Refuting the Matrix Argument (Or: Why Stoned College Kids Make Bad Philosophers)

[R_Daneel]

How would nature disprove their belief? They always said it’s up to God to heal the person or not. You can accuse them of rationalizing when their prayers for healing fails, but really nothing about their faith has been disproved. So what do you mean by rationalizing? You really have no substantial argument against them. Or maybe I’m misunderstanding what you’re saying. Do you have something concrete against their belief here? Or not?

Actually they believe that supplicative prayer “works”. These people are not Muslims, who explicitly add Insh’Allah, God willing. And yes, the fact that God does not “answer” their prayer in an affirmative fashion is a very substantial evidence against the claim that “prayers work”. (Not against God, per se.) As a little spoof I direct your attention to this not-serious article from the Onion: theonion.com/articles/god-answers-prayers-of-paralyzed-little-boy,475/ (Yes, it is highly sarcastic. I find it absolutely hilarious. Your milage may vary…)

 

[Areopagite]

Actually they believe that supplicative prayer “works”. These people are not Muslims, who explicitly add Insh’Allah, God willing. And yes, the fact that God does not “answer” their prayer in an affirmative fashion is a very substantial evidence against the claim that “prayers work”. (Not against God, per se.)

Well, if they do, in fact, believe that God will always grant their wishes (that in a sense, God is forced to do these things by the faithful), then you have a point. This is, of course, something believed by such a dismally low percentage of Christians. I personally have never encountered any like this.

As a little spoof I direct your attention to this not-serious article from the Onion: theonion.com/articles/god-answers-prayers-of-paralyzed-little-boy,475/ (Yes, it is highly sarcastic. I find it absolutely hilarious. Your milage may vary…)

Ah, the Onion. Good taste. I read it religiously.

Exactly. But they are accepted as truth, because they are either self-evident (or obvious), or their refusal would lead to a self-contradiction (like the law of non-cntradiction). Neither of these is applicable to theological claims. They are not self-evident, and their refusal does not lead to logical absurdities. To call their acceptance based on “faith” is deliberately misleading.

Oh, but we accept other things on faith. Like we accept on faith that the earth is 93 million miles away from the sun. None of us will probably ever demonstrate it. Thus we accept it on faith, even though it’s neither self-evident or one that would otherwise lead to a self-contradiction.

Also, there are events that happen to us that we later on cannot prove to others that they actually happened. Such truths are not self-evident (certainly not to other people) nor do they necessarily lead to self-contradiction. And yet such truths oftentimes cannot be demonstrated but are accepted anyway.

Now we have some claims which are self-evident, which we know by 100% Cartesian certainty. These belong to the abstract sciences … You wish to collect all these different claims (even the self-evident truths), and say that their acceptance is all based on faith, since they cannot be “demonstrated”.

Yes, that’s exactly what I wish to say. Now, I agree that the certain fundamental truths of abstract sciences are 100% certain. However, this has not stopped some people from rejecting them. Hegel at one point explicitly and literally says his idea breaks the principle of non-contradiction and that it’s a good thing. Nietzsche actually tried to make arguments against the principle of non-contradiction. And it seems like most (or many at least) of the postmoderns don’t care too much for it either. Eastern mystics have thrown it out the window on occasion too (like when Buddha was asked how he could deny the existence of the soul and yet still believe in reincarnation, to which he answered something to the effect of “contradictions are bad”). So, with what do we respond to these attack on first principles? Well, we cannot demonstrate them … we can only accept them on faith.

First, this is disingenuous and misleading. By saying that every piece of knowledge is “faith” based you declare that there is no “real” knowledge only faith.

I did not say all “all knowledge is faith” … I said “all knowledge is based upon faith.” This is evident when we consider mathematical axioms. It is incorrect to say that all mathematical knowledge IS axioms. However, it is correct to say that all mathematical knowledge is based on axioms. So, just because I say “all knowledge is based upon faith” does not mean I’m also saying “all knowledge is faith.”

Besides, you did not define the concept of “demonstration”.

This may be deserving of a new thread. But here is some general points: (and actual logicians are more than welcome to chime in here)

A Demonstration/Proof is the process of showing the truth of a judgment based on one or more given judgments.

A judgment (commonly phrased in the form of a proposition … i.e. a declarative sentence) is the mental relation between two concepts (often verbally symbolized in what are called “terms”). “Dog” and “Animal” are concepts. “The dog is an animal” is a judgment as it relates the two terms in some way.

Now, when one judgment can be derived solely based on another judgment, it is called immediate inference. For example, “No dogs are cats” is a judgment and “No cats are dogs” is a judgment that can be validly derived from that using the rule that universal negatives can always have their subjects and predicates converted (not true, however, of all universal affirmatives). That is an example of immediate inference and is also an example of demonstration, as it is showing the truth of a judgment based on a given judgment.

Syllogisms fall under mediate inference, since they use two judgments to arrive at another judgment. For a very simplistic example: “All mammals are animals. All dogs are mammals. Therefore, all dogs are animals.” This is mediate inference and an example of demonstration, as it is showing the truth of a judgment based two given judgments.

Now these reasoning processes depend on true judgments, which depend on correctly formed concepts, which depend on correct intuition, and thus ultimately not dependent on things an endless series of previously reasoned truths. There a fundamental truths that support all this that cannot be demonstrated obviously. Hence, ultimately all demonstration is dependent on faith.

Well, that’s the short of it.

 

[Areopagite]

Furthermore, “faith” is not defined as the acceptance of something which is not/cannot be demonstrated.

Well, perhaps not. What definition would you use? Keep in mind how it’s used also when you have faith in someone’s word. We both have faith that the earth is 93 million miles away from earth because we trust the astronomers. So, keep in mind that use of the word when coming up with your definition.

In the wide range of claims from the almost certainly true to the almost certainly false. To say that the acceptance of the proposition that “the Sun will come up tomorrow” and the acceptance of the proposition that “paranormal claims are valid” are both based on “faith” you attempt to wash away the enormous difference between the claims and declare that the method we apply to accept/reject them is basically the same: “applying faith to these claims”. It elevates the claims of paranormal to a respectable status, or degrades the claims of rigorous science - depending on your perspective.

Would I be erasing the difference if I said “each of them are founded on claims that cannot be demonstrated”? Because that’s all I’m doing.

I do have faith that there are other intelligent creatures in the Universe. That belief is not supported by any factual evidence, so it is properly called faith. I also have faith that humanity will eventually throw away the concept of “supernatural”. There is no factual evidence for this belief either, so it is correctly called faith.

And here is where I ask, once again (I apologize) …

What do you mean by “evidence.” In fact, what do you mean by “factual” in this case?

On the other hand, I am next to 100% certain that the Sun will come up tomorrow, because there will be no sudden appearance of a black hole to disrupt the rotation of the Earth. That is not “faith”, it is called a reasonable assumption.

This is also cannot term I am a bit unclear on: “reasonable assumption.” Why not call this a kind of faith? This all hinges upon how you define faith, of course.

If the claim is very near to 0% probably true, we call it blind faith. That is the proper usage of the word faith, when used as an epistemological concept. (I am aware of other uses of this word, and I hope no one will be idiotic enough to try and bring those up).

What are you saying here? Are you saying that “faith” and “blind faith” are the same thing?

We use words for a reason: to convey information. By loosely defining words to promote one’s agenda your practice serves the exact opposite, to wash away the differences between different types of claims and declare that all claims are decided by “faith”. And that is counterproductive, at the very least.

I think I’ve given a fine definition of faith. But if you don’t like it, offer another one. Honestly, I open to the possibility of you coming up with a better one than mine.

Suppose you wish to say that seriously. All I have to do is say: “do it, and you will die in 5 minutes”. Or if you don’t want to risk it, give to a lab animal and see what happens. You cannot say the same thing to me. You may say: “do it and you will see it when you die, unless of course God takes a special mercy on you”. Which is sheer nonsense.

I apologize … but not too sure what you’re saying here.

The proof of the pudding is that it is edible. It is not a “logical” proof, it is a pragmatic principle, and we all live by it. You do, too.

Any pragmatic decision presupposes an end. You cannot do something pragmatically (i.e. practically or usefully) unless you have some end in mind toward which your actions are designed to fulfill. So pragmatic decisions not only put their faith in an end but also, of course, put their faith that working toward that end is a good idea.

And don’t try to discard this principle, just because it is not “proven”. The result is lethal. You have been warned.

I never discard principles just because they might not be proven. Skeptics and non-religious people tend to do that instead.

 

[R_Daneel]

Well, if they do, in fact, believe that God will always grant their wishes (that in a sense, God is forced to do these things by the faithful), then you have a point.

Not exactly. They do believe that God can be influenced by their prayers. That there is a better chance of recovery if they pray. And that belief is unshaken no matter how many counter-examples are brought up. This is where the difference lies. A scientist might be devastated if his pet-peeve hypothesis is proven wrong, but eventually he is obliged to abandon it - if he is really a scientist. Faith-based attitude is immune to logic and reason. Faith-based beliefs are not shaken (nor stirred - a la James Bond), no matter how many times they are proved to be wrong. And that is the precise definition of blind faith.

Oh, but we accept other things on faith. Like we accept on faith that the earth is 93 million miles away from the sun.

This is again a different thing. You can learn the principles and you can build the necessary equipment and ascertain for yourself that the claim is correct. To rely on others (astronomers in this case) is simply an epistemological shortcut. You do not wish to invest all the time and effort, so you do have faith in the result of others. And this kind of faith is reasonable. You trust the opinion of others, not because they are authorities, rather because their authority is based upon their ability to demonstrate what they say. And yet again, this is missing from theological claims. Not even the Pope can come forth and demonstrate what he believes. It is a self-proclaimed and empty authority.

Also, there are events that happen to us that we later on cannot prove to others that they actually happened. Such truths are not self-evident (certainly not to other people) nor do they necessarily lead to self-contradiction. And yet such truths oftentimes cannot be demonstrated but are accepted anyway.

Not relevant, since these claim pertain to the past, and since the past events do not exist any more, they cannot be subject to the same criteria.

Yes, that’s exactly what I wish to say. Now, I agree that the certain fundamental truths of abstract sciences are 100% certain. However, this has not stopped some people from rejecting them. Hegel at one point explicitly and literally says his idea breaks the principle of non-contradiction and that it’s a good thing. Nietzsche actually tried to make arguments against the principle of non-contradiction. And it seems like most (or many at least) of the postmoderns don’t care too much for it either. Eastern mystics have thrown it out the window on occasion too (like when Buddha was asked how he could deny the existence of the soul and yet still believe in reincarnation, to which he answered something to the effect of “contradictions are bad”). So, with what do we respond to these attack on first principles? Well, we cannot demonstrate them … we can only accept them on faith.

Nonsensical positions (like solipsism) are not worth to contemplate. Their proponents are not worth to talk to.

I did not say all “all knowledge is faith” … I said “all knowledge is based upon faith.” This is evident when we consider mathematical axioms. It is incorrect to say that all mathematical knowledge IS axioms. However, it is correct to say that all mathematical knowledge is based on axioms. So, just because I say “all knowledge is based upon faith” does not mean I’m also saying “all knowledge is faith.”

OK. But you still say that the axioms of mathematics are faith based. And that is the idea I am attacking. The axioms of mathematics are self-evident. They cannot possibly be anything else.

A Demonstration/Proof is the process of showing the truth of a judgment based on one or more given judgments.

Good starting point. A proof (which is only applicable to the abstract sciences) it the logically correct deductive method to show that the proposition is the corollary of the axioms. For the sake of expediency, we usually stop at a point, which has aleady been shown to be the proper corollary of the axioms. In the natural sciences we speak of demonstration, and here the method is to show that the predictions based upon the hypothesis conform with the actual state of affairs. Neither of these require any faith. If you hypothesize that hitting you thumb with a hammer will result in pain, all you have to do is try it. There is no need for faith to verify that the experiment worked, hitting your thumb is painful. If you would hypothesize the opposite (hitting your finger is not painful), again, all your have to do is try it, and the result will give you 100% Certesian knowledge, that your hypothesis was incorrect. Absolutely no faith is needed.

 

[R_Daneel]

Well, perhaps not. What definition would you use? Keep in mind how it’s used also when you have faith in someone’s word. We both have faith that the earth is 93 million miles away from earth because we trust the astronomers. So, keep in mind that use of the word when coming up with your definition.

Here comes: Faith is the acceptance of a claim which is not self-evident and for which there is insufficient evidence. Now, here the problem is: “what is sufficient evidence?”, and that varies from person to person. I have seen many posters who say that the beauty of a sunset is sufficient evidence for God. Which is all absurd to me.

When I speak of sufficient evidence, I am talking about evidence which cannot be deined: It is something which is not a-priori accepted by a skeptic, and yet, which will make the skeptic to make a choice between two alternatives: (a) the skeptic must accept the evidence as sufficient, or (b) the skeptic must accept his own insanity. That is sufficient evidence.

An example: suppose someone claims that he can levitate without any support. The skeptic does not accept the claim without demonstration. The claimant starts to float in the air. The skeptic conducts all the possible verifications he can think of, and sees no “trickery”. At that point, he has only two choices: 1) either accepts that the claim is true, or 2) believes that his senses have deserted him. The choice is obvious. No matter how extraordinary the claim is, he must accept its validity, or accept that he is insane. Now, at this point the skeptic might not be knowledgable enough to discover a trickery. He might turn to an expert, in this case a professional magician, who can discover the “trick”. If the expert cannot find the “trick”, then the result is that very probably there is no trick, so the claim must be accepted.

Here. This is the definition of faith, and the definition of sufficient evidence.

No, I do not call all faith to be “blind faith”. It would be a horrible misrepresentation. Blind faith is something for which there is absolutely no evidence, or for which there is evidence to the contrary.

I apologize … but not too sure what you’re saying here.

I thought it is pretty obvious. My example was a simple claim: “If you drink nicotine extract, you will die in 5 minutes”. Your example was: “if you lead such-and-such a life you will be rewarded by eternal pain and suffering in hell”. If you would doubt my claim, you could verify if I am right or wrong. If I am skepitcal of you your claim, there is no way to verify it.

Any pragmatic decision presupposes an end. You cannot do something pragmatically (i.e. practically or usefully) unless you have some end in mind toward which your actions are designed to fulfill.

Certainly.

So pragmatic decisions not only put their faith in an end but also, of course, put their faith that working toward that end is a good idea.

Oh, come on. Working toward a goal is a subjective decision. Whether it was a good idea or not will be shown when the goal is reached. That is not the same thing as ascertaining the claim which can be verified here and now. Neither claims about the past, or the future belong to the same category as claims about the present. Let’s stick to the ones which are pertinent.

I never discard principles just because they might not be proven. Skeptics and non-religious people tend to do that instead.

I doubt it. I assert that I have a valuable property for sale: the Brooklyn Bridge. I am very sure, that you find this claim absolutely preposterous, and discard it without bothering to verify it any further. And I am sure that all your religious buddies would discard is equally fast. If I am wrong, the selling price is a measly 10000 dollars.

 

[Betterave]

When I speak of sufficient evidence, I am talking about evidence which cannot be deined: It is something which is not a-priori accepted by a skeptic, and yet, which will make the skeptic to make a choice between two alternatives: (a) the skeptic must accept the evidence as sufficient, or (b) the skeptic must accept his own insanity. That is sufficient evidence.

Okay, you clearly haven’t been reading very carefully what Areo has been writing. It would appear that there are many cases where the skeptic is not forced to accept (a) or (b).

I thought it is pretty obvious. My example was a simple claim: “If you drink nicotine extract, you will die in 5 minutes”. Your example was: “if you lead such-and-such a life you will be rewarded by eternal pain and suffering in hell”. If you would doubt my claim, you could verify if I am right or wrong. If I am skepitcal of you your claim, there is no way to verify it.

“…you will die in 5 minutes” - as in 5 minutes in the future, right?

Oh, come on. Working toward a goal is a subjective decision. Whether it was a good idea or not will be shown when the goal is reached. That is not the same thing as ascertaining the claim which can be verified here and now. Neither claims about the past, or the future belong to the same category as claims about the present. Let’s stick to the ones which are pertinent.

So you want to exclude discussion of claims about the future?

Have you heard of David Hume and the problem of induction? If you have any understanding of the conceptual structure of that argument, how is it that you manage to want to defend science without appealing to claims about the past or the future?

I doubt it. I assert that I have a valuable property for sale: the Brooklyn Bridge. I am very sure, that you find this claim absolutely preposterous, and discard it without bothering to verify it any further. And I am sure that all your religious buddies would discard is equally fast. If I am wrong, the selling price is a measly 10000 dollars.

And why do you suppose we wouldn’t take you seriously? Could one reason be because you’re obviously not trustworthy in this case? (If you can’t see why not, that would be something for you to reflect upon.)

 

[Prodigal_Son]

How do you define a “true” hypothesis? A hypothesis, which yields verifyable results is “good enough”. As they say: “if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it”.

Simple: A hypothesis that “atoms have mass” is true iff atoms have mass. Not very helpful, perhaps, but anything less trivial becomes false (or meaningless).

True, or false, in what sense? Is Wagner’s Ring beautiful or a cacophony? Artistic claims are fully subjective, not objective at all.

Really? What if I were to say that Wagner’s Ring is elegant, or that a Chopin etude was a cacophony? One would suspect that I has no idea of the terms I was using. Why? Because such claims would clearly be false. Similarly, a pile of shapeless dung presented as a work of art is ugly, not beautiful. Anyone who honestly disagrees is lacking in some vitally human capacity.

I suppose you want to ask about *how *things manage to be beautiful, or how one is justified in believing so. But I don’t see why this is relevant. A three-year-old can understand that “3 and 3 is 6” as soon as he knows the concepts involved, but he need not be able to explain HOW mathematics are true in order to be justified in his belief.

We do not know if we have free will or not. It is a plausible assumption, which cannot be verified nor falsified. It is just another basic proposition, unprovable. But that is not a problem. We have some of those.

How do you choose basic assumptions? What are the criteria?

Not groundless at all. To “mess” with our dreams would require either “magic” or some physical means. I don’t believe in magic (or ESP, or auras, or anything “paranormal”). So it must be some physical methos, and in that case it is detectable.

All physical methods are detectable? And traceable? And you know this?

But assuming an interaction there is a point between the natural and the stupidnatural which is detectable.

All physical methods are detectable? And traceable? And you know this?

And how do know that there is a “true” explanation?

It is a basic assumption of science that events have (true) explanations.

Actually, I don’t find it difficult at all. Without going into details, with my wife we both did it, and we were very happy with the result. But it did not bring me any closer to God, nor some “different view” in the mirror which would enable me to see just how “good” God is proclaimed to be.

Well, I can only speak to my personal experience. Loving my wife and children is anything but natural to me, although “feeling good feelings” toward them often certainly is natural. Personally, it’s hard for me to sacrifice my will (for my family, for my students, for the poor), but learning to do so has helped me relate better to the world, as a whole. It is through relating to the people around us, largely, that we relate to God.

And so, I am hopeful that you already have such a relationship to the world, though you would hardly admit it to be a relationship with God.

 

[Marc_Anthony]

So only a devout believer of astrology is “qualified” to interpret the writs about the significance of celestial bodies? I don’t think so.

Actually, this is also the Catholic debate with Protestants. Our sacred Church was given the authority to interpret Scripture. Not me, and not you either.

 

[R_Daneel]

Actually, this is also the Catholic debate with Protestants. Our sacred Church was given the authority to interpret Scripture. Not me, and not you either.

Don’t you think it is interesting that not even other Christians agree with this? I liked your cautious words: “was given the authority”… The only hiccup is that it is the Catholic Church that proclaims this. The Church claims (I really love that word!) that Jesus himself gave this authority. Now where is the text to prove it? Yep, it is the Bible, which was authored / collected by the Catholic Church. So the Church wrote some texts, which give the authority to the Church… what did Dana Carvey say when he performed the fabulous character, the “Church Lady”? He said: “How conveeeenient !”.

No, my friend. There is no reason to accept the Church’s “claim” that only the Church is “qualified” to interpret the Bible. It is public domain, there is no copyright notice on it, which would proclaim: “written by the Father, proofread by the Son in collaboration with the Holy Spirit”. It is a fully human concoction, loaded with good and bad things, filled with correct and ludicruous claims.

And when I quoted Hebrews 11:1, I did not “interpret” it at all. It is a simple, straightforward text, and there is no need to “interpret” it.

 

[R_Daneel]

Really? What if I were to say that Wagner’s Ring is elegant, or that a Chopin etude was a cacophony?

No, you might just express your opinion.

One would suspect that I has no idea of the terms I was using. Why? Because such claims would clearly be false. Similarly, a pile of shapeless dung presented as a work of art is ugly, not beautiful. Anyone who honestly disagrees is lacking in some vitally human capacity.

Beauty is in the eyes of the beholder.

I suppose you want to ask about *how *things manage to be beautiful, or how one is justified in believing so.

But I am not interested in that. We are talking about how to justify a belief, so it can be called “knowledge”.

How do you choose basic assumptions? What are the criteria?

That would require a long conversation on its own right.

All physical methods are detectable? And traceable? And you know this?

Because physical interaction is done by physical means, and not magic. All physical interactions are performed by exchanging semi-elementary particles. Yes, there are some people (usually New Age quacks), who believe in ESP, telekinesis, auras, horoscopes and other assorted junk. Who cares?

It is a basic assumption of science that events have (true) explanations.

What is a “true” explanation, as opposed to an explanation?

 

[Betterave]

Don’t you think it is interesting that not even other Christians agree with this? I liked your cautious words: “was given the authority”… The only hiccup is that it is the Catholic Church that proclaims this. The Church claims (I really love that word!) that Jesus himself gave this authority. Now where is the text to prove it? Yep, it is the Bible, which was authored / collected by the Catholic Church. So the Church wrote some texts, which give the authority to the Church… what did Dana Carvey say when he performed the fabulous character, the “Church Lady”? He said: “How conveeeenient !”.

No, my friend. There is no reason to accept the Church’s “claim” that only the Church is “qualified” to interpret the Bible. It is public domain, there is no copyright notice on it, which would proclaim: “written by the Father, proofread by the Son in collaboration with the Holy Spirit”. It is a fully human concoction, loaded with good and bad things, filled with correct and ludicruous claims.

And when I quoted Hebrews 11:1, I did not “interpret” it at all. It is a simple, straightforward text, and there is no need to “interpret” it.

How conveeeenient that you choose to address yourself to this rather off-topic point! But in any case the Church does not “claim,” as you seem to assume she does, that only the Church is “qualified” to interpret the Bible, so the more directly relevant issue here is simply that you are, as a simple matter of fact, obviously not “qualified” to “interpret” the Church’s claims, including those about the Bible.

 

[mcteague]

I am not sure why this bothers anyone. A young person reaches the level of cognitive ability where they engage in abstraction. They can imagine that their perceived reality is a dream for example. They can understand that it is impossible to know empirically, to an absolute certainty. Most of us have had this thought at sometime in our lives. It seems very deep. It is not. It is passingly interesting. You just realize that there is no where to go, intellectually, if we are not willing to accept “reality” as a given premise. It is nice to have an imagination. But okay let’s move on.
This kind of thinking really appeals to the young. It seems to make all thoughts equal. It is the refuge of a lazy mind.
It is a way of avoiding real argument and reason.
You have to be willing to concede certain premises for the sake of the discussion. This is a religious site. So for example, if someone says “God told them something”; I do recognize that that is impossible to prove. But it is impossible to discuss what was said unless we concede it, at least temporarally.
So I guess I am just saying that these kinds of thesis have a place. The show a certain level of mental development. But they are just not very interesting after a while. It is something they will just outgrow. (We hope)

 

[Marc_Anthony]

Don’t you think it is interesting that not even other Christians agree with this? I liked your cautious words: “was given the authority”… The only hiccup is that it is the Catholic Church that proclaims this. The Church claims (I really love that word!) that Jesus himself gave this authority. Now where is the text to prove it? Yep, it is the Bible, which was authored / collected by the Catholic Church. So the Church wrote some texts, which give the authority to the Church… what did Dana Carvey say when he performed the fabulous character, the “Church Lady”? He said: “How conveeeenient !”.

No, my friend. There is no reason to accept the Church’s “claim” that only the Church is “qualified” to interpret the Bible. It is public domain, there is no copyright notice on it, which would proclaim: “written by the Father, proofread by the Son in collaboration with the Holy Spirit”. It is a fully human concoction, loaded with good and bad things, filled with correct and ludicruous claims.

And when I quoted Hebrews 11:1, I did not “interpret” it at all. It is a simple, straightforward text, and there is no need to “interpret” it.

A couple points here:

1. Indeed, the Church did gather the documents and write them (after all, all early Christians were Catholic). But today even Protestant denomnations who do not accept the Church’s authority accept thse same documents (the Gospels) so in that respect the point fails.
2. Obviously that verse needs interpreting, or else why are we arguing about it? The rule of Scriptures is context, context, context.

Like the faed quote “Money is the root of all evil.”

Is that in the Bible? Sure. And many would say it speaks for itself and needs no interpretation. Until you learn that the three words “The love of” are left out of the beginning of that quote.

Context is the key when discussing the Bible.

 

[Prodigal_Son]

And when I quoted Hebrews 11:1, I did not “interpret” it at all. It is a simple, straightforward text, and there is no need to “interpret” it.

Would you care to discuss the Greek? However straightforward the English may be, the Greek is not.

 

[R_Daneel]

Would you care to discuss the Greek? However straightforward the English may be, the Greek is not.

I suggest you pick that “fight” with the translators of the Bible.

I have this ongoing problem with the quotations from the Bible. No matter, what I quote, I never get a meaningful reply. The only types of reply I receive “you are not qualified”, or “you cannot possibly understand”, or “your interpretation is wrong”, etc… That would be fine, if these posters would also present the “correct” interpretation, hopefully based upon some official teaching of the Catholic Church.

But, that never happens, and I already asked if there is a list (full or at least partial) which would enumerate the different verses and put a “flag” next to them: “to be taken verbatim, in a literally correct fashion”, or “to be taken allegorically, and this is the way to understand it”. But there is no such list, and this allows the “interpreters” to play this hide-and-seek game with everyone who “dares” to criticize their precious, “holy” book. And in my mind that is intellectual dishonesty.

 

[Betterave]

I suggest you pick that “fight” with the translators of the Bible.

I have this ongoing problem with the quotations from the Bible. No matter, what I quote, I never get a meaningful reply. The only types of reply I receive “you are not qualified”, or “you cannot possibly understand”, or “your interpretation is wrong”, etc… That would be fine, if these posters would also present the “correct” interpretation, hopefully based upon some official teaching of the Catholic Church.

But, that never happens, and I already asked if there is a list (full or at least partial) which would enumerate the different verses and put a “flag” next to them: “to be taken verbatim, in a literally correct fashion”, or “to be taken allegorically, and this is the way to understand it”. But there is no such list, and this allows the “interpreters” to play this hide-and-seek game with everyone who “dares” to criticize their precious, “holy” book. And in my mind that is intellectual dishonesty.

If YOU were intellectually honest, honestly looking for answers, it seems you would have simply said “yes” to Prodigal’s question instead of producing this red herring of a rant.

 

[Betterave]

I am not sure why this bothers anyone. A young person reaches the level of cognitive ability where they engage in abstraction. They can imagine that their perceived reality is a dream for example. They can understand that it is impossible to know empirically, to an absolute certainty. Most of us have had this thought at sometime in our lives. It seems very deep. It is not. It is passingly interesting. You just realize that there is no where to go, intellectually, if we are not willing to accept “reality” as a given premise. It is nice to have an imagination. But okay let’s move on.
This kind of thinking really appeals to the young. It seems to make all thoughts equal. It is the refuge of a lazy mind.
It is a way of avoiding real argument and reason.

Making groundless claims as you have done here is actually “a way of avoiding real argument and reason.” Care to ground any of your claims? It sounds like you’re criticizing a straw man here.

 

[Marc_Anthony]

I suggest you pick that “fight” with the translators of the Bible.

I have this ongoing problem with the quotations from the Bible. No matter, what I quote, I never get a meaningful reply. The only types of reply I receive “you are not qualified”, or “you cannot possibly understand”, or “your interpretation is wrong”, etc… That would be fine, if these posters would also present the “correct” interpretation, hopefully based upon some official teaching of the Catholic Church.

But, that never happens, and I already asked if there is a list (full or at least partial) which would enumerate the different verses and put a “flag” next to them: “to be taken verbatim, in a literally correct fashion”, or “to be taken allegorically, and this is the way to understand it”. But there is no such list, and this allows the “interpreters” to play this hide-and-seek game with everyone who “dares” to criticize their precious, “holy” book. And in my mind that is intellectual dishonesty.

Remember when you quoted the definition of faith from Hebrews, and I objected?

I started a thread about in Sacred Scripture. If you have questions, I suggest you check it out.

 

[R_Daneel]

Remember when you quoted the definition of faith from Hebrews, and I objected?

I started a thread about in Sacred Scripture. If you have questions, I suggest you check it out.

Sure thing. I usually avoid the other forums, but in this case I will make an exception. Can you provide a link, or a title? Though I am much more interested in the general ways and means, as I put forth in the post you just answered. Why isn’t there a “Believer’s Annotated Bible”?

 

[Marc_Anthony]

Sure thing. I usually avoid the other forums, but in this case I will make an exception. Can you provide a link, or a title? Though I am much more interested in the general ways and means, as I put forth in the post you just answered. Why isn’t there a “Believer’s Annotated Bible”?

I’ll provide a link in a moment.

I believe, in fact, that you started a thread on that subject. I responded there, I have nothing to say about it here.

EDIT: Here you go. It unfortunately wasn’t as popular as I hoped it would become, so you might need to ask sme questions to get answers.
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=487019