Lack of Questioning Leads to Atheism?

[Vera_Ljuba]

Not at all.

Yes, that is exactly what you do. And deny it at the same time. You keep asserting that all “hearsay” evidence should be treated equally, no matter what the subject is. If I accept that Japan exists without personally verifying it, then I should consider your accepting the miracles allegedly performed by Jesus as an equally valid, after all they both rely on hearsay. Sorry, no dice.

 

[PRmerger]

Yes, that is exactly what you do. And deny it at the same time. You keep asserting that all “hearsay” evidence should be treated equally, no matter what the subject is. If I accept that Japan exists without personally verifying it, then I should consider your accepting the miracles allegedly performed by Jesus as an equally valid, after all they both rely on hearsay. Sorry, no dice.

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

Let me just make clear: All hearsay evidence should be treated on its own merit.

That should solve any kind of confusion.

Now, again: you should be consistent and allow Christians to accept hearsay just like you accept hearsay.

OR…you can reject hearsay, and then be free to criticize Christians for accepting hearsay.

But if you reject hearsay, there’s a whole lot o’ things you’re not going to be able to believe…and one of those would be that your pilot is licensed.

For, unless you verify this, you will have…

accepted it…

on…

hearsay.

 

[Vera_Ljuba]

Let me just make clear: All hearsay evidence should be treated on its own merit.

That should solve any kind of confusion.

Very well. Actually this is true not only for hearsay, but for ALL materials presented as evidence.

Now, again: you should be consistent and allow Christians to accept hearsay just like you accept hearsay.

You grant me powers that I don’t have and don’t want. Christians or anyone else is free to believe whatever they want.

But if you reject hearsay, there’s a whole lot o’ things you’re not going to be able to believe…and one of those would be that your pilot is licensed.

If you believe that accepting the pilot’s license without examining it is somehow the same (or even remotely similar to) accepting that Jesus walked on water, then you deny that every evidence must be examined on its own merit. Which one will it be?

 

[PRmerger]

Very well. Actually this is true not only for hearsay, but for ALL materials presented as evidence.

You grant me powers that I don’t have and don’t want. Christians or anyone else is free to believe whatever they want.

We’re not talking about free will here.

We are talking about what your objections are. You think it’s wrong (despite your claim that you can’t say what’s right and wrong for others) for Christians to believe in Jesus, whom you describe as a “legend”.

If you believe that accepting the pilot’s license without examining it is somehow the same (or even remotely similar to) accepting that Jesus walked on water, then you deny that every evidence must be examined on its own merit. Which one will it be?

Where it is similar, it is similar.
Where it’s dissimilar, well, it’s…dissimilar.

But let’s get to the crux of your objection: you don’t believe in God, therefore you don’t believe a man can walk on water.

And if that’s how we’re going, then we need to talk about how you can reject the existence of God. Especially when we all know something can’t begin to exist on its own.

OR, if you do believe in God, then how could you object to a miracle?

 

[JapaneseKappa]

This seems counter-intuitive.

Rather, what you should be professing is: “Of course reason is fallible, which is why ‘checking your work’ via an epistemic method is so inutile”.

If our reason is fallible, how can we trust it when we’re “checking our work”?

Because to get the wrong answer after you check your work, you have to be wrong twice. And if someone else checks their work that depends on you being right, you have to be wrong three times. And so on and so forth. Of course its possible we’re actively being deceived or that our reason is 100% unreliable but if that’s the case, there is nothing we can do (contrary to Descarte’s hopeful assertion to the contrary.)

 

[PRmerger]

Because to get the wrong answer after you check your work, you have to be wrong twice. And if someone else checks their work that depends on you being right, you have to be wrong three times. And so on and so forth. Of course its possible we’re actively being deceived or that our reason is 100% unreliable but if that’s the case, there is nothing we can do (contrary to Descarte’s hopeful assertion to the contrary.)

But that presumes that the epistemology is correct.

And you use your reason–which is fallible–to trust that it’s correct.

You should be saying, if you’re consonant with your paradigm, that trusting in any epistemology is useless.

 

[JapaneseKappa]

But that presumes that the epistemology is correct.

And you use your reason–which is fallible–to trust that it’s correct.

You should be saying, if you’re consonant with your paradigm, that trusting in any epistemology is useless.

1. I suspect claim because of reasons.
2. I employ epistemic method to determine the validity of claim.

I said that if our reason was fallible, there are two ways you can be wrong: Our reasons in step 1 could be wrong, or we could make a mistake while employing epistemic method in step 2.

Now you’ve introduced the idea that the epistemic method itself might be invalid. Of course that is possible, but you’re moving the goalposts.

 

[PRmerger]

1. I suspect claim because of reasons.
2. I employ epistemic method to determine the validity of claim.

I said that if our reason was fallible, there are two ways you can be wrong: Our reasons in step 1 could be wrong, or we could make a mistake while employing epistemic method in step 2.

Now you’ve introduced the idea that the epistemic method itself might be invalid. Of course that is possible, but you’re moving the goalposts.

How is that moving the goalposts?

Don’t you use your (fallible) reason to determine that the particular epistemology is applicable to this claim?

And don’t you use your (fallible) reason to determine that the particular epistemology is valid and reliable?

 

[JapaneseKappa]

And herein lies the problem. The theist has provided reasons (again, I’m sure you’d disagree with their soundness, but the claims aren’t hanging in thin air) that there are truths that are not amenable to easy separation into right or wrong given that we recognize:

1. Our finitude and the epistemic horizons that thus result, and
2. The infinity and transcendence of God.

I deny that “the infinity and transcendence of God” is anything other than a get-out-of-jail card. We can reason about infinite things. People have successfully done so. I also believe that your use of “transcendence” is just a way to re-introduce fuzziness. For any apparent contradiction, you will simply say “well God is transcendent, so that contradiction doesn’t apply” without specifying exactly what it is about transcendence that makes it not apply. In my view, it is just a way to disguise the fact that you’re saying “logic doesn’t apply” in order to escape what are plainly contradictions.

This is where the Resurrection argument, miracles, phenomenological arguments, and best explanation arguments (like, the Christian faith takes the facts about the world -such as facts x, y, and z - and puts them into a -]satisfying/-] good-feeling picture… no “really feeling it” required.

edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2014/05/pre-christian-apologetics.html

So you’re saying that your argument against the claim that God is not well defined and has many competing conceptions is the source which claims:

For one thing, not every argument for God’s existence will get you to the specific conception of God needed in order to establish the plausibility of a resurrection.

as though there are many competing conceptions of God?

 

[PRmerger]

I deny that “the infinity and transcendence of God” is anything other than a get-out-of-jail card. We can reason about infinite things. People have successfully done so. I also believe that your use of “transcendence” is just a way to re-introduce fuzziness. For any apparent contradiction, you will simply say “well God is transcendent, so that contradiction doesn’t apply” without specifying exactly what it is about transcendence that makes it not apply. In my view, it is just a way to disguise the fact that you’re saying “logic doesn’t apply” in order to escape what are plainly contradictions.

Can you give an example of a contradiction that we might appeal to God’s transcendence as a response?

 

[JapaneseKappa]

How is that moving the goalposts?

Don’t you use your (fallible) reason to determine that the particular epistemology is applicable to this claim?

And don’t you use your (fallible) reason to determine that the particular epistemology is valid and reliable?

Ah, I see, you’re driving a useful wedge. When we say that science doesn’t apply to the supernatural, we’re not saying that the epistemic method is invalid with respect to that claim. We are saying that we don’t have the means to apply the method to the claim. An epistemic method is valid for all claims, but we are unable to apply it to some.

So if there were some claim that we attempted to apply the method to that we were actually unable to test with the method, we’d necessarily be committing an error in step #2, and so isn’t a useful distinction.

 

[JapaneseKappa]

Can you give an example of a contradiction that we might appeal to God’s transcendence as a response?

Divine simplicity and the trinity.

 

[PRmerger]

Divine simplicity and the trinity.

And God’s transcendence is the answer to this “contradiction”, how?

 

[PRmerger]

Ah, I see, you’re driving a useful wedge.

Yes, indeed.

When we say that science doesn’t apply to the supernatural, we’re not saying that the epistemic method is invalid with respect to that claim. We are saying that we don’t have the means to apply the method to the claim. An epistemic method is valid for all claims, but we are unable to apply it to some.

So if there were some claim that we attempted to apply the method to that we were actually unable to test with the method, we’d necessarily be committing an error in step #2, and so isn’t a useful distinction.

The above appears to be a nonsequitur.

Point remains: when you use your (fallible) reason to apply an epistemology to check, and double check, your claim, you are using a useless methodology.

Now, if you want to accept that FAITH as well as Reason are tools we use to come to an understanding of our world, then, we say YES! YES!

You have FAITH in the epistemological method you’re applying.

Nothing wrong with that.

But you should then be aware that you are very Catholic when you do so.

 

[JapaneseKappa]

And God’s transcendence is the answer to this “contradiction”, how?

My whole point is that it doesn’t answer the contradiction. But it does get invoked:

God is Love. He transcends individuality. God the Father loves the Son, who returns that love in His obedience to The Father’s will; The Holy Spirit proceeds from and joins each to the other.
How about, the Knower, the Known and the Knowing - each persons in God.
The idea of the Trinity is complex; the reality of God is simple.
“One” is actually not simple at all:

• How does one exist without there being other?
• What is the relationship between one and other?

catholic.com/magazine/articles/how-not-to-share-the-trinity

The problem with using analogies to explain the Trinity is that God is the most unique being in existence. In fact, many theologians will tell you it’s not quite correct to call God a being but rather he is the being, or the reason anything exists at all. Because God is so unique, any analogy we use will inevitably fall short. The Catechism states, “God transcends all creatures. . . . Our human words always fall short of the mystery of God” (CCC 42).

 

[PRmerger]

My whole point is that it doesn’t answer the contradiction. But it does get invoked:

I get that you believe it doesn’t answer the contradiction.

Firstly, I don’t see the contradiction between God’s utter simplicity and the dogma of the Trinity.

For there to be a contradiction we would have to say God is simple. And God is not simple. In the same way. At the same time.

That’s not what the Dogma of the Trinity professes. God IS indeed simple and this is in no way a contradiction to God being One God, 3 Persons.

Secondly, how is it that God being transcendent doesn’t address what you believe to be a contradiction?

 

[JapaneseKappa]

Firstly, I don’t see the contradiction between God’s utter simplicity and the dogma of the Trinity.

If you’ll notice, the conversation I was having with ccmnxc revolved around there being too many competing conceptions of God for God to be a well defined concept. If ccmnxc is right, then there shouldn’t be any significant variation between the different Christian conceptions of the trinity, and divine simplicity. If I am right, you will need to be very precise about which conception you’re using, because the majority of the conceptions are contradictory.

So if you want to pursue this, I suggest you make a new thread, and lay out very precisely which views of simplicity and trinity don’t conflict with each other.

 

[PRmerger]

If you’ll notice, the conversation I was having with ccmnxc revolved around there being too many competing conceptions of God for God to be a well defined concept. If ccmnxc is right, then there shouldn’t be any significant variation between the different Christian conceptions of the trinity, and divine simplicity. If I am right, you will need to be very precise about which conception you’re using, because the majority of the conceptions are contradictory.

So if you want to pursue this, I suggest you make a new thread, and lay out very precisely which views of simplicity and trinity don’t conflict with each other.

I don’t think anyone denies that there are a whole bunch o’ folks who define God in a whole bunch o’ ways.

Not sure what your conclusion is from the fact that there are folks who define God in some very weird, peculiar, WRONG ways?

 

[JapaneseKappa]

The above appears to be a nonsequitur.

Point remains: when you use your (fallible) reason to apply an epistemology to check, and double check, your claim, you are using a useless methodology.

No, this was directly addressed by my earlier explanation. Merely asserting that the method is useless doesn’t defeat my response.

Now, if you want to accept that FAITH as well as Reason are tools we use to come to an understanding of our world, then, we say YES! YES!

You have FAITH in the epistemological method you’re applying.

Nothing wrong with that.

But you should then be aware that you are very Catholic when you do so.

Of course. My position has always been that you cannot defeat pure skepticism in an a-priori sense. Descarte’s cogito was a famous but over-optimistic sword against this demon. We could always be brains in jars or fooled by demons or the the world could exist only in my head. The decision to have some (not complete) faith in reason and our senses is born of simple pragmatism: the alternatives don’t give us any paths forward, and we get hungry no matter what we believe. And so when it comes to the role of an epistemic method, the goal is simply to have a way to get useful, and reliable information about this world we sense and reason about. On those grounds an epistemic method is justified simply by its success in the goal we laid out for it: giving us the ability to make reliable predictions about this world of sense and reason, not its ability to defeat Descarte’s demons.

 

[CHRISTINE77]

Divine simplicity and the trinity.

How it that a contradiction? What could be more simple than a divine trinity? And yet so complex? Ha ha! I am surprised at an Asian finding this unusual.