"Required to believe". An odd concept?

[AntiTheist]

I like the post by tonyrey asking if there is any evidence for your “criteria of evidence.”

Yeah, you would, because it’s a misdirection tactic aimed at people like you, who are eager to believe unjustified claims and so jump at any opportunity to question the process of justifying them.

And yes, there is a ton of evidence that my criteria of evidence is valid – witness, for example, all of the great practical benefits, in terms of control over reality, generated by evidence-based inquiry (for example, the computer that you’re reading this message on). These great effects directly indicate that evidence-based inquiry must be giving us an insight into reality, or else we wouldn’t be able to manipulate reality in such ways.

If we didn’t have any reasonable standards for analyzing claims, then that would mean that a person could claim to be justified believing in any claim at all, no matter how wacky. UFOs, divination, astrology, psychics, ghosts, the Loch Ness Monster, Bigfoot, the Power Rangers, Vampires, the Boogeyman, leprechauns that steal my socks when I’m not looking – if you follow this line of thinking that you’re proposing to its logical conclusion, then any of those things and more are equally justifiable and equally likely to exist.

What I just did is called a reductio ad absurdum, by the way – taken to its logical ends, the position you’re advocating cannot advance a coherent and consistent worldview.

As for being asleep, sure we aren’t in a state of awareness. (How’s that for intellectual honesty?)

Well, it’s a good start. I was hoping for something more along the lines of, “Gee, AT, I never thought of it like that. Good point you had there – I retract that particular claim, but I stand by the rest of what I said.”

And how about some “intellectual honesty” on your part when you refuse to look at the evidence presented in the books of the bible from prophecies in the Old Testament which were verified in the New?

Ok, let’s look at it:

I like jmcrae’s response about the bible being a collection of books by many authors. Don’t you think that would present a good case for evidence seeing that the prophecies foretold hundreds of years before the event were true since the various events actually happened.

There’s an obvious problem with what you’re proposing: the people who wrote the later books almost certainly knew many of these prophecies, so it would be child’s play to tailor their story so that the character “fulfilled” these prophecies..

Remember, the Gospels were written down later in the first century by Christians who were followers of followers of followers of followers of the original followers. They were writing stories about the guy they worshipped, a guy whom they had a vested interest in portraying as fulfilling all kinds of prophecies.

And even if they didn’t know the prophecies, anyone with even a jot of creativity can “interpret” any prophecy to map to just about any particular circumstance.

So no, a character in one part of a story fulfilling a prophecy made in another part of a different story isn’t evidence of anything at all.

And incidentally, if you ask Jews about this question, they’ll tell you that the Jesus character depicted in the Gospels actually didn’t fulfill the Messianic prophecies.

 

[tonyrey]

Is every claim you make based on evidence?

No response!

I like the post by tonyrey asking if there is any evidence for your “criteria of evidence.”

Yeah, you would, because it’s a misdirection tactic aimed at people like you, who are eager to believe unjustified claims and so jump at any opportunity to question the process of justifying them.

What you call “a misdirection tactic” has exposed the weakness of your position! You still haven’t clarified your notion of evidence.

You refer to “control over reality” as if reality=physical reality. What about self-control? Where does that fit into your scheme of** things**? What is the self? You think it isthe lump of tissue in your skull which doesn’t even know it exists and is controlled by physical events? How does it manage to control itself?By magic?

And yes, there is a ton of evidence that my criteria of evidence is valid – witness, for example, all of the great practical benefits, in terms of control over reality, generated by evidence-based inquiry (for example, the computer that you’re reading this message on). These great effects directly indicate that evidence-based inquiry must be giving us an insight into reality, or else we wouldn’t be able to manipulate reality in such ways.

You still haven’t clarified your notion of evidence but we can deduce that it is limited to physical evidence, i.e. that which you can see, touch, taste, smell and hear. Can you detect your thoughts, emotions and decisions with your senses? Do they count for nothing in your grand scheme of things?

If we didn’t have any reasonable standards for analyzing claims, then that would mean that a person could claim to be justified believing in any claim at all, no matter how wacky. UFOs, divination, astrology, psychics, ghosts, the Loch Ness Monster, Bigfoot, the Power Rangers, Vampires, the Boogeyman, leprechauns that steal my socks when I’m not looking – if you follow this line of thinking that you’re proposing to its logical conclusion, then any of those things and more are equally justifiable and equally likely to exist.

It is ironic that your reference to “reasonable standards” gives the game away. Can you observe your power of** reason**? Of course you can - but not with your body. According to your criterion persons do not exist and neither do truth, goodness, freedom, equality, human rights, justice, beauty, love or purpose. All you are left with are biological machines which exist by chance for no reason whatsoever…

What I just did is called a reductio ad absurdum, by the way – taken to its logical ends, the position you’re advocating cannot advance a coherent and consistent worldview.

It is certainly a reductio ad absurdum! Of your inconsistent and incoherent materialism. You see, logic happens to be based on intangible rules and principles.

 

[4Horsemen]

Yeah, you would, because it’s a misdirection tactic aimed at people like you, who are eager to believe unjustified claims and so jump at any opportunity to question the process of justifying them.

Now wait a minute, Mr. AT. What do you know about my movtivations? So you think I am “eager to believe unjustified claims . . .” FYI, I wasn’t too eager to believe anything at one point, but I didn’t “jump at any opportunity” to just latch onto a belief system. But I did “question the process of justifying” various claims. IOW, I did some (rather, a lot IMO) thinking, research, reading, discussing and getting to the basic underlying issues, the fundamentals of the question at hand.

And yes, there is a ton of evidence that my criteria of evidence is valid – witness, for example, all of the great practical benefits

As mentioned previously, no one is opposed to analytical criteria when it comes to scientific evidence that explains our natural world. What I’m looking for is the ontological explanation, such as, "What are the conditions necessary for the possibility of. . . you could fill in the blank, maybe. . . for the possibility of the human mind? Existence, consciousness, moral choices, etc. . .

If we didn’t have any reasonable standards for analyzing claims, then that would mean that a person could claim to be justified believing in any claim at all, no matter how wacky. UFOs, divination, astrology, psychics, ghosts, the Loch Ness Monster, Bigfoot, the Power Rangers, Vampires, the Boogeyman, leprechauns that steal my socks when I’m not looking – if you follow this line of thinking that you’re proposing to its logical conclusion, then any of those things and more are equally justifiable and equally likely to exist.

Why should they be “equally justifiable and equally likely to exist?” I’ll admit that all the example you gave do fit into that category–they are all mythical or occult or just plain unreal. (However, there’s a gremlin in my washing machine that steals my socks, too. So I know what you mean about those little monsters). Have you considered angelic figures or personages, souls, a Supreme Being who made all things? There is more evidence for the things of the spiritual world than the mythical creatures you mentioned. I know. You’re going to ask me to present the evidence. Could you say that people (many on the forum) have presented personal, subjective evidence that God and the spiritual world exist? If there is subjective evidence, there is a real possibility of objective truth, such that if determined that truth exists on an individual basis, and then a collective basis (in society), finally outside the realm of human thought itself where all morality and understanding and wisdom begins. That is a possible conclusion, wouldn’t you say? I suppose you’d call that a “reductio ad absurdum” but it’s relating data to necessary conditions, instead of just data to data as science does.

Well, it’s a good start. I was hoping for something more along the lines of, “Gee, AT, I never thought of it like that. Good point you had there – I retract that particular claim, but I stand by the rest of what I said.”

How about something along the lines of “Gee, 4H, I never thought of it like that. Good point you had there–I retract my claim of ‘reductio ad absurdum’ relating to your observation.”

Ok, let’s look at it:
There’s an obvious problem with what you’re proposing: the people who wrote the later books almost certainly knew many of these prophecies, so it would be child’s play to tailor their story so that the character “fulfilled” these prophecies..

Remember, the Gospels were written down later in the first century by Christians who were followers of followers of followers of followers of the original followers. They were writing stories about the guy they worshipped, a guy whom they had a vested interest in portraying as fulfilling all kinds of prophecies.

The writers of 2 gospels were Matthew and John, who were both apostles and knew everything Jesus did, including miracles, and said. (The NT wasn’t written all at once). Rremember that the Holy Spirit came down 50 days after the Resurrection and bestowed upon them gifts, such as recalling what Jesus did and said. Of course, there were other gifts like ‘tongues’ or being able to speak various languages to be understood in the world known at the time. On Pentecost Sunday, about 3,000 Jews were in the city from all over speaking different languages. Yet they all understood St. Peter as if he were speaking their own tongue. They, themselves, were mystified by that. (Get your bible out!) Give peace a chance . . . er, give God a chance.

And even if they didn’t know the prophecies, anyone with even a jot of creativity can “interpret” any prophecy to map to just about any particular circumstance.

So no, a character in one part of a story fulfilling a prophecy made in another part of a different story isn’t evidence of anything at all.

Why wouldn’t the disciples of Jesus be telling what they knew to be true? What was in it for them? Merely persecution and death. But they followed their Master’s prescription to go out into the world and tell the “good news” (of salvation).

And incidentally, if you ask Jews about this question, they’ll tell you that the Jesus character depicted in the Gospels actually didn’t fulfill the Messianic prophecies.

I really don’t know why they don’t see the NT as a fulfillment of the OT, unless they think like you do, that clever writers tried to manipulate peoples’ minds, for whatever reason.
BTW, no one ever found Jesus’ body. The tomb was empty from the start, even with soldiers guarding it. Explain that!

 

[PrairieDawn]

I have run into this problem a bit recently in Bible study (cradle Catholic, Catholic Bible Study class).

Suddenly I discover that the Church has thousands of traditions, doctrines, scholarly opinions, and the like that I must agree with or I’m no longer Catholic. (Many of these seem trivial, or are not even consistently represented within Catholicism…for example, the “righteous” vs. “reverential” explanations for Joseph’s intention to quietly divorce Mary, as mentioned in Luke.)

Many of these are not intuitively obvious, and make me feel that to think seriously or speculate in any sense about God is a sin in and of itself…which seems odd to me, given that scholarly opinions in particular were worked through by people who, though often later identified as saints, were not known to be such at the time.

Prairie

 

[fhansen]

I have run into this problem a bit recently in Bible study (cradle Catholic, Catholic Bible Study class).

Suddenly I discover that the Church has thousands of traditions, doctrines, scholarly opinions, and the like that I must agree with or I’m no longer Catholic. (Many of these seem trivial, or are not even consistently represented within Catholicism…for example, the “righteous” vs. “reverential” explanations for Joseph’s intention to quietly divorce Mary, as mentioned in Luke.)

Many of these are not intuitively obvious, and make me feel that to think seriously or speculate in any sense about God is a sin in and of itself…which seems odd to me, given that scholarly opinions in particular were worked through by people who, though often later identified as saints, were not known to be such at the time.

Prairie

You may be studying with an overly pious or dogmatic group-one that doesn’t necessarily represent Catholic thought accurately but has determined that they’ve got it down in an exclusive sort of way. This crops up quite often in religious circles.

 

[PrairieDawn]

Possibly. I think it may be because I am used to operating within the scientific community (I’m an evolutionary biologist, when I’m not a pizza cook and mommy). I’m not used to arguments purely from authority, and tend to mistrust them, so the different approach to knowledge and thought may actually be more a culture shock of moving to a small, rural community from a large city with several universities and a longstanding tradition of recreational debate (Washington DC).

I’m always the one thinking, “OK, sure, that’s Church tradition, but WHY?”

Prairie

 

[4Horsemen]

Possibly. I think it may be because I am used to operating within the scientific community (I’m an evolutionary biologist, when I’m not a pizza cook and mommy). I’m not used to arguments purely from authority, and tend to mistrust them, so the different approach to knowledge and thought may actually be more a culture shock of moving to a small, rural community from a large city with several universities and a longstanding tradition of recreational debate (Washington DC).

I’m always the one thinking, “OK, sure, that’s Church tradition, but WHY?”

Prairie

What Catholics are required to believe is the basic doctrines spelled out in the Creed. As for morality, the Ten Commandments are directly from God. We only need to believe the Pope when he speaks ex cathedra on faith and morals.

However, God established His Church to help us enter eternal life. So it would be wise to learn her teachings, including the laws of the Church (llike when to fast–which is next to nothing, although it makes us free to form our own ways and times of fasting), when there is a holy day, which is a requirement to attend Mass. Consider that the rules are meant for us to move forward in the faith. Otherwise, many tend to slough off and fall away.

From the readings of various saints, God is more interested in our obedience. Rules that are not fundamental (such as fasting and abstinence) may change, but God wants our acceptance of the Church He brought forth. Recall that the Holy Family kept all the laws of the Hebrew code. Mary went through Purification, even though she was spotless. Jesus was circumcized and, as an adult, baptized in the Jordan River by St. John the Baptist. He was showing us an example of how we should act accordingly.

When Jesus appeared to various saints asking for particular devotions, sometimes His requests were not in sync with the bishop or superior of the order (like Carmelites, for example). Jesus would insist that the person He was communing with should, first of all, obey whom He, Himself, put in charge.

 

[AntiTheist]

I’ll admit that all the example you gave do fit into that category–they are all mythical or occult or just plain unreal. (However, there’s a gremlin in my washing machine that steals my socks, too. So I know what you mean about those little monsters). Have you considered angelic figures or personages, souls, a Supreme Being who made all things? There is more evidence for the things of the spiritual world than the mythical creatures you mentioned. I know. You’re going to ask me to present the evidence. Could you say that people (many on the forum) have presented personal, subjective evidence that God and the spiritual world exist? If there is subjective evidence, there is a real possibility of objective truth, such that if determined that truth exists on an individual basis, and then a collective basis (in society), finally outside the realm of human thought itself where all morality and understanding and wisdom begins. That is a possible conclusion, wouldn’t you say? I suppose you’d call that a “reductio ad absurdum” but it’s relating data to necessary conditions, instead of just data to data as science does.

…] How about something along the lines of “Gee, 4H, I never thought of it like that. Good point you had there–I retract my claim of ‘reductio ad absurdum’ relating to your observation.”

But I have thought of it like that – I’ve heard this objection before, many times, and it doesn’t get any better with age.

What you’re proposing is that there is a category of experience that cannot be detected by empirical evidence. Ok, then how do you know that this category of experience actually exists, then?

You can cite “subjective experiences” until you’re blue in the face, but unless you’re willing to accept the “subjective experience” that tells Hindus that Shiva is real and the “subjective experience” that tells cult members that their leader is a god, you’re engaging in special pleading. Sorry.

 

[4Horsemen]

But I have thought of it like that – I’ve heard this objection before, many times, and it doesn’t get any better with age.

What you’re proposing is that there is a category of experience that cannot be detected by empirical evidence. Ok, then how do you know that this category of experience actually exists, then?

You can cite “subjective experiences” until you’re blue in the face, but unless you’re willing to accept the “subjective experience” that tells Hindus that Shiva is real and the “subjective experience” that tells cult members that their leader is a god, you’re engaging in special pleading. Sorry.

Rather than starting with subjective moral situations that can be expanded to the objective order, C.S. Lewis in his book Mere Christianity (did you read it?) starts with the idea that there is an objective reality in which moral issues are not subject to cultural difference or personal preference. They are true for every individual or society. I don’t have the book anymore, but here is an example similar to examples given that points to a universal truth.

Let’s say you were a good swimmer, and at the very time you’re walking across a bridge over a raging river, you see someone fall into the river from the bridge. Let’s also say your own safety could be compromised for whatever reason. (You’re not lame). Presume it’s a young child who slipped through the bars. Calling for help is not an option. What would you do and why?

a. Jump in immediately without thinking of your own safety.
b. Jump in after bargaining with your conscience, reflecting on whether or not you could accomplish the task without injuring yourself, perhaps fatally.
c. Run away and hope nobody noticed.

The option may sound simplistic, but I just want to point out that there are stories that sporadically show up in the newpaper about similar types of situations. (In fact, there was a similar situation in my area last winter).

In the second and third scenario, the child would likely be dead. Only in the first instance does a person respond completely to “his conscience” reflecting an Objective Morality that is internalized, so that s/he operates/thinks not in terms of “self” but of helping others.

Of course the example could be made “sticky” if we say the person who fell in was running away from the police and is a murderer or head of a drug ring or whatever. Again, the person with an internalized morality doesn’t even think about the state of the other person’s soul, but knows that to help someone is the RIGHT thing to do.

Missionaries go into the world to serve feeding and clothing the needy, building hospitals, schools with the purpose in mind to help their fellow men (corporeal works of mercy) and preaching the “good news” (spiritual work of mercy). We are called to do both.

You asked how I know there is a category of experience that cannot be proven by empirical means. I know it from experience, but as I mentioned in some post somewhere it is difficult to believe the spiritual experiences of someone else unless you, yourself, have been so graced. But, as you’ve heard so many times on this forum, the empirical way is not the only way. Empircal thought is constantly being tested and refined as new information is discoverred. Like Newtonian physics seemed to explain the whole world to people at the time until Einstein’s Theories of Relativity showed a bigger picture of the whole world, or universe. Likewise, empirical knowledge is subject to metaphysical knowledge, for which there are proofs (besides Aristotle and St. Thomas Aquinas). One can extrapolate an Unconditioned Reality from a series of conditioned realities.

As for the subjective experiences of the Shiva, cult members, shamans and “medicine men,” etc. . . I don’t deny the experience of others, but usually these experiences proceed from frenzy, hallucinogenic drugs, mental states such as schizophrenia, and even evil sources like Satan. Whether you believe in the spiritual world or not, it exists. Maybe it’s just in a different dimension?!?!