Epistemology is the key

[Just_Lurking]

The Church acknowledges that Muslims profess to hold the faith of Abraham. That’s a statement of fact that you could find from secular sources as well.

Here is the precise Vatican II statement (see here):
3. The Church regards with esteem also the Moslems. They adore the one God, living and subsisting in Himself; merciful and all- powerful, the Creator of heaven and earth,(5) who has spoken to men; they take pains to submit wholeheartedly to even His inscrutable decrees, just as Abraham, with whom the faith of Islam takes pleasure in linking itself, submitted to God. Though they do not acknowledge Jesus as God, they revere Him as a prophet. They also honor Mary, His virgin Mother; at times they even call on her with devotion. In addition, they await the day of judgment when God will render their deserts to all those who have been raised up from the dead. Finally, they value the moral life and worship God especially through prayer, almsgiving and fasting

 

[1holycatholic]

Here is the precise Vatican II statement (see here):3. The Church regards with esteem also the Moslems. They adore the one God, living and subsisting in Himself; merciful and all- powerful, the Creator of heaven and earth,(5) who has spoken to men; they take pains to submit wholeheartedly to even His inscrutable decrees, just as Abraham, with whom the faith of Islam takes pleasure in linking itself, submitted to God. Though they do not acknowledge Jesus as God, they revere Him as a prophet. They also honor Mary, His virgin Mother; at times they even call on her with devotion. In addition, they await the day of judgment when God will render their deserts to all those who have been raised up from the dead. Finally, they value the moral life and worship God especially through prayer, almsgiving and fasting

Again, those are statements of fact. Muslims have a defective understanding of God.

Note that Catholics claim (since Vatican II anyway) that the Allah, the God of Islam, is Christianity’s God the Father.

In Christianity:

• There is one God.
• The Father is God.
• The Son is God.
• The Holy Spirit is God.
• The Father != The Son != The Holy Spirit != The Father.

In Islam:

• There is one God.

 

[Just_Lurking]

For the purposes of clarification: do you speak of the strength of the beliefs as an indicator for the veracity of the beliefs? If so, consider: in the previous ages the flatness of the Earth was taken for granted. No one had any doubt about it. Did the strength of their conviction make the Earth flat?

Given that your epistemological method doesn’t work on supernatural claims, I readily acknowledge that the supernatural epistemological method I am trying to define does not work on natural claims. I find the scientific method works well in this arena.

Which social sciences are you talking about?

I was thinking sociology in particular, but anything that involves studying people needs to study the ontologically subjective aspects of people. John Searle makes the same point about studying consciousness in his book Consciousness and Language.

Accepted. What method do you sue to tell true beliefs from false ones?

A good question. I accept Jesus Christ as my Lord and Savior, but I reject other supernatural claims, such as astrology, the faith gospel, and for that matter, strict Catholicism. A general principle here is that when the people who are pushing for me to believe something profit by it, I need to treat their claims with skepticism, but when the people who are advocating a belief that subjects them to personal loss (e.g., the persecution of the early Christians), I need to come up with some reason as to why they believe that.

In addition to the faith of the early Christians, I find the historical evidence for Jesus Christ more than plausible. It also seems to me in studying religion over the course of history that humanity is converging on the truth about God, just as we are converging on the truth about the physical world, e.g., from Aristotle to Newton to Einstein.

 

[Touchstone]

In addition to the faith of the early Christians, I find the historical evidence for Jesus Christ more than plausible.

I find the historical evidence for Jesus as a Jewish rabbi in 1C Palestine perfectly plausible, and don’t really even need any evidence to corroborate that – a Jewish rabbi named Yeshua that place and time is plausible on it’s face.

I find the claim that this man was dead and in a tomb for three days (or parts thereof) and was reanimated perfectly implausible. Same think with the virgin birth, the very picture of implausibility, (which, interestingly, I also think was part of the point; it’s not very impressive if the man’s “signs” from God are perfectly plausible events. Jesus as a man who caught 12 fish in one day while fishing in his boat doesn’t signal the intervention of a deity, does it?

In any case, which kind of evidence are you referring to as “plausible” when you say what you have? Are you talking about the plausibility of a “first century Jew in Palestine” as plausible, or “a man dead three days coming back to life” as being plausible on the available evidence?

It also seems to me in studying religion over the course of history that humanity is converging on the truth about God, just as we are converging on the truth about the physical world, e.g., from Aristotle to Newton to Einstein.

That’s interesting. I would have said the opposite is happening, and that religion is diverging in something like a fractal fashion, globally. What would you say are the points of conversion you identify? What beliefs are increasingly unifying religionists of the world?

-TS

 

[warpspeedpetey]

I find the historical evidence for Jesus as a Jewish rabbi in 1C Palestine perfectly plausible, and don’t really even need any evidence to corroborate that – a Jewish rabbi named Yeshua that place and time is plausible on it’s face.

I find the claim that this man was dead and in a tomb for three days (or parts thereof) and was reanimated perfectly implausible. Same think with the virgin birth, the very picture of implausibility, (which, interestingly, I also think was part of the point; it’s not very impressive if the man’s “signs” from God are perfectly plausible events. Jesus as a man who caught 12 fish in one day while fishing in his boat doesn’t signal the intervention of a deity, does it?

In any case, which kind of evidence are you referring to as “plausible” when you say what you have? Are you talking about the plausibility of a “first century Jew in Palestine” as plausible, or “a man dead three days coming back to life” as being plausible on the available evidence?

this is the logical fallacy called the ‘argumet from incredulity’

simply because you are unaware of the process by which these thing occured, doesnt say, or imply anything about their truth.

ergo, when you say something is improbable from incredulity. your standard of plausability is based solely on your experience and knowledge. its a bare assertion, an opinion, groundless.

after all, as is mentioned time and again, the scientific method has proven time and again that what we thought was “magic” is really completely explainable when the mechanism is understood.

 

[Just_Lurking]

In any case, which kind of evidence are you referring to as “plausible” when you say what you have? Are you talking about the plausibility of a “first century Jew in Palestine” as plausible, or “a man dead three days coming back to life” as being plausible on the available evidence?

That Jesus existed, that He had disciples/apostles, that they fled when they saw Him crucified, and that something brought them back together and gave them the courage to face persecution and death in the early Church.

That’s interesting. I would have said the opposite is happening, and that religion is diverging in something like a fractal fashion, globally. What would you say are the points of conversion you identify? What beliefs are increasingly unifying religionists of the world?

As one example, take the historical trend from polytheism to monotheism.

 

[Touchstone]

this is the logical fallacy called the ‘argumet from incredulity’

simply because you are unaware of the process by which these thing occured, doesnt say, or imply anything about their truth.

I think that’s getting a bit ahead of oneself, here. It’s an open question as to what if anything happened regarding these claims. It’s uncontroversial to say there are claims of resurrection and virgin birth (and turning water into wine, etc.), but the parsimonious, economical explanation is that these are a mix of legendary and fabulous embellishments to an otherwise plausible account (interant Jewish rabbi executed for sedition by the Roman Empire).

There’s no incredulity needed to appeal to. Unless you suppose it’s a fallacy to embrace the more reasonable, economical, plausible explanation instead of a more fabulous and implausible one, just because we don’t know how fabulous, implausible claims become more reasonable than more plausible accounts, this is not a problem.

By contrast, to say “God did it”, by way of explaining meiosis or some such involved procedure, is embracing a fabulous, magical answer due to incredulity and/or ignorance of the more plausible, coherent explanations available.

The error you are trying to cite works against resurrection claims, not for it. Embracing the resurrection is embracing the fabulous and the magical, the sorcerer’s answer over the scientists, just due to ignorance or antagonism toward the less glamorous but much more plausible and economical explanations of rational, objective investigation.

When straightforward, natural biology will suffice, and magic is endorse any, that is the fallacy, appealing to one’s unjustified incredulity or ignorance of a more reasonable answer.

ergo, when you say something is improbable from incredulity.

But it’s not avoiding a more plausible, more reasonable explanation due to misplaced incredulity or ignorance, which is the basis for the fallacy you cited. I think you just do not understand the fallacy which you are invoking here. Empirically, resurrection is a non-starter. Totally implausible according to every bit of science we can review. Couldn’t be more fantastic. And a host of more reasonable explanations are available to address the claims. The reasonable explanations (ones that don’t require distortions of the fundamental laws of physics, that is) are rejected, without cause, in order to embrace over-the-top implausibilities.

Incredulity is a good and reasonable thing if it is ground in reason and evidential analysis. That’s why “the devil made me do it” won’t fly in a court of law. To accept the non-miraculous explanations for the claims of the Jesus cult in favor of the miraculous ones is a strong example of the fallacy you have misapplied here.

your standard of plausability is based solely on your experience and knowledge. its a bare assertion, an opinion, groundless.

No it’s not. Ask around. Do some research. How many resurrections are you aware of that have been corroborated by credible, objective witnesses? How many virgin births are you aware of in the records, in the billions of births we have collectively been party to over the centuries?

None. Zero. Zip.

Against billions and billions of cases where the dead stayed dead once dead for three days, and billions of cases where we can identify the presence and participation of two parents, a male and a female.

What you believe is “plausible” is one of the more broadly attested and document non-events we have available to us. There are few more lopsided circumstances I can think of than the resurrection.

Which again, is the whole point, I think. That’s the value of the claim. It’s powerful precisely because it’s ridiculous on its face as something one would accept through reason and disciplined thinking. Those are the “ways of the world”, and Christianity is a magical-thinking enterprise. It’s nothing more than mundane if its claims have the kind of plausibility you suppose!

after all, as is mentioned time and again, the scientific method has proven time and again that what we thought was “magic” is really completely explainable when the mechanism is understood.

Yes, well, that’s part of what augurs for the embrace of the non-miraculous explanations. This is the lesson of history, after all :

Science: [too many successes and explanations to count]
Religion: Zip. Nada. Some mumblings about Padre Pio…

You’re right, but you don’t realize how. Science “de-magic-ifies”, time and again, replacing credulous superstitious answers with natural, mechanical, mundane ones. That’s doesn’t bode well for the supernaturalist claims of resurrection and virgin birth.

It’s a faith you’ve chosen. Why not own it proudly? This is a weaseling kind of embarrrased apologetic for the faith, the preposterous idea that it really is the winner in terms of plausibility…

-TS

 

[Touchstone]

That Jesus existed, that He had disciples/apostles, that they fled when they saw Him crucified, and that something brought them back together and gave them the courage to face persecution and death in the early Church.

Ok, I’m an atheist, and do not believe there exists anything close to reasonable support for miraculous claims of resurrection, etc., but I have no trouble accepting the synopsis you offer here as plausible and believable. I could have written what you did, atheist that I am. No gods or supernatural needed for that account, and it fairly matches what I do think happened.

It’s a plausible explanation of the claims and documents we have.

As one example, take the historical trend from polytheism to monotheism.

OK, could be, I guess. I would say the huge numbers piled up by the LDS in the last two centuries marks a departure away from monotheism (henotheism in that case), and the advent of New Age, neo-pagan, and Wiccan practices heralded a new and growing movement away from monotheism. 15 of the last 25 years for me were spent in the Bay Area of California, which may explain my different understanding – I don’t know the numbers of these new religions, but in California, monotheism seemed so… “flyover country”.

Mormonism is a juggernaut, in any case, a big movement with strong numbers and immense evangelical energy away from monotheism.

But worldwide, there may well be more than enough trending towards monotheism to offset that, I don’t know. Islam is doing great, I do understand, and maybe it’s growth and energy make your claim true right there.

-TS

 

[warpspeedpetey]

I think that’s getting a bit ahead of oneself, here. It’s an open question as to what if anything happened regarding these claims. It’s uncontroversial to say there are claims of resurrection and virgin birth (and turning water into wine, etc.), but the parsimonious, economical explanation is that these are a mix **of legendary and fabulous embellishments **to an otherwise plausible account (interant Jewish rabbi executed for sedition by the Roman Empire).

There’s no incredulity needed to appeal to. Unless you suppose it’s a fallacy to embrace the more reasonable, economical, plausible explanation instead of a more fabulous and implausible one, just because we don’t know how fabulous, implausible claims become more reasonable than more plausible accounts, this is not a problem.

By contrast, to say “God did it”, by way of explaining meiosis or some such involved procedure, is embracing a fabulous, magical answer due to incredulity and/or ignorance of the more plausible, coherent explanations available.

The error you are trying to cite works against resurrection claims, not for it. Embracing the resurrection is embracing the fabulous and the magical, the sorcerer’s answer over the scientists, just due to ignorance or antagonism toward the less glamorous but much more plausible and economical explanations of rational, objective investigation.

When straightforward, natural biology will suffice, and magic is endorse any, that is the fallacy, appealing to one’s unjustified incredulity or ignorance of a more reasonable answer.

this is still just the argument from incredulity. a subset of the argument from ignorance. it works against any claim that some event is too implausible to have occured. simply using “parsimonious” and “more economical” as antonyms, doesnt disguise it. you have no need for a more parsimonious or economical explanation unless you first reject the claims based on your belief that they are improbable.

in other words to make the argument you just made, you have to commit a logical fallacy, invalidating the argument…

But it’s not avoiding a more plausible, more reasonable explanation due to misplaced incredulity or ignorance, which is the basis for the fallacy you cited. I think you just do not understand the fallacy which you are invoking here.

i completley understand it. you may not like it, but fallacy cuts both ways.

Empirically, resurrection is a non-starter. Totally implausible according to every bit of science we can review. Couldn’t be more fantastic. And a host of more reasonable explanations are available to address the claims. The reasonable explanations (ones that don’t require distortions of the fundamental laws of physics, that is) are rejected, without cause, in order to embrace over-the-top implausibilities.

good thing empiricism and verification schemes are self refuting then. since the scientific method is inductive, you cant really say anything about a process you have never witnessed,. much less use it to prove the impossibility of said process.

explaining the reason for your incredulity, doesnt change the bare fact that it is logically fallacious.

Incredulity is a good and reasonable thing if it is ground in reason and evidential analysis. That’s why “the devil made me do it” won’t fly in a court of law. To accept the non-miraculous explanations for the claims of the Jesus cult in favor of the miraculous ones is a strong example of the fallacy you have misapplied here.

i havent misapplied the fallacy, youre still trying to claim that these things are so incredulous that they cant be true.

continued…

 

[warpspeedpetey]

No it’s not. Ask around. Do some research. How many resurrections are you aware of that have been corroborated by credible, objective witnesses? How many virgin births are you aware of in the records, in the billions of births we have collectively been party to over the centuries?

None. Zero. Zip.

Against billions and billions of cases where the dead stayed dead once dead for three days, and billions of cases where we can identify the presence and participation of two parents, a male and a female.

What you believe is “plausible” is one of the more broadly attested and document non-events we have available to us. There are few more lopsided circumstances I can think of than the resurrection.

Which again, is the whole point, I think. That’s the value of the claim. It’s powerful precisely because it’s ridiculous on its face as something one would accept through reason and disciplined thinking. Those are the “ways of the world”, and Christianity is a magical-thinking enterprise. It’s nothing more than mundane if its claims have the kind of plausibility you suppose!

here again you hit the empirical and verification problem of self refutation. and the induction problem.

you spent alot more time typing these arguments than you did thinking them out.

Yes, well, that’s part of what augurs for the embrace of the non-miraculous explanations. This is the lesson of history, after all :

Science: [too many successes and explanations to count]
Religion: Zip. Nada. Some mumblings about Padre Pio…

You’re right, but you don’t realize how. Science “de-magic-ifies”, time and again, replacing credulous superstitious answers with natural, mechanical, mundane ones. That’s doesn’t bode well for the supernaturalist claims of resurrection and virgin birth.

why cant you just say the important part, and leave out all the rest. it may make you feel better, but it doesnt change anything.

It’s a faith you’ve chosen. Why not own it proudly? This is a weaseling kind of embarrrased apologetic for the faith, the preposterous idea that it really is the winner in terms of plausibility…

when you talk like this, i know, that you know youre cornered. but instead of admitting it, you try to avoid it by accepting a logical fallacy. hence my assertion that atheism is abelief held by choice not rational, logical critical thinking.

i didnt choose it. i was an athiest. i believe in Christ, because i believe in logic, mathematics, critical thinking, and unbiased intellectual honesty. even when it leads places i dont like.

and it all keeps leading back to Christianity.

 

[Touchstone]

here again you hit the empirical and verification problem of self refutation. and the induction problem.

What problem are you speaking of?

why cant you just say the important part, and leave out all the rest. it may make you feel better, but it doesnt change anything.

What’s the “important part”, in your view.

when you talk like this, i know, that you know youre cornered.

??? How do you get to that point? Cornered by what, and how do you know this?

but instead of admitting it, you try to avoid it by accepting a logical fallacy. hence my assertion that atheism is abelief held by choice not rational, logical critical thinking.

Did you read what I wrote? If you are claiming that a miracle is the most plausible explanation, you’re inverting the concept we hope to invoke by the term ‘miracle’. A miracle is, by definition, an implausibility! It’s only granted miracle status as an explanation BECAUSE it militates against rational analysis and knowledge about the world. And yet, in black-is-white fashion, you want to suggest that the most fabulous, superstitious answer on the spectrum is also the most plausible and parsimonious??

And to boot, I’m “cornered” by the force of such magical thinking?

I wonder when I read this if you aren’t just pulling my leg, and forgetting the smileys. This is hard to read as a serious response.

i didnt choose it. i was an athiest. i believe in Christ, because i believe in logic, mathematics, critical thinking, and unbiased intellectual honesty. even when it leads places i dont like.

And black is white, eh? Supersition is the new “logic”, magic is the new math, and faith is the new skepticism…

This is pure cognitive dissonance you are offering us, here.

and it all keeps leading back to Christianity.

All one needs to do to see the dishonesty in this response you’ve got here is to ask about faith. If what you say is even a little bit true, then faith would be ridiculed by you and all “critical thinking” mystics [sic]. The centrality of faith in Christian orthodoxy, in the basic Christian narrative (see Matthew 16 and Jesus’ declaration of how Peter/Petra came to “know” Jesus was the Christ – it wasn’t the Christ-denying, faith-skewering, superstition-discrediting principles you claim here, but “revelation”, the supernatural burst of gnosis from God, flying in the face of all that which you claim leads you where you are.)

I don’t mind Christianity so much when it’s honest about itself. I was a Christian, and I think it’s an example of very lazy thinking, but often toward important other ends – the preservation of hope, or just the pursuit of happy, magical paradigms in which one wants to live. But it’s just a cowardly claim to pull a Peter at the well and deny Christ as a revelatory, in-your-face revolution against all the unbeliever’s ideals – the “wisdom of man”: logic, reason, empiricism, skepticism, doubt, falsification, verification, etc. Defend your Christ as Christ asked, how about? It’s just pathetic to see a Christian point to all the anti-Christ in support of his “reasoning toward Christ”.

No faith needed if you’re talking straight, which is, ironically, the most damning thing one could say about Christianity I could think of.

I have a much higher view of Christianity and Christ than you do, and my view of it is not very high.

-TS

 

[warpspeedpetey]

What problem are you speaking of?

empiricism and verification schemes are self refuting, they dont meet their own standard. the scientific method is inductive, it cant prove anything.

What’s the “important part”, in your view.

the part i bolded

??? How do you get to that point? Cornered by what, and how do you know this?

cornered by the logical fallacy youre trying to dismiss. and i know it because you stay pretty reasonable until youre cornered, and then you get excited. its a dead give away.

Did you read what I wrote? If you are claiming that a miracle is the most plausible explanation, you’re inverting the concept we hope to invoke by the term ‘miracle’. A miracle is, by definition, an implausibility! It’s only granted miracle status as an explanation BECAUSE it militates against rational analysis and knowledge about the world. And yet, in black-is-white fashion, you want to suggest that the most **fabulous, superstitious answer **on the spectrum is also the most plausible and parsimonious??

And to boot, I’m “cornered” by the force of such magical thinking?

I wonder when I read this if you aren’t just pulling my leg, and forgetting the smileys. This is hard to read as a serious response.

why are you looking for a more parsimonious answer? because you think that some events are too implausible to happen.

hence, your argument that these miracles are not plausible is based on a logical fallacy (incredulity) and as such is invalid.

i have bolded the parts that admit to the fallacy of incredulity. simply because you do not know how an event happened, says nothing about the probability it did.

this is no joke, its not a reversal of anything. its always been the situation. its a logical fallacy as true before there were people and will be long after.

how can you be an atheist and not know the basics?

And black is white, eh? Supersition is the new “logic”, magic is the new math, and faith is the new skepticism…

no, logic is still logic, math is still math, skepticism is a 2 edged sword. you just use them wrong. as above you ignore the obvious logical fallacy either because you are not able to grasp it, or because it hurts your cherished belief. now, since i know you are an intelligent man, i can only see that you are willing to accept the obvious logical fallacy in order to protect your cherished belief. so you have a faith. the very thing that you decry.

This is pure cognitive dissonance you are offering us, here.
All one needs to do to see the dishonesty in this response you’ve got here is to ask about faith. If what you say is even a little bit true, then faith would be ridiculed by you and all “critical thinking” mystics [sic]. The centrality of faith in Christian orthodoxy, in the basic Christian narrative (see Matthew 16 and Jesus’ declaration of how Peter/Petra came to “know” Jesus was the Christ – it wasn’t the Christ-denying, faith-skewering, superstition-discrediting principles you claim here, but “revelation”, the supernatural burst of gnosis from God, flying in the face of all that which you claim leads you where you are.)

im dishonest because logic, rationalism, annd intellectual honesty lead me to Christ? thats plainly false on its face. the principles that you think skewer belief, obviously dont.

btw, your confusing faith and unfounded belief. the faith you refer to is the virtue of faith, believing that G-d loves you and will save you. not unfounded belief, the usual atheist definition.

I don’t mind Christianity so much when it’s honest about itself. I was a Christian, and I think it’s an example of very lazy thinking, but often toward important other ends – the preservation of hope, or just the pursuit of happy, magical paradigms in which one wants to live. But it’s just a cowardly claim to pull a Peter at the well and deny Christ as a revelatory, in-your-face revolution against all the unbeliever’s ideals – the “wisdom of man”: logic, reason, empiricism, skepticism, doubt, falsification, verification, etc. Defend your Christ as Christ asked, how about? It’s just pathetic to see a Christian point to all the anti-Christ in support of his “reasoning toward Christ”.

did you not know that one can find G-d strictly by reason? what kind of Christian were you? a Catholic? its been a tenet of the Church for a very long time.

No faith needed if you’re talking straight, which is, ironically, the most damning thing one could say about Christianity I could think of.

I have a much higher view of Christianity and Christ than you do, and my view of it is not very high.

from the way youre getting real excited and questioning my honesty tells me, youve never considered these things before, and now you see the rising tide swallowing your cherished belief up and you feel cornered. dont worry ive been there. the world rocks, what you thought was true is not. pretty soon you will have a road to Damascus moment. soem of that gnosis you deny is going to hit and push you over the edge into theism

its a common route for atheists to come home. so just let it happen, quit fighting, you dont need intellectual pride, you dont need other people to think your smart, you definitely dont need the things of this world. you have been here, with us, for a long time now. its for a reason, and i have to believe in your darkest places. you know this. He is calling you, if you cannot get over some logical hurdle than accept the revelation. it will not matter to Him how you get here, but only that you must come. you must come home.

 

[R_Daneel]

A Selection from {1}

There is a lot of truth in the observation, and it is a very sad commentary on the human race. There are far too many examples of this kind of conflict resolution. There is a little bit of progress, however. There are a few examples when the conflicts are not resolved through violence. There is still hope for the human race.

And from {2}

Only if you cherry-pick which parts of the Bible you read. The Bible is choke-full of senseless violence, and the victims are not always the innocent ones.

I would say those two passages capture some of the essentials. I wouldn’t want to give you a summary because that would be my reading of the articles; I’d prefer you do your own work and then engage in a discussion but I do understand it is a lot of work. For me it was something enjoyable, something I’ve been thinking of and your discussion here relates to it.

I’m not asking you to “argue with an article” but to relate to how an epistomological framework could be built from the gospels.

I certainly don’t see what kind of epistemology could be built here. But I will read it, and see where it leads.

 

[R_Daneel]

How do we determine which metaphyical claims are true and which are false? It’s actually quite simple, and warpspeedpetey suggested it with the logical contradiction that empiricism runs into.

WSP does not understand anything. The principle of empiricism is not absolute, it does not say that “everything must be verifed empirically”. It does not pertain the abstract sciences. No one asserts that the laws of logic (for example) should be verifed empirically.

There are certain principles of being that we learn from epistemological realism. So, we know for instance that a thing cannot both be and not be at the same time in the same way. This principle is indubitable, because to refute it one must employ it.

So, there we have our first principle of being. Now we know that nothing can violate that principle, as it is not only a logical contradiction, but an experiential contradiction. So if someone is going to claim that God can be both a cow and not a cow at the same time in the same way, then we know that is a false metaphysical claim.

This is true, but nothing new about it. The law of non-contradiction is just another basic principle.

(Incidentally, your critique sound’s awefully Kantian, as his claim was that metaphysical objects were completely unknowable, which led to the jettisonning of metaphysics in modernity. Modern atheists are often unknowing students of a good Pietist Christian )

I am not criticising anything, yet. I am merely asking what kind of epistemological method is offered for the claims of the supernatural.

 

[tonyrey]

Furthermore, any epistemological method worth to be contemplated must be objective, and must offer a method of separating a true claim from a false claim. Without these attributes it just “hangs in the air”, it is useless.

Absolutely true! “useless” is the key word.

So, the ball is in your court: what kind of epistemological method can you offer?

The supreme criterion of any form of knowledge is whether it satisfies the command to believe in love. If any interpretation of reality implies that life is irrational, valueless and insignificant we know beyond a shadow of a doubt that it is not only false but evil because it undermines the very basis of knowledge.

 

[djeter]

There is a lot of truth in the observation, and it is a very sad commentary on the human race. There are far too many examples of this kind of conflict resolution. There is a little bit of progress, however. There are a few examples when the conflicts are not resolved through violence. There is still hope for the human race.

Only if you cherry-pick which parts of the Bible you read. The Bible is choke-full of senseless violence, and the victims are not always the innocent ones.

I certainly don’t see what kind of epistemology could be built here. But I will read it, and see where it leads.

Well if you see an epistemological truth in Girard’s theories and his theories are demonstrated over and over again in the Bible (enough so to become a major theme of the various books), then wouldn’ t that be an epistemology of sorts?

You might also enjoy selections from “Critical Thinking for Christians” by Peter Kreeft that I posted today.

payingattentiontothesky.com/2010/02/09/reading-selections-from-critical-thinking-for-christians-by-peter-kreeft/

My favorite part of Dr. Kreeft’s essay:

"We should “live according to reason,” said the ancient Greeks, meaning not that we should be computers rather than human beings, but that we should be human beings rather than animals.

Reason is not limited to logic, though logic is one of the things that sharply distinguish human reason from animal consciousness. The meaning of that great old word “Reason” was arbitrarily narrowed to “calculation” beginning with Descartes and the Enlightenment (which I prefer to call the Endarkenment) and with the restriction of all approved thinking to what can be proved by the scientific method – which, of course, is self-contradictory since that very principle cannot be proved by the scientific method!

Confusing life with a laboratory is not what it means to live according to reason. Moral conscience, aesthetic appreciation, intelligent, responsible religious faith, intuitive wisdom, and even mystical experience are all part of the powers of human reason in the broad old honorable Greek sense of the word. Sometimes I think half the world’s problems would be solved if the whole world had to speak ancient Greek. It would be like Pentecost: an undoing of the Tower of Babel."

You strike me as one who is pursuing a rigorous scientific method in your “epistemology being the key” demands. The creature mind, like the mind of its creator is far more than the limitations you arbitrarily place on it (IMHO).

dj

 

[Just_Lurking]

Ok, I’m an atheist, and do not believe there exists anything close to reasonable support for miraculous claims of resurrection, etc., but I have no trouble accepting the synopsis you offer here as plausible and believable. I could have written what you did, atheist that I am. No gods or supernatural needed for that account, and it fairly matches what I do think happened.

It’s a plausible explanation of the claims and documents we have.

The next step for me was trying to understand why the early Christians believed so strongly in their faith. I look at similar groups of dedicated people, both in ancient and modern times, for example, the Heaven’s Gate suicide cult. And I’ve decided that the actions of the early Christians are best explained by the conclusion that there was something simply amazing about Jesus Christ that could inspire this. Something different than all the other modern cult leaders of today.

To tell the truth, the competitor to Christianity that gives me the most pause, in terms of dedicated followers, is Scientology. I can’t fathom how so many people can follow such total nonsense.

OK, could be, I guess. I would say the huge numbers piled up by the LDS in the last two centuries marks a departure away from monotheism (henotheism in that case), and the advent of New Age, neo-pagan, and Wiccan practices heralded a new and growing movement away from monotheism. 15 of the last 25 years for me were spent in the Bay Area of California, which may explain my different understanding – I don’t know the numbers of these new religions, but in California, monotheism seemed so… “flyover country”.

Mormonism is a juggernaut, in any case, a big movement with strong numbers and immense evangelical energy away from monotheism.

But worldwide, there may well be more than enough trending towards monotheism to offset that, I don’t know. Islam is doing great, I do understand, and maybe it’s growth and energy make your claim true right there.

I hadn’t really considered the neo-pagan and Wiccan practices, so I can see your point.

Another trend I notice can be seen directly in the Bible, the transition from the angry and vindictive God of the Old Testament to the God of Love in the New Testament.

 

[djeter]

Another trend I notice can be seen directly in the Bible, the transition from the angry and vindictive God of the Old Testament to the God of Love in the New Testament.

I always see this “the vindictive God fo the OT” but then i see others who have a more nuanced reading of that OT:

"As soon as we become reconciled to the similarities between violence in the Bible and myths, we can understand how the Bible is not mythical — how the reaction to violence recorded in the Bible radically differs from the reaction recorded in myth.

Beginning with the story of Cain and Abel, the Bible proclaims the innocence of mythical victims and the guilt of their victimizers. Living after the widespread promulgation of the gospel, we find this natural and never pause to think that in classical myths the opposite is true: the persecutors always seem to have a valid cause to persecute their victims. The Dionysiac myths regard even the most horrible lynchings as legitimate. Pentheus in the Bacchae is legitimately slain by his mother and sisters, for his contempt of the god Dionysus is a fault serious enough to warrant his death. Oedipus, too, deserves his fate. According to the myth, he has truly killed his father and married his mother, and is thus truly responsible for the plague that ravages Thebes. To cast him out is not merely a permissible action, but a religious duty.

Even if they are not accused of any crime, mythical victims are still supposed to die for a good cause, and their innocence makes their deaths no less legitimate. In the Vedic myth of Purusha, for instance, no wrongdoing is mentioned — but the tearing apart of the victim is nonetheless a holy deed. The pieces of Purusha’s body are needed to create the three great castes, the mainstay of Indian society. In myth, violent death is always justified.

If the violence of myths is purely mimetic — if it is like the Passion, as Jesus says — all these justifications are false. And yet, since they systematically reverse the true distribution of innocence and guilt, such myths cannot be purely fictional. They are lies, certainly, but the specific kind of lie called for by mimetic contagion — the false accusation that spreads mimetically throughout a disturbed human community at the climax when scandals polarize against the single scapegoat whose death reunites the community. The myth-making machine is the mimetic contagion that disappears behind the myth it generates.

There is nothing secret about the justifications espoused by myths; the stereotypical accusations of mob violence are always available when the search for scapegoats is on. In the Gospels, however, the scapegoating machinery is fully visible because it encounters opposition and no longer operates efficiently. The resistance to the mimetic contagion prevents the myth from taking shape. The conclusion in the light of the Gospels is inescapable: myths are the voice of communities that unanimously surrender to the mimetic contagion of victimization.

This interpretation is reinforced by the optimistic endings of myths. The conjunction of the guilty victim and the reconciled community is too frequent to be fortuitous. The only possible explanation is the distorted representation of unanimous victimization. The violent process is not effective unless it fools all witnesses, and the proof that it does, in the case of myths, is the harmonious and cathartic conclusion, rooted in a perfectly unanimous murder."

---

Only two possible reactions to the mimetic contagion exist, and they make an enormous difference. Either we surrender and join the persecuting crowd, or we resist and stand alone. The first way is the unanimous self- deception we call mythology.

The second way is the road to the truth followed by the Bible.

Instead of blaming victimization on the victims, the Gospels blame it on the victimizers. What the myths systematically hide, the Bible reveals.

---

Rene Girard, who wrote the above has more interpretations here:

payingattentiontothesky.com/2010/02/05/is-christianity-indistinguishable-from-other-%e2%80%9cpagan-myths%e2%80%9d/

that might show you the God of the NT and OT are really one and the same. We only find out more about him in the NT. Those stories of mimetic contagion where members of the crowd come forth and stand with victims are numerous and are an unmistakeable theme of the OT. The God of the OT does not approve of blaming the victims.

dj

 

[warpspeedpetey]

WSP does not understand anything. The principle of empiricism is not absolute, it does not say that “everything must be verifed empirically”. It does not pertain the abstract sciences. No one asserts that the laws of logic (for example) should be verifed empirically.

maybe i dont.

but it seems to me that any standard for truth cannot meet its own standard, cant be said to be a standard of truth. its really then just “best guess” in a particular situation.

notice now though, that you admit empiricism is inapplicable to the ‘abstract’ sciences. what do you think metaphysics is if not an abstract science?

 

[JP2Admirer]

I am not criticising anything, yet. I am merely asking what kind of epistemological method is offered for the claims of the supernatural.

I would suggest reading Aristotle’s De Anima about epistemelogical realism, then. Pay special attention to Book 2 ch. 6 and the first 5 chapters of book 3. Especially 3.4.

The problem I see with modern philosophy is that most of the empiricists confused first and second order intentions. They make the common sensibles on Aristotle’s account the first order intentions rather than second. The problem of solipsism then often arises. How do we have a common name for redness if everything is merely our own interpretations? If you look at a red thing and I look at a red thing, how do we communicate the sameness of that red thing, if first order intentions are made the second order intentions?

You said yourself that the empirical method demands that everything be verified, but the question is how? If you are questioning whether metaphysical objects exist outside the human mind, we need merely look to Aquinas’ five ways. He verifies those proofs using sense experience, i.e. we see that things move, therefore we either proceed to infinity of things moving, or there is a first mover. It is impossible to proceed to infinity in movements, therefore,there is a first mover.

You see, it is logic applied to experience, that leads to the conclusion that God exists. Once we have verified that He exists, it follows that we can make claims about His essence by way of removal. So, for instance, we say that God is not a body, because a body is composite and is not pure act. Therefore, God is not a body.

We can verify these metaphysical truths by “bouncing” them off of sense experience. That is, we can follow the principles of being as they are given in sense experience to their logical and necessary conclusions.

If, however, you mean by “verify” that metaphysical objects must be “testable” using ideoscopic instrumentation, you are going to be dissatisfied. A “testable” metaphysical object is a contradiction in terms. To cut off reasoning at the “sensible” is to cut yourself off from man’s most noble enterprise – contemplation of the highest objects – it is to cut oneself off from reasoning in its highest manifestations.