Originally Posted by Peter Plato
It is not clear that they don’t provide consistent answers to every person who sincerely and completely devotes their “self” to finding the answers. You are judging by “third party” claims concerning faith, revelation and intuition. The problem with your reasoning is that relying on claims about faith, revelation and intuition you are trusting that the individuals or groups making those claims have allowed themselves to be fully engaged in the quest for truth.
Let me explain where you added a peculiar little spin to my words, seemingly, to box me into a defensive position.
What I stated in my comment was that faith, revelation and intuition CAN be very fruitful in the quest for truth provided those seeking do so with sincerity and devotion. No where did I claim that my sincerity and devotion have led me to fully access the truth. My point was a general one regarding how individuals ought to approach faith, revelation and intuition.
Where in my post above did I make any claim about my being right over someone who disagrees or whose faith disagrees with mine?
I would actually put myself in the insincere and less than devoted camp regarding most faith statements, which is precisely the reason I don’t dispute or concern myself with most of them.
I do, however, engage with philosophical points where logic is inconsistent and inferences are unwarranted.
To make a misguided generalization, for example, that every religion necessarily has some teachings or doctrines that are false is to imply that all religions are, at base, human in derivation. That, however, excludes the possibility that the omnipotent God is infallibly guiding one, or, possibly, several, religions (provided they are not inherently contradictory) in teaching precisely what it is that he wills for humankind.
To rule out that possibility, a priori, assumes the claimant knows something about God beyond what any apparent public revelation has ever claimed. How could the claimant have arrived at such a conclusion without presuming to independently know something about how God operates?
The claims of Christianity rest upon two simple facts. Jesus said he is God and said he would establish one Church infallibly guided by the Holy Spirit. If the Gospels accurately report what Jesus said, then there is no “evidence” that could ever be concocted by human means that could ever “disprove” the truth of that. If Jesus claimed to be God and is God there is nothing left to dispute. It is left to us to carry out his directives.
I for one, am entirely convinced that his claims were and are true. I have no need to prove that to anyone. It has been shown to me in convincing fashion. If he wishes to reveal himself in equally convincing ways to other individuals he is quite capable of doing so, I can’t speak in God’s place. I can, however, dispute fallacious claims or, at least, point out where warrant doesn’t exist to make those claims.
Jesus said, “I am the Way, the Truth and the Life.”
If Jesus is God and he said those words precisely, then any qualifiers we might consider adding to what he said involves an infinite level of presumption on our part.
Second, Jesus said, “You are Peter and upon this rock I will build MY Church.”
If Jesus is God, then his words accurately depicts his intentions.
It would be arrogance on the part of humans to qualify either of those statements. Personally, I have no warrant for doing so. You may see a need to, but, again, you would be pitting your brain, your thoughts, your evidential storehouse against God himself. I see no reason for doing so.
