~ reality

[white_raven23]

 

Is this guy a grade school teacher???

 

Reality, I'm not sure if you intend it or not, but you DO come across as condescending. You've given some of our very well educated members the text equivalent of "atta-boys" and head pats in your replies. Nothing quite like getting: "Very good boys and girls!" to be annoying. If you start passing out gold stars, I'm going to hide them in your Cheerios.

 

Shiny Poo.

[Eponymic]

I'm not sure if he's a school teacher, slut, or semantic solipsist. All I know is he seems to be willing to argue with everyone else but me.

 

I gave him a nice long post that he competely ignored.

[Eponymic]

He only answers those who fit his pre-conditions or reply worthiness.  You weren't reply worthy. 

 

You mean only those that his slanted logic isn't too scared to deal with.

[Eponymic]

True, true you adorable rat ;-)

 

tee hee

 

[Cerise]

OPTION A:

If I choose myself: I choose to trust my own theological, cosmological, and philisophical views. (Which MUST be fatally wrong in at least some area.) I trust my own judgment (what else can I do?) and go swing out into the rest of my life, then death, then eternity... based on my own reasoning... which I already know to be a dead end. (Unless Hindus are right, in which case it never mattered anyway. :-) I will live an ultimately meaningless life. Grow up, get money, breed, get old, and die. Congratulations.

 

OPTION B:

If I choose God: Then I obviously assume that He is guiding me and that I'll be okay (at least right ENOUGH about the important things). I personally find that it is not OVERLY likely that Christianity is true. But it is still definitely the best alternative to trusting myself - which I know will automatically result in death, or worse, for me. Not that Christianity IS true, but that it still could be... and that it could be more so than any other world religion. And that possibility is worth it all for me.

 

I'm still trying to figure out why reality thinks these are the only two possible options for all of humanity. Or why living as if Christianity were true would give one's life more meaning than living as if there were no God. I could be pursuaded that the two options would provoke different meanings, but not that one would provoke meaning while the other has no meaning at all.

 

[Skankboy]

If I choose God: Then I obviously assume that He is guiding me and that I'll be okay (at least right ENOUGH about the important things). I personally find that it is not OVERLY likely that Christianity is true. But it is still definitely the best alternative to trusting myself - which I know will automatically result in death, or worse, for me. Not that Christianity IS true, but that it still could be... and that it could be more so than any other world religion. And that possibility is worth it all for me.

 

First - belief out of fear is the hollowest of faiths.

 

Second - Why would you assume that it's more likely to be true than any other religion?

 

Third - You seem to want to trade a life of definite personal meaning for the possiblity of ultimate meaning that won't be realized until your life is actually over. Why is that?

 

[MrSpooky]

Reality:

 

Unfortunately you still subscribe to the postmodernist drivel of epistemological skepticism. The position is too full of contradictory and irrelevant notions and in the end reduces to uselessness.

 

The core of rational thinking still remains. You may have faith in this or that, and those articles of faith may contradict rational inquiry. However, faith doesn't keep you from being wrong.

 

I'm giving a lecture on this very topic on Friday at Berkeley.

[Kryten]

. . .

The core of rational thinking still remains.  You may have faith in this or that, and those articles of faith may contradict rational inquiry.  However, faith doesn't keep you from being wrong.

 

I'm giving a lecture on this very topic on Friday at Berkeley.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Well said. And if I may add...

 

Faith doesn't keep you from being wrong, it only keeps you from seeing it.

[Saviourmachine]

On point 1: I agree completely.  You may TURN OUT IN THE END to be any combination of those four.  In addition, you MAY know with 100% certainty that you are right about some things.  My point was that either way, that certainty is still not worth much because of the "definitional" knowledge - this is to say - I may be certain that I am sitting down in a chair right now - but I really have no idea EXACTLY what I, or the chair, or even now really IS.  I cannot know the true DEFINITIONS of things.  We cannot be certain about those kinds of things because there is always something we could be missing or failing to take into account.

 

On point 2: Well, the WORD "truth" is embedded in human semantics.  Truth itself, though - is existence, is reality, is being, is metaphysical consistancy on as many planes as possible.  So there IS truth - whatever it turns out to be when all is said and done.  That fact is inescapable because there is already existence.  The problem is that a human does not (and at least as far as I can see, cannot) know truth in any way really worth knowing... much less attempt to DEFINE it.

Certainty

1. I said that certainty and truth are orthogonal. Nothing about true definitions. In my opinion a definition is given by people and just a label we assign to objects and concepts. There is no such thing as the 'perfect' definition: a label that is unique in its perfect assignment. Every label is perfect, because it only has to relate. It's a Peircian sign (semiotics).

 

Truth & Knowledge

2. The way people see truth is very subjective. Truth is that what you define to be truth. If you disagree with that, I challenge you to describe truth in a way that doesn't fit your idea of truth.

If truth can be divided in an unknowable part and knowable part, it's senseless to haunt after the former. Only the knowable truths can be discouvered and the knowable falsehoods can be falsified using the scientific method. Further, I agree with Spooky in that I find epistemological skepticism questionable. Can you clarify yourself and your beliefs regarding this?

[Guest reality]

Okay, here's to tying up loose ends...

 

 

MrSpooky:

 

I'm sure you already realize that epistemological skepticism is NOT the same as postmodernist drivel.

 

Skepticism is THE core issue of epistemology throughout most of the recorded history of philosophy. How can we know anything? (In fact, I think those two terms may almost be thought to designate both sides of the exact same issue.)

 

 

saviourmachine:

 

On 1. I'm coming at this from a metaphysical angle, not a semantic angle. Sorry about misunderstandings going on here. People may use any term for anything they want - but my point is that there is only one truth about the way something IS. The real, full, true way that some particular thing IS... is something that a human does NOT know with certainty about much of anything.

 

On 2. So now it should be no surprise now when I say that how I describe truth is orthogonal to what truth IS. Yes, the way people see truth is very subjective - but truth itself must be OBjective by its very nature. "Something IS", and that is one fact that is inescapable.

 

While we're discussing epistemological skepticism and postmodernism, I'm getting the feeling here that you would agree with a lot of postmodernist thought.

 

Maybe you and MrSpooky are intending some kind of special connotations along with the use of "epistemological skepticism"?

 

 

(Those are both really great posts, as is Eponymic's - thanks guys. And when I say this, I am truly sorry, I REALLY DO NOT WANT TO SOUND SNOBBISH OR ARROGANT. I'm trying to make it a point to contrast good, constructive discussion with the mindless blasting that I keep seeing on here.

 

So... gold stars anybody? :-) ("ha ha - choke...")

 

 

Eponymic, just because you asked so nicely:

 

-------

Because I have accepted history (as I have studied it), and history shows that there is more evidence against Jesus & his disciples existing than for it. I'm not sure how much you've studied, but I've done quite a bit and have found plenty of sources that show that there is no reliable evidence to substantiate a verifiable claim as to the existence of Jesus.

 

Second, there is a large amount of evidence that proves the Bible to be a man made construct.

-------

Okay. You're entitled to your opinion on history of course. I agree completely that the Bible is a man made construct. But I also personally believe it to be God's message to humanity. I hope I'm entitled to my opinion as well.

 

 

-------

"There is not CERTIANTY of 100% in this context - therefore there is NOT KNOWLEDGE. There is only FAITH that Christianity either "is" or "is not" what we're looking for. Just like any religion. Just like any belief.

 

I've asked you this before. Given that it's not a certainty, how can you treat it as such?"

-------

 

It's not and I don't. Please take time to read above.

 

 

-------

"[various stuff about Darwinism]

 

This is not a relevant justification for Christianity in my mind. it more supports deism still."

-------

Yep.

 

 

-------

 

You're quite the pessimist aren't you? Just a pattern I'm seeing with your writing & opinions.

 

-------

 

Yes. Your ID says you are a skeptic. I would guess you are also to some extent.

 

 

 

-------

 

We have every authority to decide morality because we are the only ones here answering the questions. If a supreme creator exists he's not giving us direct answers, and if he is you could say its that little conscience in our heads telling us to do positive things instead of negative.

 

-------

 

I DO say it's that little conscience in our heads, and also more specific things that you probably don't want to hear about (like the Bible).

 

 

-------

If there is no such absolute, then there is no standard for true "good" - only for "practicality" or for "preference" or something similar. What is "good" - just like what is "true" - must come from the top down, from an absolute - if such a thing exists.

 

Why must it?

 

This is opinion. My opinion is that there isn't enough proof to show where these measures come from.

-------

 

Please think it through for yourself instead of taking my word. Humans have no motivation to care what another human being may think is wrong or right. In this way, we are largely left to moral relativism, "preference", and other similar things... if there is no "might makes right" sort of absolute.

 

 

-------

 

We are not born with a predisposition for sin & defiance of authority. Certainly we are all born with the natural instinct for self-preservation, that is true. But the rest of it is still applying Christian principals to behavior.

 

-------

 

Once again, you're entitled to your opinion.

 

 

-------

If you think it's historical accuracy is keen, then I'd say you should do a bit more studying.

 

But I'm not saying that any of these things can or do have any impact on anyone besides me.

-------

 

I fully intend - and of course would expect anyone - to ALWAYS do a bit more studying. I'm only guessing at what you mean by the second sentence, but like I've said, I'm not trying to convert anyone here. I'm explaining why Christianity is perfectly feasible for me.

 

 

-----

Everything is not ignorance. Ignorance is working without using the knowledge that we do have available in the world.

-----

 

I would not call that ignorance, but ceasing to live - as in "death".

 

-----

We may not be able to know everything just yet, but there is plenty we do have to work with.

-----

 

Of course we have plenty - but the question is what it's really worth. We have both everything and nothing. We CAN'T reasonably choose to work with anything, but we MUST, and so we DO... so maybe we're all insane - like Mark Twain would say. :-)

 

-----

Why can't someone hold you unreasonable if you're willing to put your faith in something without having all the verifiable facts that exist?

-----

 

Nobody ever has all the verifiable facts for ANY definitional knowledge much beyond "something exists".

 

-----

Also, there's a difference between putting your faith in a structured religion and simply believing that a greater force exists.

-----

Very, VERY true.

 

 

-----

We most certainly can suspend judgement about an ethereal entity. Doing so does not mean we can't properly make decisions and work with the knowledge we have.

 

This is a big problem for me. "We have no choice but to each live BY something..." this sound like you desire to be subservient. It implies that you like having some other entity giving you your rules & mandates to follow, rather than using your own abilities to continually evolve & determine what works well & what doesn't.

-----

 

I think this may be where you're missing me. Has everything I have done today been in an effort to advance my own self, my cause, or my well-being? Have I been spending lots of time praying or reading the Bible? Have I been actively trying to sacrifice my own desires for the greater plan of God?

 

Decisions are made - even unconsciously - ALL THE TIME based on people's own judgments about the nature of the universe and what is beyond. Do I fib here or tell the truth? Do I cheat a bit on my taxes? Do I speed? Look through pornography? Yell at people when I'm angry? Launch tyrades of inappropriate language?

 

Every day, we choose what we follow. We choose what we live BY and FOR, even if unintentionally or unconsiously. We have no choice but to choose something - even if that ends up being the default of "myself" - that is still a choice.

 

 

-----

How about Option C: You choose that something exists, and as you say, we haven't figured it out. So instead of following any specific man written mandate. You create a working set of beliefs that do the greatest good or create the most positive results as possible- and adapt & change as new information comes to you to increase your positive productivity.

-----

 

I believe both myself and everyone else in the world should ALWAYS be trying to do exactly that. I think that I am always trying, and I'm sure you are too. That's all anybody can ask of another person.

 

 

That said, I am personally of the opinion that Christianity matches that set of beliefs that ultimately do the greatest good and create the most positive results possible. I don't expect you to agree, obviously - you have not lived the life that I have lived, and you have not seen the things I have seen. Likewise with me not sharing your experiences.

[Eponymic]

That said, I am personally of the opinion that Christianity matches that set of beliefs that ultimately do the greatest good and create the most positive results possible.  I don't expect you to agree, obviously - you have not lived the life that I have lived, and you have not seen the things I have seen.  Likewise with me not sharing your experiences.

 

 

I could give you a reasonable rebuttal, but really with the way your logic works, I'd rather just sit here, shake my head, and wonder at how you reasonably justify what you believe.

[white_raven23]

That said, I am personally of the opinion that Christianity matches that set of beliefs that ultimately do the greatest good and create the most positive results possible.  I don't expect you to agree, obviously - you have not lived the life that I have lived, and you have not seen the things I have seen.  Likewise with me not sharing your experiences.

 

 

And yet....without saying it directly, you make it quite clear that you see your own experiences as more "enlightened" than our individual life experiences.

 

Why else would you type out novel length posts and then tut-tut those who have better things to do than read it?

[SkepticOfBible]

I did say SOME FORMS of Catholicism.  For that matter, some forms of Protestantism fall under the same umbrella of "rules based".  You are probably aware that true Christianity, however, is not about rules - it is about a personal RELATIONSHIP with God.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

"True Christianity" is just a phrase. I never met a "True Christian" in my life. As far as following rules, don't you follow the following rules

 

1)To have a relationship with God you must believe Christ was the messiah and is also a god.

2)Goto to church service everyday

3)Believe that the protestant bible(not the the catholic one) is the inerrant word of god

 

Whether you make up these rules or base them from the bible. They are rules never the less.

 

Christianity is about rules because Christian always claim to have access to moral absolutes. Some of the most common ones are

 

1)Homosexuality is wrong

2)Abortion are wrong

 

and various other.

 

Pritish

 

PS:I thought there was only form of catholism. The Roman Catholic Church

[MrSpooky]

I'm sure you already realize that epistemological skepticism is NOT the same as postmodernist drivel.

 

Skepticism is THE core issue of epistemology throughout most of the recorded history of philosophy. How can we know anything? (In fact, I think those two terms may almost be thought to designate both sides of the exact same issue.)

 

EPISTEMOLOGICAL skepticism is the key term. Epistemological skepticism maintains that "there is no such thing as certainty" or "there is no such thing as certain knowledge." There may be a few other incarnations, but that is the gist of your initial argument from what I can see.

 

Postmodernism is the intellectual movement that maintains that ALL methods of human inquiry are cultural constructs, all prone to error and bias, and thus all human ideas should be considered equal to some degree. This is related to epistemological skepticism in the claim that "there are no absolutes."

 

Theism often makes the poorly-researched case for the former in order to justify the latter. Hell, I've done the same myself when I was a theist.

 

Reality, study a little more philosophy. Descartes isn't the end-all of human inquiry. Much discourse followed his skeptical method and it is at best an interesting footnote in crude modern philosophy compared to other achievements, IMO. Such a method is inherently laced with too many internal problems of self-contradiction, self-defeat, and irrelevance.

 

I'll try to post a webcast for my lecture, but I think I'll have to postpone it to next week because I'm so damn busy.

[Vigile]

I'm still trying to figure out why reality thinks these are the only two possible options for all of humanity.  Or why living as if Christianity were true would give one's life more meaning than living as if there were no God.  I could be pursuaded that the two options would provoke different meanings, but not that one would provoke meaning while the other has no meaning at all.

 

 

Also, how is this line of thinking not Pascal's wager? And if it is (it is) how can the wager be reconciled with other religions? As you state, there are many more choices than just A or B.

[Saviourmachine]

While we're discussing epistemological skepticism and postmodernism, I'm getting the feeling here that you would agree with a lot of postmodernist thought.

Partly. I appreciate long-run scientific pragmatism (see WikiPedia). That if there is an ideal epistemic perspective, it is that of "completed science". That if truth should be defined it's with these terms, but it's likely that it never becomes a workable definition. Sorry about semantics. It's not my intention to play word games.

[Alice]

Oh no - I've just scrolled through so much of Reality's blah blah the flashing screen has made my eyesight go all woozy.

[Eponymic]

I think I figured out what really annoys me about your philosophy Reality.

 

For one, you get yourself in the self-defeating loop of we don't know anything and can't know anything so we're basically screwed, so I'm going to follow this religion cause it's closest to what I know (or really don't know) and follow it as gospel.

 

You profess that we don't know anything, and that Christianity is imperfect, but has the closest approximation to what is Godly. Yet in doing so you automatically forward an imperfect religion as though it is the final word of God, and thereby perpetuating an imperfect myth as though it's word were the golden word that everyone should follow.

 

Say what you will, but following Christianity locks you into that level of knowledge and ascribes that you proclaim it as truth, it's inherit to the belief. And by doing so, you contradict yourself, and make yourself hypocritical in your statments of saying that you know it's imperfect.

 

So what annoys me beyond this is this: since you know Chrisitianity is only a close approximation, and doesn't have everything correct, how can you follow it as though it is, instead of seeking to continue finding as many answers as possible. Inherently what you are saying is you are giving up, and willing to settle for a lesser religion rather than trying to continue learning & seeking more answers.

 

Otherwise, why even follow if you're going to do it haphazardly? Especially when it's something as big as spirituality.

[Kryten]

Reality,

I'm going to second Eponymic's post. You admit the bible is flawed and contains mad-made errors, yet you base your life on it and believe it to contain a message from God. So how do you know what part is from God and didn't get messed up my man, and which part was some church leader trying to force his own will and beliefs on the people he was trying to control, convince, or extort? How much of the things about God can you trust? The flood? The mass murders? The killing of 70,000 because David took a census that He ordered? The sacrifice of himself to himself in order to bypass his own rule and save us from his fury? His virgin birth when He was supposed to be from the seed of David? The saved by works + faith, faith alone, or being prechosen? How do you pick a doctrine? What if you choose unwisely? What about Adam, who didn't know right from wrong, having a beautiful creation of God placed before him in the center of the garden, and when he ate of it in order to be more like Daddy, billions of humans then get tortured forever in fire that never goes out?

This book is the FOUNDATION of your beliefs, yet you already know it is flawed.

 

Just think about it. Keep researching, but you ought to put more weight on the authors that have done actual scholarly work and who do NOT have an agenda to push or theology to defend. You may yet discover and accept the truth, but that is all your choice...

[MrSpooky]

The epistemic subjectivity component of postmodernism is a complete joke.