1. Standard memberRed Night
    RHP Prophet
    pursuing happiness
    Joined
    22 Feb '06
    Moves
    13669
    28 Dec '07 13:58
    Originally posted by bbarr
    If you don't have anything to add to the discussion, please desist from cluttering the thread. Only you think that your posts are anything other than tangential nonsense.
    ohhh...another forum bully.

    I'll post wherever I please.
  2. Standard memberknightmeister
    knightmeister
    Uk
    Joined
    21 Jan '06
    Moves
    443
    28 Dec '07 14:20
    Originally posted by bbarr
    So, suppose I have good pragmatic reasons to believe that God exists (perhaps because it will benefit me, or harm me if I don't). These reasons are not of the sort that exert a rational constraint on belief formation. Belief formation typically (in everyday cases) proceeds via the consideration of evidential reasons, not pragmatic ones. If I was assured tha ...[text shortened]... e truth of propositions like "God exists", "Jesus rose from the dead", etc. What say you?
    I say Pascal's Wager (which I presume is the kind of thing you are criticising) is really a crock. One should not believe in God simply because one is edging one's bets. The only thing I would say about pascal's wager is that it is a good starting point for seeking God maybe. I think the issue is not "should I believe in God?" but "should I make any efforts to seek out the God who says he can be known?" Those who seek end up finding and believing but it doesn't start with belief as such , more an experiment or journey.
  3. Illinois
    Joined
    20 Mar '07
    Moves
    6804
    28 Dec '07 19:49
    Originally posted by LemonJello
    [b]This begs the question, who ultimately determines the Bible's truth and efficacy? Is it he who has never seriously studied the Bible's contents or practiced its teachings?

    Presumably the claims of the bible have objective truth values -- as in, the truth values don't depend constitutively on any observer attitudes. So in that sense nobody "det ...[text shortened]... assume is that the belief is based on what the subject takes to be evidence.[/b]
    It might be that one's ability to do this in an "objective" manner could be compromised by conditioning through their milieu and upbringing (and it could work both ways).

    Perhaps so. However, I find it hard to believe that anyone who genuinely puts Christ's teaching into practice, no matter their upbringing, could come away anything but convinced of the integrity of Christ's message. Imagine yourself for the next year determined to live as best as you can according to Christ's teaching, experimentally. What objective effect would you discover, I wonder, were you to continually bless and do good to everyone who harms or slights you in any way? Perhaps, God forbid, someone in your family is murdered and you extend to their murderer your heartfelt forgiveness, even going so far as to bless his family with gifts, kind hospitality, and financial support. What would be the objective effect of this behavior, either on you or the ones whom you bless? Could you even do it? Perhaps, in following Christ's teachings, you perform random acts of kindness, expecting nothing in return, simply because Christ teaches that all people are made in God's image and whatever you do to the least you do to God Himself. What objective effect might you find there? And on and on...

    What you will find is absolutely revolutionary, not only to your life but the lives of others. You will discover the power of God. You will see hardened hearts become soft and supple. People will continually ask what you have that they don't have. All you will be able to say in return is that you've been living according to the teachings of Jesus Christ, and it is the power in His teaching which they have come to know. This is the experience of every follower of Christ.
  4. Donationbbarr
    Chief Justice
    Center of Contention
    Joined
    14 Jun '02
    Moves
    17381
    28 Dec '07 20:06
    Originally posted by epiphinehas
    [b]It might be that one's ability to do this in an "objective" manner could be compromised by conditioning through their milieu and upbringing (and it could work both ways).

    Perhaps so. However, I find it hard to believe that anyone who genuinely puts Christ's teaching into practice, no matter their upbringing, could come away anything but convin ...[text shortened]... ing which they have come to know. This is the experience of every follower of Christ.[/b]
    And if one puts sincerely into practice the moral teachings of Buddhism, or of Aristotle or Kant, does one come away similarly convinced? Anyway, one can engage in the moral life in the way you suggest without supposing that the ultimate justification for the moral life has anything to do with Jesus. One could practice generosity, courage, honesty, compassion, temperance, etc. for a year and come away with a transformed understanding of virtue and its appropriateness to human life. Your example of putting Jesus' teachings into practice seems to require both that one do what Jesus suggest (or endeavor to be the sort of person Jesus thinks you ought to be), and that these ethical norms are required or justified by Jesus' authority. If you lack this second belief, then I see no reason to think that moral practice will naturally deliver evidence of propositions like "God exists" or "Jesus was resurrected" (though you will certainly learn a bunch about moral practice itself).
  5. Illinois
    Joined
    20 Mar '07
    Moves
    6804
    28 Dec '07 23:001 edit
    Originally posted by bbarr
    And if one puts sincerely into practice the moral teachings of Buddhism, or of Aristotle or Kant, does one come away similarly convinced? Anyway, one can engage in the moral life in the way you suggest without supposing that the ultimate justification for the moral life has anything to do with Jesus. One could practice generosity, courage, honesty, compassion us was resurrected" (though you will certainly learn a bunch about moral practice itself).
    As I said, practicing Christ's teachings for a year (perhaps even just a week) would begin to establish the objective integrity of Christ's teaching. There are other teachings which have less directly to do with morality that may be tested as well, e.g., "And whatever you ask in My name, that I will do, that the Father may be glorified in the Son. If you ask anything in My name, I will do it... And whatever things you ask in prayer, believing, you will receive... [But] you ask and do not receive, because you ask amiss, that you may spend it on your pleasures..." This teaching is pretty clear, ask for something in Jesus Christ's name and it will be done. All that is required is the belief that Christ can and will do whatever you ask, and to not ask for something merely to satisfy your selfish desires. Once a person is able to witness first-hand the integrity of this teaching as well, there are other deeper promises which may be tested. For instance, "He who believes in Me, as the Scripture has said, out of his heart will flow rivers of living water... If you then, being evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will your heavenly Father give the Holy Spirit to those who ask Him..." I and many others can attest to the integrity of all these promises -- they work.

    The question remains, who ultimately determines the Bible's veracity? Is it he who has never seriously studied the Bible's contents or practiced its teachings? Or is it he who has and does? Do you take my word for it, or perhaps the word of someone who has abandoned the faith? As Jimi Hendrix once inquired, "Are you experienced?"
  6. Donationbbarr
    Chief Justice
    Center of Contention
    Joined
    14 Jun '02
    Moves
    17381
    28 Dec '07 23:171 edit
    Originally posted by epiphinehas
    All that is required is the belief that Christ can and will do whatever you ask, and to not ask for something merely to satisfy your selfish desires. [i]
    Don't you see that this requirement is the very thing that cannot be met without actual evidence? That was the point of the original post.
  7. Illinois
    Joined
    20 Mar '07
    Moves
    6804
    29 Dec '07 00:062 edits
    Originally posted by bbarr
    Don't you see that this requirement is the very thing that cannot be met without actual evidence? That was the point of the original post.
    If the integrity of Christ's moral teaching is proven satisfactorily, then there would be enough of a basis of faith to test the rest of his teachings as well. If Christ cracks one out of the park with, "love your neighbor as yourself," then we must consider the veracity of everything else he propounds. If there is evidence that "turning the other cheek" works, despite its being counterintuitive, then such would be the evidence needed to begin trusting Christ in other areas. As soon as it can be determined that Christ is unreliable, then, of course, belief formation would cease.
  8. Donationbbarr
    Chief Justice
    Center of Contention
    Joined
    14 Jun '02
    Moves
    17381
    29 Dec '07 02:48
    Originally posted by epiphinehas
    If the integrity of Christ's moral teaching is proven satisfactorily, then there would be enough of a basis of faith to test the rest of his teachings as well. If Christ cracks one out of the park with, "love your neighbor as yourself," then we must consider the veracity of everything else he propounds. If there is evidence that "turning the other chee ...[text shortened]... can be determined that Christ is unreliable, then, of course, belief formation would cease.
    You do realize that pagan philosophers prior to Jesus also advocated peace and love, right? Does this then give us reason to reject Christianity? After all, if the pagans were right about peace and love...
  9. Joined
    24 Apr '05
    Moves
    3061
    29 Dec '07 04:164 edits
    Originally posted by epiphinehas
    [b]It might be that one's ability to do this in an "objective" manner could be compromised by conditioning through their milieu and upbringing (and it could work both ways).

    Perhaps so. However, I find it hard to believe that anyone who genuinely puts Christ's teaching into practice, no matter their upbringing, could come away anything but convin ing which they have come to know. This is the experience of every follower of Christ.[/b]
    Yes, living in accordance with the virtues can lead to great enrichment; and insofar as Jesus taught this, following Jesus' teachings can lead to great enrichment (though for my money, I would go with other notable teachers). But what's that got to do with questions like whether or not God exists or whether or not Jesus rose from the dead in fulfillment of the scriptures or whether or not God undergirds normativity, etc? Why in the world should I think that putting such teachings into practice will divulge actual, objective evidence for some of these core propositions of Christianity?

    See, now I think you're just being ironic on two levels. For one, you're trying to witness by doing exactly what you already agreed in this thread is immaterial to good witnessing (after all, you agreed with bbarr's first post): you're failing to provide evidential reasons that directly bear on the core propositions of Christianity. What you're actually doing is advocating experiences that you think will somehow, some way bring such evidential reasons under attention. (And I think you're mistaken there anyway because I see no reasons to think this will happen; and from my experience, my practices at trying to cultivate the virtues have never yet unveiled what I consider to be evidential reasons for theism, let alone the Christian version). For two, it's almost as if you are banking on exactly what we just discussed as one possible source of error -- that interpretation of experience from within a certain viewpoint will lead one to assign evidence for that viewpoint where none actually exists (I understand this is not really what you are doing, but it's close enough in spirit to make me think it ironic).
  10. Hmmm . . .
    Joined
    19 Jan '04
    Moves
    22131
    29 Dec '07 06:18
    Originally posted by epiphinehas
    [b]It might be that one's ability to do this in an "objective" manner could be compromised by conditioning through their milieu and upbringing (and it could work both ways).

    Perhaps so. However, I find it hard to believe that anyone who genuinely puts Christ's teaching into practice, no matter their upbringing, could come away anything but convin ...[text shortened]... ing which they have come to know. This is the experience of every follower of Christ.[/b]
    However, I find it hard to believe that anyone who genuinely puts Christ's teaching into practice, no matter their upbringing, could come away anything but convinced of the integrity of Christ's message. Imagine yourself for the next year determined to live as best as you can according to Christ's teaching, experimentally . . . What you will find is absolutely revolutionary, not only to your life but the lives of others.

    I might suggest to you the same, with regard to the teachings of the Buddha and the Zen masters.

    I wanted to add just a bit to my last posts to you, by way of analogy (and more in line with bbarr’s OP):

    A person who has been wandering lost in the desert sees an image shimmering in the distance. Is it a real oasis or a mirage? Neither the force of the experience (“It certainly seems really real!” ), nor the representational content itself (“It looks just like an oasis” ), nor pragmatic considerations (“I’m terribly thirsty and need water and some shade!” ) can be decisive—or else no one would ever mistake a mirage for an oasis.

    Similarly with any representational content in the context of mystical experience.

    I sit in my chair, read the Bible form awhile (some lectio divina), and then enter meditation (contemplation) by repeating the name “Yeshua”—or some similar procedure. It seems likely to me that such a procedure will tend to influence the representational/conceptual content any reflexive translation/interpretation. The same for reading the Shiva Sutras and then chanting “Om namah Shivaya.” I say “tend” because both the literature and persons I have known indicate that it is not any hard and fast rule.
  11. Illinois
    Joined
    20 Mar '07
    Moves
    6804
    29 Dec '07 09:481 edit
    Originally posted by bbarr
    Don't you see that this requirement is the very thing that cannot be met without actual evidence? That was the point of the original post.
    The reason I agreed with your original post was because I agreed with your assertion that evidence is necessary for belief formation. Also, your example seemed to allude to the classic reward/punishment witness style used by some to motivate people to believe (a misguided practice in my opinion).

    On second thought, though, it seems to me now that your example leaves out some of the process of belief formation. For example, if the person telling you there was a killer in your closet happened to be a person whom you had a great deal of trust in--a favorite uncle, perhaps Kant himself--would it be less difficult to believe? Would you even need the shedload of money as a motivation?

    I don't think it is possible to have an iron-clad belief. Even if you were to open the door and look for yourself, relying upon your senses as a form of evidence, there is no way to prove that your senses aren't deceiving you. Furthermore, you must have faith that your mind is working properly. It is, of course, impossible to prove the reliability of the mind with the mind itself. Then there is the reliability of the testimonial: much of what we believe day to day comes to us via "authorities," i.e., parents, teachers, books, street signs, Wikipedia, etc., none of which can be proven beyond a shadow of a doubt to be reliable sources.

    All of this taken together, it looks more and more like the demand for incontrovertible epistemic proof--in any arena--is either a naive fantasy or a stonewall against committal. Pascal's Wager may not be a recipe for arriving at genuine faith, but Pascal was at least right that in life one must step out on a limb and wager, because there are no satisfactory assurances. And in this sense we all live by faith. We are each sticking to what we have good reason to think is true, in light of the difficulties. Therefore, it does not seem to me at all unreasonable to challenge others to test the veracity of Christ's teachings or promises by putting them into practice for themselves (And no, I do not do this ironically, LJ, I assure you I am quite serious).

    The best any witness can do, in these forums anyway, is appeal to the authority of scripture. And if you are looking for anything more than the evidence of scripture upon which to base your faith, you will be disappointed (or pleased, depending on your disposition).
  12. Donationbbarr
    Chief Justice
    Center of Contention
    Joined
    14 Jun '02
    Moves
    17381
    29 Dec '07 10:341 edit
    Originally posted by epiphinehas
    The reason I agreed with your original post was because I agreed with your assertion that evidence is necessary for belief formation. Also, your example seemed to allude to the classic reward/punishment witness style used by some to motivate people to believe (a misguided practice in my opinion).

    On second thought, though, it seems to me now that you to base your faith, you will be disappointed (or pleased, depending on your disposition).
    On second thought, though, it seems to me now that your example leaves out a great deal of the process of belief formation. For example, if the person telling you there was a killer in your closet happened to be a person whom you had a great deal of trust in--a favorite uncle, perhaps Kant himself--would it be less difficult to believe? Would you even need the shedload of money as a motivation?

    This example actually supports the point of my original post. You are claiming correctly that the testimony of others can serve to justify beliefs formed on the basis of that testimony. I completely agree. For instance, when my old logic professor tells me that some argument he has recently read is invalid, this testimony gives me a good epistemic reason to think that the argument he is referring to is invalid. Experts tend to know what they are talking about, so if an expert makes a claim that falls within the domain of his expertise, this qualifies as evidence. Not all testimonial evidence requires expertise in the relevant domain, however. If somebody I justifiably trust told me there was a killer in the closet, that would certainly give me an epistemic reason to believe there was a killer in the closet. It is not merely the testimony that does the work here, but also the fact that I justifiably trust the person giving the testimony. To justifiably trust a person is to take them to be reliable in some respect. To justifiably trust a person regarding their testimony is to take them to be reliable when it comes to telling the truth. If I have good reason to think that somebody is truthful, and they claim P, I thereby have an epistemic reason to believe that P. Of course, this reason is subject to other evidence.

    I don't think it is possible to have an iron-clad belief. Even if you were to open the door and look for yourself, relying upon your senses as a form of evidence, there is no way to prove that your senses aren't deceiving you. Furthermore, you must have faith that your mind is working properly. It is, of course, impossible to prove the reliability of the mind with the mind itself. Then there is the reliability of the testimonial: much of what we believe day to day comes to us via "authorities," i.e., parents, teachers, books, street signs, Wikipedia, etc., none of which can be proven beyond a shadow of a doubt to be reliable sources.

    Since knowledge that P does not require absolute certainty that P, this point is irrelevant. Justifiable belief that P requires that one have evidence for P that makes P more likely than not to be true. This evidence will never be sufficient to show with absolute epistemic certainty that P is true. So what? Nothing I’ve claimed above entails that either justified belief or knowledge requires certainty.

    All of this taken together, it looks more and more like the demand for incontrovertible epistemic proof--in any arena--is either a naive fantasy or a stonewall against committal.

    But I never asked for proof unto certainty. I merely require epistemic reasons, since the process of belief formation is not in general sensitive to merely pragmatic reasons for belief.

    Pascal's Wager may not be a recipe for arriving at genuine faith, but Pascal was at least right that in life one must step out on a limb and wager, because there are no satisfactory assurances.

    No, the “many-gods” objection to Pascal shows that Pascal was incorrect about the necessity of wagering. It is perfectly consistent to merely apportion one’s beliefs to the evidence that one has.

    And in this sense we all live by faith.

    If by “faith” you mean beliefs that are not epistemically certain, then sure. But this is interpretation of “faith” entails that you do not actually know your address or your name (since it is possible you could be wrong about these things), you merely have faith that your address and name are thus and such. I trust you see the absurdity of this position.

    We are each sticking to what we have good reason to think is true, in light of the difficulties. Therefore, it does not seem to me at all unreasonable to challenge others to test the veracity of Christ's teachings or promises by putting them into practice for themselves (And no, I do not do this ironically, LJ, I assure you I am quite serious).

    Challenge away. The point I’ve been making is that the results you predict will follow from engaging in such a challenge will not actually constitute evidence that Jesus had supernatural properties. All it could establish is that Jesus had true beliefs about how one ought to live. This was the point LJ made quite persuasively above. Further, analogous challenges could be issued to you. Live as Aristotle or Guru Nanak would want you to, and do so sincerely, and you will be transformed.

    The best any witness can do, in these forums anyway, is appeal to the authority of scripture. And if you are looking for anything more than the trustworthiness of scripture upon which to base your faith, you will be disappointed (or pleased, depending on your disposition).

    That is actually the worst that a witness can do, since it is question-begging. Atheists deny that scripture is authoritative. I simply do not read the scriptural quotations you and others provide. I generally find them either banal or vicious, and the passages I do agree with I interpret radically different from the theist. I read your posts to find your arugments, not to have text of dubious worth regurgitated at me.
  13. Illinois
    Joined
    20 Mar '07
    Moves
    6804
    29 Dec '07 10:541 edit
    Originally posted by bbarr
    On second thought, though, it seems to me now that your example leaves out a great deal of the process of belief formation. For example, if the person telling you there was a killer in your closet happened to be a person whom you had a great deal of trust in--a favorite uncle, perhaps Kant himself--would it be less difficult to believe? Would you even need d your posts to find your arugments, not to have text of dubious worth regurgitated at me.
    This example actually supports the point of my original post. You are claiming correctly that the testimony of others can serve to justify beliefs formed on the basis of that testimony. I completely agree.

    Excellent, because scripture is exactly that, the testimony of others whom I justifiably trust.
  14. Donationbbarr
    Chief Justice
    Center of Contention
    Joined
    14 Jun '02
    Moves
    17381
    29 Dec '07 11:101 edit
    Originally posted by epiphinehas
    [b]This example actually supports the point of my original post. You are claiming correctly that the testimony of others can serve to justify beliefs formed on the basis of that testimony. I completely agree.

    Excellent, because scripture is exactly that, the testimony of others whom I justifiably trust.[/b]
    Good. The questions, of course, are not limited to (1) whether scripture contains actual testimony or whether it simply takes the form of testimony for rhetorical purposes, (2) whether you can justifiably identify the authors of scripture, (3) whether your trust in those authors is actually justified. I am skeptical that you are justified in your answers to any of these questions.
  15. Joined
    02 Apr '06
    Moves
    3637
    29 Dec '07 15:33
    Originally posted by Red Night
    ohhh...another forum bully.

    I'll post wherever I please.
    I agree. even though your posts are nonsense, you do have the right to express them....
Back to Top

Cookies help us deliver our Services. By using our Services or clicking I agree, you agree to our use of cookies. Learn More.I Agree