Unprovable as objective truth

[StrawberryJam]

This doesn’t pertain to what I said at all. I did not say atheism was dogmatic. It can’t be proven, strictly speaking, only because it is a metaphysical position defined by rejecting the existence of something, and it is in principle impossible to prove a negative. That has nothing to do with dogma.

Atheism is also not science and has no unique claim to the scientific method.

It is impossible to prove a negative.

This has everything to do with dogma.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

**Strawberry

Atheism is also not science and has no unique claim to the scientific method.**

Granted. That has not stopped many scientists from adopting atheism as a logical consequence of scientific discoveries. For example, biologist Richard Dawkins says, “Darwin made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist.”

 

[WmJackP]

I was a science and math major who escaped with only one or two humanities classes during my entire college career. Neither of these was a philosophy class.

Would someone please explain to me how something inherently unprovable may be claimed an objective truth that all must be subjected to regardless whether they agree?

Someone much wiser than me once said that there is no truth–only opinions. I personally think that on matters of faith (which seem to me to be un-provable, but, yet touted as “truths” (albeit hardly objectively), these things are either believed or not based oncultural, personal, and emotional influences.

 

[polytropos]

It is impossible to prove a negative.

This has everything to do with dogma.

Yes, I said that it is impossible to prove a negative, ie why atheism cannot technically be proven. That is not meant as a detraction from atheism, it’s just a necessary consequence of the metaphysical position that atheism takes.

You’ll have to clarify what this has to do with dogma.

Granted. That has not stopped many scientists from adopting atheism as a logical consequence of scientific discoveries. For example, biologist Richard Dawkins says, “Darwin made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist.”

This was me, not Strawberry. But yes, many people take science and atheism to be equivalent.

 

[polytropos]

Those Aristotelian arguments are interesting (accident versus substance) even though – of course – their use by Christian theologians post-dated the actual doctrine of transubstantiation. From what limited reading I’ve done in the works of the fathers of Protestantism – Calvin and Zwingli, in particular – it seems they hung their hat on statements such as “the poor you will always have with you, but I will not always be with you,” connecting it with “remember, I will be with you always” and “wherever two or more are gathered, I am there.” They reasoned that “I will be with you always” was referring to the spirit of Christ, which indeed is omnipresent, but that the body of Christ had ascended into heaven and would return again only on the Last Day. So, Christ was present in the Eucharist, but not physically present (“God is a spirit, and those that worship Him must worship in spirit and in truth”). I think Zwingli also talked about how when Christ said, “this is my body,” he couldn’t have been speaking literally, since his body was seated next to them at the table at that very moment. This reasoning may seem “dense”, too literal-minded, yet Christ himself invoked the principle of non-contradiction, reasoning quite plainly and common sensically when he said, “* how can Satan drive out Satan? A house divided against itself cannot stand.” He also said, of course, “no man can serve two masters at once.” So there does seem to be an important sense in which “even” Christ argued that, “something cannot both be, and not be, at the same time and in the same respect.”*
I do see where they are coming from but I (of course) think they are exaggerating certain issues. I find Jesus’s words at the Last Supper to be the most pertinent. I think that his words elsewhere (“the poor you will always have with you, but I will not always be with you”) do not really contradict the real presence, since there is no question that the sacrament of Eucharist is supposed to be extraordinary. They can, I think, be interpreted against the Eucharist, but they do not necessarily need to be, and to do so complicates other passages that allegedly support the real presence.

"One of the great achievements of the scientific revolution, according to its adherents, was the banishment from modern science of the Aristotelian schemes of explanation which had dominated Scholastic studies. Aristotle was derided as a cuttlefish, a squid: the ink he discharged cast everything into obscurity. Consider one typical case, Pierre Gassendi in his Exercises against the Aristotelians (1624). Gassendi complains that Aristotelian explanations fail to explain. About the definition of motion as “the act of being in potentiality insofar as it is in potentiality,” he remarks: "Great God! Is there any stomach strong enough to digest that? The explanation of a rather familiar thing was requested, but this is so complicated that nothing is clear anymore . . . The need for definitions of the words in the definitions will go on ad infinitum " (book 2, exercise 4, article 4).

I can see why people would be bothered by the seemingly needless complexity of an Aristotelian explanation. Act and potentiality are difficult to stomach, but I’d have to disagree that they ultimately obfuscate things. I think certain truths are lost when act and potentiality (as well as other Aristotelian notions) are not properly understood.

Ironically, he says, “The The explanation of a rather familiar thing was requested, but this is so complicated that nothing is clear anymore . . . The need for definitions of the words in the definitions will go on ad infinitum,” which is fairly similar to what modern science does. It explains everything, and it does so by using complex and carefully defined terms. Since most phenomena are happen because of underlying phenomena, science does creation a series of definitions that goes on and on “ad infinitum.” For instance, it might be known that mixing two solutions creates another colored solution. Presumably, this observation could be made with no knowledge of chemistry. But if we define the compounds and constituent elements, we can understand the reaction much more specifically. But even then, subatomic forces are at work as well, and so on.

 

[StrawberryJam]

It is not a weakness to say that we do not know all the answers now but are working on it.
It is a weakness to claim by authority that there are answers.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Strawberry

**It is a weakness to claim by authority that there are answers. **

If the authority is based on authority and no supporting argument, that would be a weakness; unless the authority is from God, in which case the appeal of the supporting argument would certainly be a strength.

 

[polytropos]

It is not a weakness to say that we do not know all the answers now but are working on it.
It is a weakness to claim by authority that there are answers.

This seems to be slightly contradictory. It is not a weakness to say we don’t know all the answers but are trying to find them, but it is a weakness to claim that there are answers - but the first statement presupposes that there are answers.

Not to mention, the search for answers is very important, but you seem to be saying that it is not weak to keep searching for answers, but it is weak to claim to have answers. If that attitude were universally applied to then search, then even if we found answers, we would reject them and pretend to keep searching.

Many of the fundamental truths of Catholicism don’t rely on claims to authority.

 

[StrawberryJam]

This seems to be slightly contradictory. It is not a weakness to say we don’t know all the answers but are trying to find them, but it is a weakness to claim that there are answers - but the first statement presupposes that there are answers.

Not to mention, the search for answers is very important, but you seem to be saying that it is not weak to keep searching for answers, but it is weak to claim to have answers. If that attitude were universally applied to then search, then even if we found answers, we would reject them and pretend to keep searching.

Many of the fundamental truths of Catholicism don’t rely on claims to authority.

Why bother seeking when the answers are dogma?
Example:
Adam and Eve are literal persons.

We must believe this as dogma. Perhaps when this became dogma, there was no thought that science would be able to ever get to the point of knowing if this was indeed a possibility.
We now know it is not a possibility, yet it is a dogma.
And yes, I am claiming that is it the one who is weak that claims to have all the answers.
Another example.
The position the Church took for how many years about burial of those who committed suicide.
Their response? We KNOW more now.
Yes, and they can know more now and tomorrow and the next day. But because of their dogma about Adam and Eve, I guess they put themselves in a corner.

 

[Bob_Crowley]

I was a science and math major who escaped with only one or two humanities classes during my entire college career. Neither of these was a philosophy class.

Would someone please explain to me how something inherently unprovable may be claimed an objective truth that all must be subjected to regardless whether they agree?

I suppose this has direct reference to our Christian belief in Christ as “the way, the truth and the life”. Either that’s an objective truth or it isn’t.

John 14:6 NIV "Jesus answered, “I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.”

Going further back, we have Moses confronted by the burning bush, and Moses request for God’s identity -

Exodus 3:14 NIV "God said to Moses, “I am who I am.[c] This is what you are to say to the Israelites: ‘I am has sent me to you.’”

Again that’s either an objective truths or it’s not.

If they are, we will all be bound by them, regardless of what we believe. We will find ourselves confronted by the Chrisitan God at the time of our death, and His objective reality will leave us no choice, for by then our choice whether to believe in that particular objective truth will no longer be available to us.

Of course we may not believe these are objective truths, but this will be our opinion only.

Objective truth will stand by itself, regardless of whether we can prove it or not. “I AM” will be there at the end, no matter how many philosophical tomes are produced querying that reality.

The choice we’ve got in the short lived meantime is whether we believe these are objective truths.

We can be like the apostles, and accept them. Or we can be like Pilate and merely grunt, “What is truth?”

But being Objective Truth, we’ll be faced with ultimate reality at the end of our lives regardless of what we believe.

Whether it’s provable or not won’t make any difference.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

mek42

**Would someone please explain to me how something inherently unprovable may be claimed an objective truth that all must be subjected to regardless whether they agree? **

Please give an example of the something inherently unprovable claimed to be an objective truth that all must be subjected to regardless whether they agree.

This is going to be interesting.

 

[Linux]

I suppose this has direct reference to our Christian belief in Christ as “the way, the truth and the life”. Either that’s an objective truth or it isn’t.

Going further back, we have Moses confronted by the burning bush, and Moses request for God’s identity -

Again that’s either an objective truths or it’s not.

If they are, we will all be bound by them, regardless of what we believe. We will find ourselves confronted by the Chrisitan God at the time of our death, and His objective reality will leave us no choice, for by then our choice whether to believe in that particular objective truth will no longer be available to us.

Of course we may not believe these are objective truths, but this will be our opinion only.

Objective truth will stand by itself, regardless of whether we can prove it or not. “I AM” will be there at the end, no matter how many philosophical tomes are produced querying that reality.

The choice we’ve got in the short lived meantime is whether we believe these are objective truths.

We can be like the apostles, and accept them. Or we can be like Pilate and merely grunt, “What is truth?”

But being Objective Truth, we’ll be faced with ultimate reality at the end of our lives regardless of what we believe.

Whether it’s provable or not won’t make any difference.

I agree with everything you say. But i have resevations regarding the bolded part.

However likley a thing may seem, if it is not certain, then it would seem that we have no responsibility to believe it. This is to say that we cannot be held responsible for not believing it if we do not know for certain that it is true.

For example, the Christian faith is not self evidently true. So if that is the case, then a person is not obliged to see if it is true, and surely cannot be held responsible if in fact it does turn out to be true. Why should a person feel obliged to persue something that he does not know to be true.

This is what i think the OP was trying to get at.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Linux**

Why should a person feel obliged to persue something that he does not know to be true.**

Why should a person feel obliged to dismiss something that he does not know to be false?

 

[Linux]

Linux**
Why should a person feel obliged to dismiss something that he does not know to be false?**

It would seem that one is not logically “obliged” either way; and if one does persue the possible truth of some matter it is out of desire or curiosity.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Linus

It would seem that one is not logically “obliged” either way; and if one does persue the possible truth of some matter it is out of desire or curiosity.

I think more desire than curiosity, though both are necessary.

 

[mek42]

This is a really good discussion. I’m learning and thinking about things.

My intent was more about whether it is right to subject something that one group sees as truth upon a society where there are a sizable number whom do not agree on the truthiness of that something.

Some people have desired a concrete example. Let me give first an example where said objective truth is not imposed on society - this will even be a personal example. I am in the process (long, slow and painful) of moving to a new house. A friend helped tonight with some heavy stuff. I’m nursing a touch of gout at the moment and used the Lord’s name in vain on at least two occurrences.

There were no temporal consequences for these violations of what Christians would say is a violation of objective truth. I was not jailed, not fined, nothing happened (again, temporally) at all. Further, I have observed absolutely no desire from any Christians, individuals or organizations, that there should be temporal consequences for such a violation of objective truth.

 

[Aloysium]

. . . My intent was more about whether it is right to subject something that one group sees as truth upon a society where there are a sizable number whom do not agree on the truthiness of that something. . .

“I have the immense joy of being man, a member of a race in which God Himself became incarnate. As if the sorrows and stupidities of the human condition could overwhelm me, now that I realize what we all are. And if only everybody could realize this! But it cannot be explained. There is no way of telling people that they are all walking around shining like the sun.”

– Thomas Merton, O.C.S.O. –

 

[Charlemagne_II]

mek42

Gout is sometimes a symptom of more serious problems. I had gout last Fall. My doctor checked my heartbeat and immediately sent me to a cardiologist, who discovered heart failure due to a malfunctioning aortic valve. Just in time to save my life.

Deo gratias!

 

[mek42]

mek42

Gout is sometimes a symptom of more serious problems. I had gout last Fall. My doctor checked my heartbeat and immediately sent me to a cardiologist, who discovered heart failure due to a malfunctioning aortic valve. Just in time to save my life.

Deo gratias!

My underlying condition is sleep apnea. I started using the BiPAP again. Glad to hear you got yourself sorted out!