Proving The Resurrection By the "Minimal Facts" Approach

[Peter_Plato]

That question… why?

How about this one: Which model best represents reality?

• Christian model?
• Muslim model?
• Hindu model?
• Norse model?
• Atheist model?

The atheist “model” isn’t a model, though, is it?

It is simply a denial, a “lack of belief in God,” no?

Propose something POSITIVE, then, AND begin to justify it.

 

[pocaracas]

The atheist “model” isn’t a model, though, is it?

It is simply a denial, a “lack of belief in God,” no?

Propose something POSITIVE, then, AND begin to justify it.

It’s only a negative model with regards to the existence of a god.
It’s a valid candidate model for reality.

 

[rcwitness]

The atheist “model” isn’t a model, though, is it?

It is simply a denial, a “lack of belief in God,” no?

Propose something POSITIVE, then, AND begin to justify it.

Can we justify reality??? We can find evidence which strongly supports it. And we can have faith which brings us into His mercy.

 

[Gorgias]

Ah, the internet and its rule for nazis… any discussion that takes enough time will lead to nazis

And at that point, the discussion is over, eh?

But, it’s the easy example in this case, of how “each has his own truth” fails.

No… this bounded accuracy is more for the slightly inaccurate descriptions, such as most (not to say all) scientific models.

Aah… ok – so you don’t agree with the Nazi example, then? In other words, what people believe (that isn’t accurate) isn’t truth? We’re getting somewhere, then…

(And yet, this doesn’t mean that this 2nd type of ‘truth’ is truth at all – rather, it’s something that looks like the truth, but upon closer evaluation, isn’t true. So, we’re still at the point that you’re calling this ‘truth’, but in reality, it’s just another kind of untrue claim.)

It’s sadly one of the most common applications of the word.

In our post-modern world, you’re absolutely right: this is the example of the five people in a dark room with an elephant – each has his “own” truth, but none of their observations leads to the truth.

(By the way, here’s one place that your ‘empiricism’ argument breaks down. Each has empirical evidence ‘proving’ his ‘truth’, but each is mistaken. Empirical evidence doesn’t, on its own, demonstrate truth. It takes a judgment to weigh empirical evidence and reach a conclusion. Therefore, judgments are what deal in ‘truth’, and they are – in a certain sense – subjective. )

You may argue that it’s a misapplication, but then… people lie, misremember, or make mistakes and unwittingly say things which don’t relate with reality, but they think they do relate.
That nazi example could fit here.

Fair enough. So… this one isn’t truth, then.

Religions also fit here.

Your opinion. And… you know what we just said about opinions, right?

It’s good to know that you think the truth is one thing and an utterance believed to be the truth is something else.
How to discern them?
wink starts with “empir”.

Sometimes it does; sometimes not. As I recall, you haven’t yet demonstrated that empirical evidence is the only means to the truth. Or have I missed that proof?

Here’s a couple hints to get you started:

• the definition of a triangle is ‘truth’. the definition of a triangle does not depend on empirical evidence.
• a judgment call (let’s say, as made by a jury in a trial) is the truth (or, at the very least, what a jury understands the truth to be). a judgment call (for instance, a jury verdict) doesn’t require empirical evidence (e.g., a ‘smoking gun’).

Look up Newman’s “Illative Sense” to get an idea about what – besides empirical evidence – can lead to an understanding of the truth.

Yep, I agree. But the person saying the untruth will be puzzled by that… why don’t other people believe her when she says that “truth”?

The question isn’t whether a person is puzzled or not, but whether he speaks the truth.

Why don’t atheists believe the “truth” of the church?
Why don’t atheists believe the truth of the Qur’an?
Why don’t atheists believe the truth of the Vedas?
Why don’t atheists believe the truth of any religion?

Immaterial, I’d say. You’re making the “appeal to popularity” logical fallacy (the argumentam ad numeram). Just because atheists don’t believe in certain things does not make these things untrue utterances. Just because there’s a set of things that atheists say they don’t believe in, doesn’t mean that there aren’t non-empirical arguments that they do believe in (even if their distrust in ‘belief systems’ blinds them to the fact that they do, in fact, have belief systems)…!

 

[pocaracas]

And at that point, the discussion is over, eh?

But, it’s the easy example in this case, of how “each has his own truth” fails.

No… I think… it’s just a natural tendency, it seems… the argumentation goes through the Nazis.

Aah… ok – so you don’t agree with the Nazi example, then? In other words, what people believe (that isn’t accurate) isn’t truth? We’re getting somewhere, then…

I agree with the Nazi example, but not for this kind of “truth”. As was pointed below that quote of mine.

This one is for things that are true, to the best of our ability to ascertain it, knowing it’s not the ultimate complete picture.

In our post-modern world, you’re absolutely right: this is the example of the five people in a dark room with an elephant – each has his “own” truth, but none of their observations leads to the truth.

(By the way, here’s one place that your ‘empiricism’ argument breaks down. Each has empirical evidence ‘proving’ his ‘truth’, but each is mistaken. Empirical evidence doesn’t, on its own, demonstrate truth. It takes a judgment to weigh empirical evidence and reach a conclusion. Therefore, judgments are what deal in ‘truth’, and they are – in a certain sense – subjective. )

I fail to understand your example. Five people in a dark room with an elephant? Must be a large room… ah… it’s blind men.
Each “senses” his own part of the elephant, but none of them manages to determine the full elephant. Clearly a failure of each to keep probing. This would fall in my second case, not this third one.

Fair enough. So… this one isn’t truth, then.

Right.

Your opinion. And… you know what we just said about opinions, right?

Right.

Sometimes it does; sometimes not. As I recall, you haven’t yet demonstrated that empirical evidence is the only means to the truth. Or have I missed that proof?

No, I don’t think I have… for I don’t think I can. Maybe it’s just my inability, maybe it’s just not possible.

But empiricism is our best way to tell apart those claims of truth which are indeed coherent with reality from those which are not.
How, if not by some empirical mechanism, would the blind men discern that they had an elephant in their midst?

Here’s a couple hints to get you started:
the definition of a triangle is ‘truth’. the definition of a triangle does not depend on empirical evidence.

How do you claim that a definition is ‘truth’? That isn’t making sense, to me…
A definition of a bachelor is a ‘not married man’… hence the definition of a bachelor is truth?

a judgment call (let’s say, as made by a jury in a trial) is the truth (or, at the very least, what a jury understands the truth to be). a judgment call (for instance, a jury verdict) doesn’t require empirical evidence (e.g., a ‘smoking gun’).

Ah… “what a jury understands the truth to be”, this is that limited truth I put in second place. Within certain bounds.
A judgement call is a ruling based on the jury’s subjective judgement, huh? They can be wrong and not notice it.

Look up Newman’s “Illative Sense” to get an idea about what – besides empirical evidence – can lead to an understanding of the truth.

Do you mean “Subjective truth”?

Is bacon truly good?
What is the truth about the tastiness of bacon? Inquiring minds want to know!!!

Why don’t you like cucumber as much as me? Cucumber is the tastiest of veggies, and that’s the truth!
Or is it?

How can subjective truth help us in ascertaining objective reality?
At best, you get the objective truth that I like cucumber more than you do. That doesn’t make cucumber the objective tastiest veggie… The empirical taste of cucumber activates more pleasurable nerves in me than it does in you.

The question isn’t whether a person is puzzled or not, but whether he speaks the truth.

I know… but the person will often be puzzled at why the others don’t accept his testimony as true.

Immaterial, I’d say. You’re making the “appeal to popularity” logical fallacy (the argumentam ad numeram). Just because atheists don’t believe in certain things does not make these things untrue utterances. Just because there’s a set of things that atheists say they don’t believe in, doesn’t mean that there aren’t non-empirical arguments that they do believe in (even if their distrust in ‘belief systems’ blinds them to the fact that they do, in fact, have belief systems)…!

Oh wait… are you trying to tell me that I claim not to have a belief system, when I certainly do?
Well, let me save you the trouble. Yes I believe in some things.
For example: I believe my wife is not cheating on me.
I could have empirical evidence for that, but I don’t. I trust her enough to assume she wouldn’t mess around with another guy.

As for that appeal to popularity… I don’t get it… I don’t think that’s what I was even trying to do.
I just wanted to show that religions make claims about the truth which some people (atheists) find difficult to believe. Mostly, because they understand that those religions are uttering things which they themselves believe to be true, but which are not necessarily so.
It’s not limited to atheists… Believers of one religion typically think the the believers in another religion are also uttering the wrong truth (or a very skewed version of the one Truth)… is it not?

 

[Bradski]

So יוֹם could have meant anything from a specified amount of time as in day, year, lifetime, forever or eternity; any unspecified period…

The Latin translation was used for centuries (and still is, of course) and I’m a little rusty, but dies unus , dies secundus etc seems to translate as the first day and the second day (not the ‘first indeterminate time period’ and the ‘second indeterminate time period’). And when we get to the seventh ‘indeterminate time period’, He rested. For in 6 ‘indeterminate time periods’ He did all the heavy lifting and then had a break. For an indeterminate time period, apparently.

And then Exodus tells us that you shall keep this seventh indeterminate time period holy and you shan’t do any work either. Whatever made them think it was just one day?

So it says 7 days. All the translations say 7 days. Other parts of the bible confirm it to be 7 days. You’d have been hard pressed to find anyone even a couple of hundred years ago that didn’t believe it to be 7 days. You still have a not insignificant proportion of the population today who will go to their graves convinced it was seven days. And that was because for no other reason other than the church taught that scripture was to be trusted.

Take your “the Bible is accurate and therefore the earth is 6000 years old according to the Bible” to the Fundamentalist forum…

…Where does the Bible say this?

Saying that the bible doesn’t say that the world is 6,000 years old is like holding up a copy of Newton’s Principia and declaring that nowhere in that tome does it say anything about the orbit of Pluto. However, reading the book will tell you something about the real world and will enable you to work it out. Hey, you will declare, the information in Principia is correct! I can trust what it says. And yes, I know the bible isn’t a science book but we still have to know whether we can trust what the bible says or not.

So is Genesis an accurate telling of the process of creation? Well, it used to be considered as such. But, no Bradski – don’t read it like a fundamentalist would! Except I’m not. I’m saying that that was how everyone used to read it. And they weren’t classed as fundamentalist the. It was the only option. You’re only a fundamentalist now if you insist on reading it literally.

So Genesis?
C’mon, Bradski – it’s metaphorical.
The parting of the seas?
Bradski, that’s metaphorical as well.
Animals two by two?
Hell, Bradski, how many times do we have to say it?
OK, how about walking on water?
Yes it’s…ummm…well, in that case…
Loaves and fishes? I mean, 5,000 people saw it.
Well, that one is…well, it’s ‘true’. It doesn’t have to be taken literally. But it’s ‘true’ anyway.

Can you offer some, er, evidence that the Church read it as a fundamentalist does?

There were no other options. No-one was in a position to say: ‘Hang on, I’ve got a lot of reliable information here that suggests that what is written should not be taken literally’.

Or (as poca likes to render it): the author believed the flood to be global.

You mean someone wrote something in the bible which they thought was true but which wasn’t? I wonder how we tell.

To some extent. Glad to see that you recognize that Scripture needs an authoritative interpreter, and isn’t just a book you can pick up off the shelf and it interprets itself.

So if I’m reading the bible, there is somewhere I can reference that will tell me if what I am reading actually took place or not?

Nope. My point is that yours doesn’t hold up – partially, because you misstate what the Church teaches, and partially, because you want to hold the Church to some sort of fundamentalist doctrinal stance.

Not correct. So I’ll state it so there’s no misunderstanding: The current Catholic position on the bible is not fundamentalist. That’s because the church now has better information and treats a lot of the bible as metaphorical rather than factual (fundamentalists treat it as factual). For example, the church taught, via the bible, that God made all living things at one time and in a particular order. What else would they teach? There was no information that contradicted that. Now we know that’s not true and, as the Pope reminds the faithful: ‘Evolution in nature is not inconsistent with the notion of creation, because evolution requires the creation of beings that evolve.’

Atheism, when held as a “lack of belief” remains a negative, an avoidance, when faced with the question of “Where to from here?” It provides NO positive direction.

You seem to think that atheism is meant to offer some guidance and then complain that it doesn’t. It only describes one’s position regarding the belief in gods. If you want to know how any particular person lives his or her life, then ‘Christian’ might give you a heads-up. ‘Atheist’ won’t and never will.

As far as I know, Poca could be a secularist, a communist, a solipsist, a UFOlogist etc and make decisions on life by staring at tea leaves, studying the constellations or the entrails of goats. Maybe he always defers to ‘What would Kirk do in this situation?’. Who knows? His being an atheist tells you but one thing.

 

[PRmerger]

Saying that the bible doesn’t say that the world is 6,000 years old is like holding up a copy of Newton’s Principia and declaring that nowhere in that tome does it say anything about the orbit of Pluto.

Again, this puts you right in the camp of the Fundamentalists, Bradski.

The Church has nowhere, ever, taught that the world is 6000 years old.

Why?

Because we don’t view the Bible as a book of chronological truths.

I can declare that science says that the MMR causes autism, or that science teaches that alchemy is an actual thing…

and any newbie who comes to this forum who reads my post here will summarily dismiss me as a fundamentalist who hasn’t a clue about science.

And rightly so.

Similarly, if any newbie comes to this forum and reads your post about the Bible teaching that the earth is 6000 years old can summarily dismiss you as someone who hasn’t a clue about the Bible, and about Catholicism.

And rightly so.

 

[PRmerger]

Again, this puts you right in the camp of the Fundamentalists, Bradski.

The Church has nowhere, ever, taught that the world is 6000 years old.

Why?

Because we don’t view the Bible as a book of chronological truths.

I can declare that science says that the MMR causes autism, or that science teaches that alchemy is an actual thing…

and any newbie who comes to this forum who reads my post here will summarily dismiss me as a fundamentalist who hasn’t a clue about science.

And rightly so.

Similarly, if any newbie comes to this forum and reads your post about the Bible teaching that the earth is 6000 years old can summarily dismiss you as someone who hasn’t a clue about the Bible, and about Catholicism.

And rightly so.

Edit the above to say: any* informed *newbie.

Uninformed folks will simply agree: oh, yes, the Bible does teach the earth is 6000 years old, as so does the CC!

And they will profess: I do know that science has confirmed that the MMR causes autism, and that this alchemy thing is right on!

 

[PRmerger]

And still, you’re moving the goalposts: you didn’t assert “what people believe”, you asserted “what the Church teaches.”

And this is a most trenchant point.

The discussion started with Bradski claiming that the Church had changed its teachings.

When asked to provide sources, the position was offered, “Well, the Church used to teach that the earth was 6000 years old”.

But, as it turns out (after some feverish google searching I’m guessing ), Bradski learned that this was an assertion borne from great ignorance of Catholicism.

So now the goalposts were moved to “People used to believe”.

That won’t work.

Because, if “people used to believe” it, then, as Bradski so helpfully pointed out, millions of “people still believe it”…so we’re still needing a thing that the Church “used to teach” that the Church “now teaches a contrary position.”

 

[Peter_Plato]

You seem to think that atheism is meant to offer some guidance and then complain that it doesn’t. It only describes one’s position regarding the belief in gods. If you want to know how any particular person lives his or her life, then ‘Christian’ might give you a heads-up. ‘Atheist’ won’t and never will.

Brad, I wish you would try to keep track of things.

I am not the one who suggested that atheism “is meant to offer some guidance” or “give a heads-up” and then went on to “complain that it doesn’t.”

My confusion is genuine and stems from the dissonance between two conflicting claims of atheists.

1. That atheism is merely a lack of belief in the existence of God, and
2. That atheism - even if it is merely a lack of belief - can present a consistent and coherent “guidance” regarding what an atheistic “model of reality” would look like.

Recall that it was Poca who claimed atheism offers a “model of reality.”

How about this one: Which model best represents reality?

• Christian model?
• Muslim model?
• Hindu model?
• Norse model?
• Atheist model?

Perhaps, you (or he - I am not choosy) could explain how a lack of belief could be stretched to serve as a “model of reality?”

Maybe it can. Maybe it can’t.

Not seeing how a lack of belief could possibly engender a model of reality does not place the burden on me to show how it might. I freely admit I don’t see that it does but that doesn’t amount to a “complaint” that it doesn’t. I never entertained the expectation that it might, so why would I complain?

What is an atheist’s “model of reality?” What would that positively look like? Do you want to propose one for discussion?

I am thinking the “model” could be literally anything except that it would be absent God. Still not “a model,” even leaving aside that some idea of “God” would have to exist in the atheist’s mind for the atheist to discount the possibility of THAT “God’s” existence.

Denying a purely negative notion of God (a know-not-what) simply wouldn’t make sense. Why would someone deny the existence of what one cannot or does not even attempt to conceive?

Surely, atheism is simply, then, an “in principle” denial of all possible theistic “models of reality,” but that still leaves the replacement for those models wide open, no? In other words, atheism per se provides NO “models of reality.” It merely says which models it rejects or finds unacceptable.

Or, do you suppose that Poca wishes to dispute the standard atheist claim that atheism is simply “a lack of belief” and, now, turn it into a positive world view?

I would be fine with that, but let’s define what that world view is before we call it a distinctively atheistic “model of reality.” We may discover that there exist a number of atheist “models of reality” equal in number, perhaps, to the number of Protestant denominations in the world - if we are not careful. There might even be, then, the possibility of disputing the claims of atheism because then those would be defined in precisely the way that atheists are loathe to permit.

We might come to realize that “what ordinary atheists believe” differs radically from what the high church or high priests of atheism teach in the same way that “what ordinary Christians believe” differs radically from what the Church actually teaches. Or we might equally be astounded to learn that what ordinary atheists believe that the Church teaches differs radically from what she actually does.

 

[pocaracas]

Again, this puts you right in the camp of the Fundamentalists, Bradski.

The Church has nowhere, ever, taught that the world is 6000 years old.

Why?

Because we don’t view the Bible as a book of chronological truths.

Aren’t there 2 genealogies for Jesus in the NT?
One by Matthew who stops at Abraham and the other by Luke, the companion of Paul, who got it from… whom? doesn’t say… Holy spirit, I guess.
Here’s Luke’s version:
“”
God
Adam
Seth
Enos
Cainan
Maleleel
Jared
Enoch
Mathusala
Lamech
Noe
Shem
Arphaxad

Cainan
Sala
Heber
Phalec
Ragau
Saruch
Nachor
Thara
Abraham
Isaac
Jacob
Juda
Phares

Esrom
Aram
Aminadab
Naasson
Salmon
Booz
Obed
Jesse
David
Nathan
Mattatha
Menan
Melea

Eliakim
Jonam
Joseph
Judah
Simeon
Levi
Matthat
Jorim
Eliezer
Jose
Er
Elmodam
Cosam

Addi
Melchi
Neri
Salathiel
Zorobabel
Rhesa
Joanna
Juda
Joseph
Semei
Mattathias
Maath
Nagge

Esli
Naum
Amos
Mattathias
Joseph
Janna
Melchi
Levi
Matthat
Heli
Joseph
Jesus

“”

76 generations from Adam to Jesus… How many years does that make?
Guessing a round number of 100 years per generation, that would be 7600 years.
Or is this not something that the Church teaches, nor has ever taught?

Did Luke get this wrong?
Or is the Genesis account so metaphorical that anything can go in between God’s creation of the Universe and the final breathing of a soul into the previously evolved ape-like Adam? And, only since Adam, can we say that some 6000 years have elapsed?

 

[pocaracas]

My confusion is genuine and stems from the dissonance between two conflicting claims of atheists.

1. That atheism is merely a lack of belief in the existence of God, and
2. That atheism - even if it is merely a lack of belief - can present a consistent and coherent “guidance” regarding what an atheistic “model of reality” would look like.

Recall that it was Poca who claimed atheism offers a “model of reality.”

A model for the reality of the God claim… do I need to spell everything out?
(oh… I do, don’t I?)

Perhaps, you (or he - I am not choosy) could explain how a lack of belief could be stretched to serve as a “model of reality?”

Maybe it can. Maybe it can’t.

Not seeing how a lack of belief could possibly engender a model of reality does not place the burden on me to show how it might. I freely admit I don’t see that it does but that doesn’t amount to a “complaint” that it doesn’t. I never entertained the expectation that it might, so why would I complain?

What is an atheist’s “model of reality?” What would that positively look like? Do you want to propose one for discussion?

I am thinking the “model” could be literally anything except that it would be absent God. Still not “a model,” even leaving aside that some idea of “God” would have to exist in the atheist’s mind for the atheist to discount the possibility of THAT “God’s” existence.

Indeed… I’d go with this anything, absent of the presupposition of a god.
Science being what informs us on what is actually there, from the infinite pool of “anything”.
If a god does eventually appear, then I’ll incorporate it into my model of reality.

I hope that clears any confusion.

Denying a purely negative notion of God (a know-not-what) simply wouldn’t make sense. Why would someone deny the existence of what one cannot or does not even attempt to conceive?

Surely, atheism is simply, then, an “in principle” denial of all possible theistic “models of reality,” but that still leaves the replacement for those models wide open, no? In other words, atheism per se provides NO “models of reality.” It merely says which models it rejects or finds unacceptable.

Or, do you suppose that Poca wishes to dispute the standard atheist claim that atheism is simply “a lack of belief” and, now, turn it into a positive world view?

I suppose he doesn’t…

Although I am aware of a few people who will claim that none of the religions thus far offered a consistent god hypothesis, thus rendering them all effectively impossible.
These people also go by the definition of atheist.

Personally, I’m a bit more charitable towards religions in general… perhaps due to my ignorance of them.

We might come to realize that “what ordinary atheists believe” differs radically from what the high church or high priests of atheism teach in the same way that “what ordinary Christians believe” differs radically from what the Church actually teaches. Or we might equally be astounded to learn that what ordinary atheists believe that the Church teaches differs radically from what she actually does.

What is “the high church or high priests of atheism”?

 

[Gorgias]

I fail to understand your example. Five people in a dark room with an elephant? Must be a large room… ah… it’s blind men.
Each “senses” his own part of the elephant, but none of them manages to determine the full elephant. Clearly a failure of each to keep probing. This would fall in my second case, not this third one.

No – each can share his experience, and at that point, it’s not a question of empirical evidence, but of judgment. The ‘truth’ that is concluded does not proceed solely from the empirical evidence!

But empiricism is our best way to tell apart those claims of truth which are indeed coherent with reality from those which are not.
How, if not by some empirical mechanism, would the blind men discern that they had an elephant in their midst?

Discussion, reason, inference. None of which are ‘empirical evidence’.

How do you claim that a definition is ‘truth’? That isn’t making sense, to me…

I know. I kinda expected as much.

Is it not ‘true’ that a triangle is a closed polygon with three sides and interior angles that add up to 180 degrees?

A definition of a bachelor is a ‘not married man’… hence the definition of a bachelor is truth?

Of course it is! It can be used in logical inferences; it is true! (“All unmarried men are bachelors; Tom is unmarried; therefore, Tom is a bachelor.”)

Ah… “what a jury understands the truth to be”, this is that limited truth I put in second place. Within certain bounds.
A judgement call is a ruling based on the jury’s subjective judgement, huh? They can be wrong and not notice it.

They can be; but, the standard is supposed to be “beyond a reasonable doubt” in a criminal case. (Whether they actually rise to the standard is a different sort of question entirely – after all, whether you correctly interpret the empirical evidence you have at hand doesn’t speak to the value of empirical evidence, right? – but the standard itself is a mechanism for arriving at ‘truth’.)

Do you mean “Subjective truth”?

Is bacon truly good?
What is the truth about the tastiness of bacon? Inquiring minds want to know!!!

Why don’t you like cucumber as much as me? Cucumber is the tastiest of veggies, and that’s the truth!
Or is it?

No – there’s no such thing as ‘subjective truth’ (unless, by that, you mean ‘opinion’ or ‘taste’). It’s ‘true’ that it’s your opinion that cucumber is tasty; but that doesn’t mean that it’s true that cucumber is tasty.

There are some things that are in the domain of subjective experience; but that’s not what we’re talking about, here…

I know… but the person will often be puzzled at why the others don’t accept his testimony as true.

Fair enough. Yet, again, that doesn’t mean that the truth value of their statement is affected by their genuine mistake.

Oh wait… are you trying to tell me that I claim not to have a belief system, when I certainly do?
Well, let me save you the trouble. Yes I believe in some things.

You’re about to use the word ‘belief’ too colloquially, but go ahead…

For example: I believe my wife is not cheating on me.
I could have empirical evidence for that, but I don’t. I trust her enough to assume she wouldn’t mess around with another guy.

No, you don’t ‘believe’ it, in the same connotation of a ‘belief system’. C’mon … you’re better than that! Don’t fall for using the word in a different way and then claim that the definition we’re talking about fits this new meaning you’ve pointed out!

What you’re talking about is your confidence, based on the knowledge you possess, that it is true that your wife isn’t cheating on you. (That, by the way, is a definition of ‘truth’, not ‘belief’ – and it’s a good example of Newman’s Illative Sense: you possess sufficient knowledge to convince you that the statement “she isn’t cheating on me” is true.)

As for that appeal to popularity… I don’t get it… I don’t think that’s what I was even trying to do.

OK. It sure seemed like you were justifying ‘lack of belief’ by pointing to some things that some people don’t believe in – that is, by making an appeal to the numbers of people who believe similiarly to you.

I just wanted to show that religions make claims about the truth which some people (atheists) find difficult to believe. Mostly, because they understand that those religions are uttering things which they themselves believe to be true, but which are not necessarily so.

Outstanding! In other words, we’re talking about claims about truth that some feel are justified, and others do not? There’s that illative sense in operation, again…

 

[Gorgias]

You still have a not insignificant proportion of the population today who will go to their graves convinced it was seven days. And that was because for no other reason other than the church taught that scripture was to be trusted.

No… they trusted a particular interpretation of the Scriptures (i.e., the one that says “it literally means 6 24-hour periods”). Because they believed that Scripture was to be trusted, they were willing to believe in one particular interpretative hermeneutic; that doesn’t imply what you’re claiming.

Saying that the bible doesn’t say that the world is 6,000 years old is like

… is like expecting that the Bible is a science book. It isn’t. And the Church doesn’t claim that it is.

So is Genesis an accurate telling of the process of creation? Well, it used to be considered as such.

By some. Yet, you seem unwilling to notice that even Augustine warns against using it as a scientific account.

But, no Bradski – don’t read it like a fundamentalist would! Except I’m not. I’m saying that that was how everyone used to read it.

And, in that assertion, you’d be mistaken.

So Genesis?
C’mon, Bradski – it’s metaphorical.
The parting of the seas?
Bradski, that’s metaphorical as well.
Animals two by two?
Hell, Bradski, how many times do we have to say it?
OK, how about walking on water?
Yes it’s…ummm…well, in that case…
Loaves and fishes? I mean, 5,000 people saw it.

Different genres of literature. Different standards of interpretation. On your bookshelf, you might have books on the history of WWII, Beowulf, cookbooks, and Emily Dickinson’s poetry. Do you apply the same standards of interpretation to all of these? Of course not. Then why do you insist on applying a single standard to the collection of books found in the Bible?

You mean someone wrote something in the bible which they thought was true but which wasn’t? I wonder how we tell.

As Catholics, we believe that the Church has the authority to teach the Scripture accurately (that’s what ‘magisterium’ means), and that it’s been given this protection to the Church by Christ (who, after all, wouldn’t want His Church to teach untruth).

So if I’m reading the bible, there is somewhere I can reference that will tell me if what I am reading actually took place or not?

Inasmuch as it affects doctrine/dogma, yep. Read the Catechism of the Catholic Church. It alludes to these things in its discussion of doctrine. (Not explicitly, mind you: the Catechism isn’t meant to be a reference book to Scripture. But it’s there, indirectly, and as necessary.)

Not correct. So I’ll state it so there’s no misunderstanding: The current Catholic position on the bible is not fundamentalist. That’s because the church now has better information and treats a lot of the bible as metaphorical

Notice two things: first, the Church’s position has always been a ‘best available knowledge’ position – at least as far as interpretation goes. Augustine taught it, Bellarmine taught it (wrt the Galileo episode), etc, etc. This position doesn’t undermine the Church’s teaching to ‘trust Scripture’, as you put it. Rather, it says that the Church will always teach faith and morals accurately; but it does not claim such authority for scientific truth.

Second, even when the Church claims ‘allegory’, it still is teaching ‘truth’. Even if it weren’t “6 24-hour periods” or “global flood”, there is still God’s truth in those passages (e.g., “God created everything from nothing and it was all good”, “you can’t wipe out evil by killing all the sinful people”). Nothing in ‘allegory’ refutes your maxim “trust Scripture.”

 

[Gorgias]

Aren’t there 2 genealogies for Jesus in the NT?
One by Matthew who stops at Abraham and the other by Luke, the companion of Paul, who got it from… whom? doesn’t say… Holy spirit, I guess.

Ask yourself what a Scriptural genealogy does, and what it means. In the Bible, it serves to connect the person(s) at the beginning of the genealogy to the person(s) at the end. The two genealogies, then, are making theological statements: one connects Jesus to Abraham and David (i.e., Jesus is a son of David, and therefore, a Davidic king); the other connects him to Adam and God (i.e., Jesus is a son of Adam (that is, ‘human’) and a son of God).

76 generations from Adam to Jesus… How many years does that make?

Scriptural genealogies don’t answer the question “how long?”, but rather “who are you related to?”

Guessing a round number of 100 years per generation, that would be 7600 years.
Or is this not something that the Church teaches, nor has ever taught?

There are some Christians who teach this; but that has never been the doctrine of the Catholic Church.

Or is the Genesis account so metaphorical that anything can go in between God’s creation of the Universe and the final breathing of a soul into the previously evolved ape-like Adam?

Allegorical, not metaphorical.

And, if it’s not literal, then yeah – how can you say that an epic poem (which is, you know, the genre of the creation account in Genesis 1 !) is written in linear, literal time?

And, only since Adam, can we say that some 6000 years have elapsed?

Nope; we wouldn’t say that, either.

 

[pocaracas]

No – each can share his experience, and at that point, it’s not a question of empirical evidence, but of judgment. The ‘truth’ that is concluded does not proceed solely from the empirical evidence!

Oh?
But all they have to go on are their sensory (name removed by moderator)uts and the communicated sensory (name removed by moderator)uts of the others.
Certainly, the combined information of all the sensory (name removed by moderator)uts will provide a better picture of the elephant… but it’s still all empirical data.

Discussion, reason, inference. None of which are ‘empirical evidence’.

But all those would need to operate on the empirical evidence gathered by each of them.
Even so, there’s no guarantee that the outcome of any of those methods would be accurate… unless it allows one to produce a prediction that can be verified by further empirical testing, thus confirming or disbelieving the conclusion reached by those methods you mentioned.

I’m using inference when I assign human psychology to the people who wrote stories from long ago, arriving at the conclusion that they were probably mistaken, well acknowledging that I have no further evidence of such mistakes, except for the absence of similar events within my life’s experience and many others who relate similar experimental lacking.
I know full well that I may be mistaken, but I stand by what seems to be the most likely reasoning.

Do you know full well that your belief may be mistaken?

Is it not ‘true’ that a triangle is a closed polygon with three sides and interior angles that add up to 180 degrees?

Yes, it’s true that that is the definition of the word triangle.

Of course it is! It can be used in logical inferences; it is true! (“All unmarried men are bachelors; Tom is unmarried; therefore, Tom is a bachelor.”)

Talk about going around in circles… but ok… carry on.
The definitions of words are true, because that’s how they were defined by people.
A word… rather a noun, is a label attributed to things. Groups of people agree upon a certain set of labels… add verbs so you can discuss actions, qualifiers and a few more binding words, mix them in with grammar and a language is born…

No – there’s no such thing as ‘subjective truth’ (unless, by that, you mean ‘opinion’ or ‘taste’). It’s ‘true’ that it’s your opinion that cucumber is tasty; but that doesn’t mean that it’s true that cucumber is tasty.

There are some things that are in the domain of subjective experience; but that’s not what we’re talking about, here…

Fair enough…

Fair enough. Yet, again, that doesn’t mean that the truth value of their statement is affected by their genuine mistake.

Indeed…

You’re about to use the word ‘belief’ too colloquially, but go ahead…

No, you don’t ‘believe’ it, in the same connotation of a ‘belief system’. C’mon … you’re better than that! Don’t fall for using the word in a different way and then claim that the definition we’re talking about fits this new meaning you’ve pointed out!

What you’re talking about is your confidence, based on the knowledge you possess, that it is true that your wife isn’t cheating on you. (That, by the way, is a definition of ‘truth’, not ‘belief’ – and it’s a good example of Newman’s Illative Sense: you possess sufficient knowledge to convince you that the statement “she isn’t cheating on me” is true.)

It follows the standard definition of belief…
Dictionaries tend to capture all the uses of a particular word: dictionary.reference.com/browse/belief?s=t

A system is merely a collection… ordered, combined and assembled to form a whole… in this case, of beliefs.
Mine are ordered by that confidence you mentioned.

Yours… well, you’re human, you should have a similar system… you then have another one, parallel to this… one made by other people and to which you adhere.

Outstanding! In other words, we’re talking about claims about truth that some feel are justified, and others do not? There’s that illative sense in operation, again…

There’s that expression again…
What does it mean?:
“The illative sense is what allows us to take our concrete human experiences …] of indeed any created good or beautiful thing–and come to the conclusion that there must be a transcendent reality behind it all…”

So, someone came up with a name for the reasoning behind the religious conclusion of god’s existence?

I look and all the good and beautiful things in my experience and enjoy them. The bad and ugly ones I try to avoid, but I know they’re there - I have to know they’re there, so I can try to avoid them, right?
Both the good and the bad happen - nothing external seems to be acting on things for events to become good or bad… events are as they are.
Humans attribute goodness to them. Humans attribute beauty to things… each human with his own ruler for beauty… each with his own ruler for taste (of cucumber )… each with his own ruler for good.
Most of us have come to agree on many of these things, but there are fuzzy states where the population is divided (cucumber? chili? storm-watching? bacon?).
Clearly hinting at a lack of underlying transcendent reality… just indifference.

 

[pocaracas]

Ask yourself what a Scriptural genealogy does, and what it means. In the Bible, it serves to connect the person(s) at the beginning of the genealogy to the person(s) at the end. The two genealogies, then, are making theological statements: one connects Jesus to Abraham and David (i.e., Jesus is a son of David, and therefore, a Davidic king); the other connects him to Adam and God (i.e., Jesus is a son of Adam (that is, ‘human’) and a son of God).

So… the content of these genealogies need not be accurate?
And is it very likely inaccurate, except for the terminating/important persons (Adam, Abraham, David, Jesus)?

Scriptural genealogies don’t answer the question “how long?”, but rather “who are you related to?”

So… you’d say it was normal for people to know their genealogy up to 76 levels, back then?
I know about some clans in Africa where the kids must learn their genealogies, but I don’t think it ever goes for that long… (e.g. bakipress.wordpress.com/2013/12/15/the-ethnic-origin-of-the-somali-people-and-clan-system)
But it is possible that some links in the chain fall in favor of keeping just the “important” names.

 

[St_Redemption]

Secondly, even if they were true, it does not mean that what they possibly died for was true. What you are saying is that if someone dies for their belief then that belief must be true. Which is, obviously, nonsensical.

Beliefs cause a lot of people to sacrifice themselves. They immolate themselves. They blow themselves and others up. They fly planes into buildings. We even had a sixteen year old kid in Sydney shoot a cop last week and then had himself killed for his beliefs.

Your argument would be that whatever he believed in that caused him to do that must have had some validity.

In the cases of the terrorsist you mentioned, they died because they were duped, doctrinally speaking. The Apostales, if they did in fact allow themselves to be tortured and died, did so because they witnessed a resurrected Jesus. That’s different than “a belief.”

 

[Peter_Plato]

I look and all the good and beautiful things in my experience and enjoy them. The bad and ugly ones I try to avoid, but I know they’re there - I have to know they’re there, so I can try to avoid them, right?
Both the good and the bad happen - nothing external seems to be acting on things for events to become good or bad… events are as they are.
Humans attribute goodness to them. Humans attribute beauty to things… each human with his own ruler for beauty… each with his own ruler for taste (of cucumber )… each with his own ruler for good.
Most of us have come to agree on many of these things, but there are fuzzy states where the population is divided (cucumber? chili? storm-watching? bacon?).
Clearly hinting at a lack of underlying transcendent reality… just indifference.

So how do you know that your “ruler for good” or “ruler for beauty" are correctly calibrated?

Or does THAT matter at all TO YOU?

Perhaps the fact that it doesn’t matter to you is the reason for your fuzziness?

AND why would it matter TO YOU in the first instance except to increase the fuzzy “enjoyment” of the fuzzy state?

In that case, anyone seeking MORE than just the acceptance of fuzziness and “enjoyment” would, surely, beg off your entire “model of reality.”

Clearly, the “lack of underlying transcendent reality” and indifference is built into the presumptions of your presupposed “model of reality” since it is your proclivity to accept the fuzziness – "each with his own ruler “ – that leads to your indifference and inclination to accept the “lack of underlying transcendent reality.”

Have I lost you?

Blame the “lack of transcendent reality” in your “model of reality."

 

[Peter_Plato]

76 generations from Adam to Jesus… How many years does that make?
Guessing a round number of 100 years per generation, that would be 7600 years.
Or is this not something that the Church teaches, nor has ever taught?

Apparently neither math nor biology are your strong suits.

100 years per generation assumes that the begetter only begets at the end of his lifespan of a hundred years so that the begotten life only begins at the turn of the hundred years.

Now THAT is just bizarre.

Actual generations are about 20-30 years, given that the lives of begetters and begotten overlap.

So, no, the Church would have had to have been vacuous to propose anything like 7600 years based upon your genealogical tables.

Do you have a Church document in mind where this is actually taught?

Did Luke get this wrong?

Only if he was constrained to your way of thinking this out.

You do realize that genealogies in the OT did not name EVERY individual in the lineage, but only the key or important figures, yes?

Google “telescoping of genealogies in the Old Testament,” or start here:

reasons.org/articles/the-genesis-genealogies

Or is the Genesis account so metaphorical that anything can go in between God’s creation of the Universe and the final breathing of a soul into the previously evolved ape-like Adam? And, only since Adam, can we say that some 6000 years have elapsed?

Again: “telescoping of genealogies” or

reasons.org/articles/the-genesis-genealogies

The choice isn’t between completely literal or completely metaphorical unless your aim is to discredit rather than understand or gain meaning.