-
We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.
What is your belief system...
- Thread starter xirtam
- Start date
I'm more interested in verifiability than was mentioned in that thread. How can we know anything? And thanks for clarifying, Astaroth, that you're apathetically atheistic/agnostic, but that doesn't really leave you with any answers. It basically tells you that you *can't* know -- or, in short, you're left with an "I don't know." So all you're really left with is a solution that an entity like God is unverifiable -- a solution which you can't verify and thereby grow apathetic.
I'm not just looking for beliefs, but rather, how one aquires such beliefs, how these beliefs can be verified -- at least on a personal level -- and what sort of effect these beliefs have on the complete individual. In other words, if you're (---insert belief system here---), how did you aquire those beliefs, what effect does that belief system have on you, and how can you verify your position?
I'm not just looking for beliefs, but rather, how one aquires such beliefs, how these beliefs can be verified -- at least on a personal level -- and what sort of effect these beliefs have on the complete individual. In other words, if you're (---insert belief system here---), how did you aquire those beliefs, what effect does that belief system have on you, and how can you verify your position?
Siddhartha
Lifer
I treat everyone and everything the way I want to be treated.
Why should I verify this?
Why should I verify this?
Kadarin
Lifer
Putting on my best Ambassador Delenn (from Babylon 5) accent: The universe does not ask for verifiability; it simply is, and all of us, each in our own unique ways, finds a place within it.
I have no need to verify or justify my own belief system. If I am wrong and there is a God, who cares? Does that make me a bad person and will I "go to hell" when I die? If that's the case, this "God" is not worth the time or trouble of believing in.. (let alone "worshipping", which is a concept that I find ludicrous)
I believe in nothing and it's not to difficult to verify nothing 😀 Look, here's nothing! Tadaah. In all seriousness though, people didn't change water to wine back then, people didn't split large bodies of water back then, and virgins didn't get pregnant back then, just as that stuff doesn't happen today. Some people may call them miracles, but to me it's a fable. There's only one way someone becomes pregnant and that's through intercourse, so if the story of Mary isn't true to me, then all of the other "miracles" are just more of the same. Just an example I guess, I'm rambling now...bleh....
I disagree. Beliefs can be unaffirmable. I could believe that, for example, I don't exist. But if I try to deny my existence, I actually affirm it. That would be an example of a belief that would be actually unaffirmable. Conversely, believing that I *do* exist would be an example of a belief that is easily verifiable because it's actually undeniable. Excuse the poetry.
That's great! But it's not a belief. It may be based on a belief, though. If so, which belief is it based on, and how did you aquire such a belief? Intuition... experience... cost-benefit analysis... tradition... what?
First of all, I didn't ask whether or not you believed in God, but it seems like you've given it a lot of thought. Your conclusion seems to be a variation of Pascal's Wager, is it not? But rather than come to the conclusion that you *ought* to believe in God, you came to the conclusion that you don't need to believe in a God because if one exists, He's not going to send you to hell or he wouldn't be worth believing in. And to justify this you're using some blend of cost-benefit analysis and consequentialism... does this adequately surmise your position? I'm just trying to understand where you're coming from and I think you're clarifying it for me...
And djs1w, obviously you believe in something, or you wouldn't have cause to reject miracles. I'm wondering what that is, but regardless you would probably side with Spinoza's lines of argumentation against things like water changing to wine, virgins giving birth, and seas parting:
1. Miracles are violations of natural laws.
2. Natural laws are immutable.
3. It is impossible to violate immutable laws.
4. Therefore, miracles are impossible.
You would probably also agree with Hume and other rational skeptics. I'm guessing that the reason you're holding these views is experiential -- since you haven't experienced any such events, you are not inclined to accept any of them as valid. Is this an accurate representation of your view?
You guys can always save me the trouble of going through these one-by-one by clarifying in your original posts, ya know... 😉
Then again, if you really don't care and don't want to think about it deeper than these relatively surface statements, that's fine too. I'm not twisting your arm and making you post.
Did you kill Linuxboy and take his soul?
It's not his to take. Plus, I already have a master; He treats me very well, taking better care of me than I ever could. 🙂
xirtam, I'm not sure why you posted this.
But let me address some problems with asking that question and then attempt to answer it anyway.
A belief about the world is a preposition statement, it exists and tells factual data about the world. The epistemic problems and fallacies you have outlined in response to these fellows are all well done: kudos.
For example of a belief, "The dog ran sideways" is a belief. It is a token held with representational content having both semantic and syntactic content to convey meaning.
A belief system, as I think you imply here, is a set of propositional statements, bound by inferential and causal connections used to effectively cope with the world and function in it. Furthermore, by invoking the idea of validity, you seem to imply that is can be systematized into a formal system of propositional calculus enabling one to determine truth values of said propositions.
Here's one problem with the question:
Self reference. A complete formal system is impossible
Here's another:
the myth of the given or what I have dubbed epistemic circularity or more succinctly put, the problem of arbitrary selections of original premises in systematic evaluations of world-adaptive techniques.
Here's a third:
the problem of disjunction and infinite solution sets based on data acquisition as well as exponential formulations of belief propositions held given current mental states.
So to sum: stating it would be impossible, theoretically. I could discuss it and argue, wasting good time but ultimately getting nowhere. I could also simplify and invoke external principles but in terms of propositional calculus that is cheap, though it would technically answer your question. Validity of a system is a purely internal consideration. That is, does it break any inferential laws. Those inferential laws are a given, unverifiable. Soundness, on the other hand, talk about how adaptive the system is to reality.
Internal verification is by iterative examination of statements, discovering inconsistencies.
And then we get to the problem of contingency, paradox, contradiction, and all sorts of fun stuff.
I suppose, to answer your question, my beliefs are summarized quite nicely in my sig. They are just about all I need. 🙂
I believe that this topic has been beaten to death and should be banned.
I disagree and think examining it anew may lead to fresh insight as well as awareness into the problems I have outlined here, telling us how stupid we human beings really are 🙂
Cheers ! 🙂
It's not his to take. Plus, I already have a master; He treats me very well, taking better care of me than I ever could. 🙂
xirtam, I'm not sure why you posted this.
But let me address some problems with asking that question and then attempt to answer it anyway.
A belief about the world is a preposition statement, it exists and tells factual data about the world. The epistemic problems and fallacies you have outlined in response to these fellows are all well done: kudos.
For example of a belief, "The dog ran sideways" is a belief. It is a token held with representational content having both semantic and syntactic content to convey meaning.
A belief system, as I think you imply here, is a set of propositional statements, bound by inferential and causal connections used to effectively cope with the world and function in it. Furthermore, by invoking the idea of validity, you seem to imply that is can be systematized into a formal system of propositional calculus enabling one to determine truth values of said propositions.
Here's one problem with the question:
Self reference. A complete formal system is impossible
Here's another:
the myth of the given or what I have dubbed epistemic circularity or more succinctly put, the problem of arbitrary selections of original premises in systematic evaluations of world-adaptive techniques.
Here's a third:
the problem of disjunction and infinite solution sets based on data acquisition as well as exponential formulations of belief propositions held given current mental states.
So to sum: stating it would be impossible, theoretically. I could discuss it and argue, wasting good time but ultimately getting nowhere. I could also simplify and invoke external principles but in terms of propositional calculus that is cheap, though it would technically answer your question. Validity of a system is a purely internal consideration. That is, does it break any inferential laws. Those inferential laws are a given, unverifiable. Soundness, on the other hand, talk about how adaptive the system is to reality.
Internal verification is by iterative examination of statements, discovering inconsistencies.
And then we get to the problem of contingency, paradox, contradiction, and all sorts of fun stuff.
I suppose, to answer your question, my beliefs are summarized quite nicely in my sig. They are just about all I need. 🙂
I believe that this topic has been beaten to death and should be banned.
I disagree and think examining it anew may lead to fresh insight as well as awareness into the problems I have outlined here, telling us how stupid we human beings really are 🙂
Cheers ! 🙂
There's probably nothing out there, and I really don't give a sh!t if there is. Its funny how my religious friends ask me to prove that there is no god, while the only things they say to me are "because its int he bible" and "because I know there is god, I can feel him" My ass
VGalidity? Think of it in terms of probability. Look at the poeple telling us there is a god, they're all full of BS as are their religious texts. Why should anyone believe them? The probability that they are right is miniscule.
VGalidity? Think of it in terms of probability. Look at the poeple telling us there is a god, they're all full of BS as are their religious texts. Why should anyone believe them? The probability that they are right is miniscule.
[wave]What's up, Linuxboy?[/wave]
Good call, Linuxboy. I don't want your soul, yet I appreciate your contribution to this thread.
I see where you think I may be guilty of self reference, now. I would call my belief system Christianity, but the tenents or commandments of Christianity I do not believe can be used to verify Christianity as true or false. For example, if I tell someone that the Bible is true because it claims that it is the Word of God, and the Word of God is true, hence the Bible is true, I have committed self reference, winding in an annoying form of circular reasoning. But the Bible is not what I use to verify the Bible, so I don't think I'm guilty of self reference.
As I mentioned before, a belief system can be internally inconsistent. If you use the belief system itself to verify the belief system, there is no problem. However, if you recognize that inconsistency will make something invalid, than you have assumed as superior to your belief system the law of noncontradiction. This is what you are using to verify your belief system. Now, have you committed epistemic circularity here? Is the law of noncontradiction an "arbitrary" premise? I don't think so. I think that if anything is intuitively true, it is that that which contradicts itself is not true. So we know that a belief system has to be internally consistent, but what else can we know?
Well, as you pointed out, a belief must not only be internally consistent, but it must also be externally consistent -- that is, it must coincide with what we observe in "act." I think we can avoid dusjunctive and infinite solution sets with this view.
(... now stealing ideas from Geisler, who stole from Anselm)
Thus, I think that the "mother" of all criteria is actual undeniability/actual unaffirmability. You covered this base in the first part of your sig. I know that I exist. I know this how? Because if I attempt to deny my existence, I affirm that I exist. It is therefore undeniably true that I exist. From this comes all else.
Have I answered the question "cheaply"? I suppose you may argue that, stating something like "how do you know that unaffirmability/undeniability is a reliable test of truth?" But that to me contradicts all intuition. Is there anyone out there who believes that something can be contradictory -- either externally or internally -- and still be true?
I guess this is where I disagree with you that
I don't want it to sound like I have all the answers. If I did, I probably wouldn't be posting here. These are just some of my thoughts that form the basis of what I believe, and I wanted to know how other people verify their belief systems. Maybe I think differently from Astaroth in that I think that we do have a need to "verify or justify [our] own belief systems" because something must be true. I would prefer to know the truth than to take the "be wrong but who cares" approach. If I am wrong, I'd like to know, because I care more about truth than I do about whatever beliefs I may hold at the time. That's one of the most common accusations about Christians -- that they're closed-minded and don't stop to verify their thoughts. If you take a second to verify more "tangible" information through things like scientific research, empirical data, etc., why not take a second to verify the more "untangible" things on a philosophical level? I don't know about the rest of you, but I'm finding that my belief systems shape a lot of my attitudes, which shape a lot of my actions. But that doesn't mean that I'm randomly going to adopt new philosophies in an attempt to "filter down the goodness" through those channels -- for what good is a philosophy, ultimately, if it is not true.
I hope you see where I'm coming from now. I don't want to accept beliefs because "they're good to believe" or because of what they can do for me, I want to accept them because they are true. Because if they are not true, then they're either internally or externally inconsistent and I will be living a lie -- and that is something I intuitively know that I must not do.
So I hope I answered your question, sandigga, and helped to clarify my direction to you, linuxboy.
As always, it's been a pleasure. Thanks to those who made some good responses -- I appreciated the feedback and welcome more -- unless, of course, you really think that this topic has been "beaten into the ground." That's not my intent. Maybe you're trying to beat it into the ground, but that's something I cannot do -- for if I beat into the ground the idea that it doesn't matter what I believe, then I give myself justification to believe whatever I want and to live however I want -- and that, again, is something I intuitively know I must not do because it would be like going through the education system with the intent to not learn, just because the whole concept of "learning" has been beaten into the ground for me. Unfortunately, I think that's where a lot of people are.
Good call, Linuxboy. I don't want your soul, yet I appreciate your contribution to this thread.
I see where you think I may be guilty of self reference, now. I would call my belief system Christianity, but the tenents or commandments of Christianity I do not believe can be used to verify Christianity as true or false. For example, if I tell someone that the Bible is true because it claims that it is the Word of God, and the Word of God is true, hence the Bible is true, I have committed self reference, winding in an annoying form of circular reasoning. But the Bible is not what I use to verify the Bible, so I don't think I'm guilty of self reference.
As I mentioned before, a belief system can be internally inconsistent. If you use the belief system itself to verify the belief system, there is no problem. However, if you recognize that inconsistency will make something invalid, than you have assumed as superior to your belief system the law of noncontradiction. This is what you are using to verify your belief system. Now, have you committed epistemic circularity here? Is the law of noncontradiction an "arbitrary" premise? I don't think so. I think that if anything is intuitively true, it is that that which contradicts itself is not true. So we know that a belief system has to be internally consistent, but what else can we know?
Well, as you pointed out, a belief must not only be internally consistent, but it must also be externally consistent -- that is, it must coincide with what we observe in "act." I think we can avoid dusjunctive and infinite solution sets with this view.
(... now stealing ideas from Geisler, who stole from Anselm)
Thus, I think that the "mother" of all criteria is actual undeniability/actual unaffirmability. You covered this base in the first part of your sig. I know that I exist. I know this how? Because if I attempt to deny my existence, I affirm that I exist. It is therefore undeniably true that I exist. From this comes all else.
Have I answered the question "cheaply"? I suppose you may argue that, stating something like "how do you know that unaffirmability/undeniability is a reliable test of truth?" But that to me contradicts all intuition. Is there anyone out there who believes that something can be contradictory -- either externally or internally -- and still be true?
I guess this is where I disagree with you that
I believe that it must be externally (in actuality) consistent as well. If I've mixed philosophical terms, I guess it would be how you describe the mixture of "validity" and "soundness."
I don't want it to sound like I have all the answers. If I did, I probably wouldn't be posting here. These are just some of my thoughts that form the basis of what I believe, and I wanted to know how other people verify their belief systems. Maybe I think differently from Astaroth in that I think that we do have a need to "verify or justify [our] own belief systems" because something must be true. I would prefer to know the truth than to take the "be wrong but who cares" approach. If I am wrong, I'd like to know, because I care more about truth than I do about whatever beliefs I may hold at the time. That's one of the most common accusations about Christians -- that they're closed-minded and don't stop to verify their thoughts. If you take a second to verify more "tangible" information through things like scientific research, empirical data, etc., why not take a second to verify the more "untangible" things on a philosophical level? I don't know about the rest of you, but I'm finding that my belief systems shape a lot of my attitudes, which shape a lot of my actions. But that doesn't mean that I'm randomly going to adopt new philosophies in an attempt to "filter down the goodness" through those channels -- for what good is a philosophy, ultimately, if it is not true.
I hope you see where I'm coming from now. I don't want to accept beliefs because "they're good to believe" or because of what they can do for me, I want to accept them because they are true. Because if they are not true, then they're either internally or externally inconsistent and I will be living a lie -- and that is something I intuitively know that I must not do.
So I hope I answered your question, sandigga, and helped to clarify my direction to you, linuxboy.
As always, it's been a pleasure. Thanks to those who made some good responses -- I appreciated the feedback and welcome more -- unless, of course, you really think that this topic has been "beaten into the ground." That's not my intent. Maybe you're trying to beat it into the ground, but that's something I cannot do -- for if I beat into the ground the idea that it doesn't matter what I believe, then I give myself justification to believe whatever I want and to live however I want -- and that, again, is something I intuitively know I must not do because it would be like going through the education system with the intent to not learn, just because the whole concept of "learning" has been beaten into the ground for me. Unfortunately, I think that's where a lot of people are.
Love ya 🙂
I see where you think I may be guilty of self reference, now. I would call my belief system Christianity,
call it whatever you like. If you think Christianity necessarily involves a belief system or if you wish to invoke ontological ideas of "isness" and parallel logical conceptions of formal equality to state that your 'belief system' corresponds to a system put forth with a label of Christian, then I think you limit explanatory fullness. Christianity is a living, breathing, interconnected Being, it is the Church and bride of Christ. The Lover and Beloved are one, and lovers do not need words. And true love is unconfined by systems. 🙂
but the tenents or commandments of Christianity I do not believe can be used to verify Christianity as true or false. For example, if I tell someone that the Bible is true because it claims that it is the Word of God, and the Word of God is true, hence the Bible is true, I have committed self reference, winding in an annoying form of circular reasoning. But the Bible is not what I use to verify the Bible, so I don't think I'm guilty of self reference.
Woah. Yes and no. Look at a higher level of argumentation and systematic logical epistemology. To pick an arbitrary selection of a validating ruleset within a formal system is still an arbitrary selection of rules. If you use meta-argumentation espousing a higher order account to justify internal consistency, you are still using the same sort of system and are open to circularity and self-reference due to the problems I have described. To repeat: the selection is abitrary. It may be said they are "inherent" but then we open up the can of worms ethics brought about between "is" and "ought" as well as "inherent" differences and selections based on environment. The real argument is when people think that one system of arbitrary selection is better than another and hold on to that with such vigor that they miss the humanity of another person. But that's an aside. The objection I made holds because you have made Christianity into a system (you could have played on my objections to provide a solution but that's for another time), because you have invoked external principles (meta-argumentation problems and problems of circularity all over again) and because you missd the true meat of my commentary and its levels in grazing on the surface.
Eh.. That may sound harsh. I don't mean it like that, especially since I don't express myself very well. I think I didn't explain fully and you do bring up a good objection nonetheless.
As I mentioned before, a belief system can be internally inconsistent. If you use the belief system itself to verify the belief system, there is no problem. However, if you recognize that inconsistency will make something invalid, than you have assumed as superior to your belief system the law of noncontradiction. This is what you are using to verify your belief system. Now, have you committed epistemic circularity here? Is the law of noncontradiction an "arbitrary" premise? I don't think so. I think that if anything is intuitively true, it is that that which contradicts itself is not true. So we know that a belief system has to be internally consistent, but what else can we know?
"What can we know" indeed. I state that formal inferential rules are arbitrary just because they are supposedly inherent. That is my statement (not necessarily true position 😀 😉 ) because it assumes that those logical rules are how we come to know the world. I posit that restricting ourselves to a logical system is an abitrary selection because of free will (key assumption) and this allows us to devise rules and formal systems. The thing is, those rules are atill arbitrary. You claim they are not, but if I choose a set that has internal validity but contradicts your set, who shall abitrate then on the original soundness of the selections if those are, after all, open to the 'ole problem of internal justification, the given, and what is cognitively perceived to adapt to reality.
I suppose you could invoke Proper Function and say, well that's just poppycock and that one of us is wrong or claim that my twist is clever polemical rhetoric but the position remains that those rules and laws are taken as a given, and are used for justification, thus opening ourselves to problems of circularity.
Well, as you pointed out, a belief must not only be internally consistent, but it must also be externally consistent -- that is, it must coincide with what we observe in "act." I think we can avoid dusjunctive and infinite solution sets with this view.
That's soundness. And no, it is not avoided in a formal system because propositions will be true in the system that cannot be verified by any of the rules in the system, assuming any formal system X. (this has been proven)
(... now stealing ideas from Geisler, who stole from Anselm)
Hehehe.
Thus, I think that the "mother" of all criteria is actual undeniability/actual unaffirmability. You covered this base in the first part of your sig. I know that I exist. I know this how? Because if I attempt to deny my existence, I affirm that I exist. It is therefore undeniably true that I exist. From this comes all else.
It is only a sufficient condition, not a necessary one. Unsettling thought, eh? If you want to use it, that's great, that is a very affirming solution, but certainly not the only one possible. Again, levels.
Have I answered the question "cheaply"? I suppose you may argue that, stating something like "how do you know that unaffirmability/undeniability is a reliable test of truth?" But that to me contradicts all intuition. Is there anyone out there who believes that something can be contradictory -- either externally or internally -- and still be true?
I do. Even if I don't I still do. This is also the point of faith. 🙂
I guess this is where I disagree with you that
I believe that it must be externally (in actuality) consistent as well. If I've mixed philosophical terms, I guess it would be how you describe the mixture of "validity" and "soundness."
External validity as you use it is my definition of soundness. I think we're clearer now but I may have missed something. I like your points here, they are well put. At the same time, I don't know if my objection has been addressed. I'll keep reading.
I don't want it to sound like I have all the answers. If I did, I probably wouldn't be posting here. These are just some of my thoughts that form the basis of what I believe, and I wanted to know how other people verify their belief systems. Maybe I think differently from Astaroth in that I think that we do have a need to "verify or justify [our] own belief systems" because something must be true. I would prefer to know the truth than to take the "be wrong but who cares" approach. If I am wrong, I'd like to know, because I care more about truth than I do about whatever beliefs I may hold at the time. That's one of the most common accusations about Christians -- that they're closed-minded and don't stop to verify their thoughts. If you take a second to verify more "tangible" information through things like scientific research, empirical data, etc., why not take a second to verify the more "untangible" things on a philosophical level? I don't know about the rest of you, but I'm finding that my belief systems shape a lot of my attitudes, which shape a lot of my actions. But that doesn't mean that I'm randomly going to adopt new philosophies in an attempt to "filter down the goodness" through those channels -- for what good is a philosophy, ultimately, if it is not true.
Test everything, stick to the good, eh?
How can we know what good is? Your assertion says by reflection, and of course non-contradiction since that leads to reductio ad absurdum, a reducing into the absurd, something that is unsound. An excellent philosophical stance. Most people do not achieve this level of systematic expunging of their thought and belief systems. But it is the law. And the law has been replaced with grace.
I hope you see where I'm coming from now. I don't want to accept beliefs because "they're good to believe" or because of what they can do for me, I want to accept them because they are true. Because if they are not true, then they're either internally or externally inconsistent and I will be living a lie -- and that is something I intuitively know that I must not do.
So I hope I answered your question, sandigga, and helped to clarify my direction to you, linuxboy.
Exquisitely my dear fellow, that was admirable work. And I, for one, agree with you. Just don't lock your self in a fortress of reason.
As always, it's been a pleasure. Thanks to those who made some good responses -- I appreciated the feedback and welcome more -- unless, of course, you really think that this topic has been "beaten into the ground." That's not my intent. Maybe you're trying to beat it into the ground, but that's something I cannot do -- for if I beat into the ground the idea that it doesn't matter what I believe, then I give myself justification to believe whatever I want and to live however I want -- and that, again, is something I intuitively know I must not do because it would be like going through the education system with the intent to not learn, just because the whole concept of "learning" has been beaten into the ground for me. Unfortunately, I think that's where a lot of people are.
A rarity you are. But don't let it go to your head because you're also a Christian bigot 😀 who thinks he knows the truth. Hehe.
Closing remarks:
Yes, Christianity must be communicated and can be a system (it has to be if it is explained with language). I have found it to be the best system that points to God, through his son Jesus, who was born of the flesh, lived, suffered, dies for our sins, rose on the third day, and has given us access to the Kingdom of God... which is within us. But that system, even if is has internal validity and soundness is dead without works.
And it still requires justification if one is talking about questions of epistemic knowledge. All justification is ultimately internal, because truth values and choice mean one can choose anything one wants. With external justification, the system expands until we get to circularity and then it goes back to internal positions and dynamics. But this is no excuse for sloppy thinking.
The thing is, so little can sway people, that it comes down to knowing what one has seen and heard, being able to communicate it, and then leaving it up and praying (if we're talking about a Christian perspective), which is not only outside a formal system, but is not even within the same idea range.
This is what it means for the law to be dead (well, one of the things, it's much more complex)
This is the point of grace.
And this is why I can say that I, sir, am a fool and out of my mind 🙂
which begs the question, whose mind am I in? 😀
Cheers ! 🙂
linuxboy:
You, sir, rock. 😀... Even if I reject your notion that something can be true without being consistent... I really do hope that was a joke, playing off my question.
I believe it to be primary, with other criteria being secondary, tertiary, etc., so I think we agree on the idea of "levels." Probably the most basic question is the question of existence, identity, etc., and I think the only way to determine that I even exist is by the ideas presented. I guess my objection would be that you're describing things in terms of levels... isn't it possible for there to be a top level? Is there something that will even be placed -- metaphorically -- on an equal playing field with undeniability/unaffirmability? I'm looking for other options. I'm not flat-out stating that Geisler's system is the only one that makes any rational sense. If you have another place to start, let me know. Perhaps we could define this as the law whereby "formal systems" can be verified. But I'm willing to listen to other possible options. Geisler indicates that this is the only valid method of evaluating worldviews. You state that it's a sufficient condition, but not necessary. Well... any examples? I still think that a view must be both internally and externally consistent in order to be valid.
Wow. Do you think this means that all laws have been replaced with grace? Do you think the completeness of the law in Christ means that laws of reason no longer apply? What exactly was the weakness of the law... Romans 8:x (like 2, I think)-- "what the law was powerless to do in that it was weakened by the sinful nature, God did by sending His own Son in the likeness of sinful man to be a sin offering." I'm thinking this is strictly on a moral level and is dealing more with sin issues rather than reason.
...and you shall know the truth, and the truth shall set you free... this does not set me free to be a Christian bigot. True Christians are motivated not by bigotry, but by love. Granted, there are certain aspects of Christianity beyond reason, but I would argue that the ideas presented are still consistent with reason, even though they transcend the scope of reason. By defining my position within the context of this scope, I don't think I'm susceptible to the attack that perhaps I am within a "fortress of reason," even though I recognize the importance of defending why we believe what we believe. In the same way that I view true science and true religion as complementary. You want to know what true religion is? Consult James... hehe. I don't think anyone would have a problem with that... even those who are not Christians.
And I will not even try to argue that Christianity as a belief system implies that works are unnecessary. What's the point of having legs if you never walk? What's the point of having a belief system if it's never evidenced in your life? Granted, Christianity to me is more than just a belief system as traditionally defined -- it's not a moral code, a set of do's and dont's, a doctrinal set. It is more than just a way of life -- it's a defining characteristic of an individual. But perhaps all "belief systems" are like that. That's something else I wanted to uncover with this thread, but I've been met with quite a bit of opposition.
I suppose maybe we have conflicting definitions of "formal system." For me, it is entirely consistent for a Christian to hold to this methodology. But I think we are essentially in agreement on these lines.
Final question: do you really think that the Creator made all reasoning inherently as circular as Planet Earth?
You, sir, rock. 😀... Even if I reject your notion that something can be true without being consistent... I really do hope that was a joke, playing off my question.
I believe it to be primary, with other criteria being secondary, tertiary, etc., so I think we agree on the idea of "levels." Probably the most basic question is the question of existence, identity, etc., and I think the only way to determine that I even exist is by the ideas presented. I guess my objection would be that you're describing things in terms of levels... isn't it possible for there to be a top level? Is there something that will even be placed -- metaphorically -- on an equal playing field with undeniability/unaffirmability? I'm looking for other options. I'm not flat-out stating that Geisler's system is the only one that makes any rational sense. If you have another place to start, let me know. Perhaps we could define this as the law whereby "formal systems" can be verified. But I'm willing to listen to other possible options. Geisler indicates that this is the only valid method of evaluating worldviews. You state that it's a sufficient condition, but not necessary. Well... any examples? I still think that a view must be both internally and externally consistent in order to be valid.
Wow. Do you think this means that all laws have been replaced with grace? Do you think the completeness of the law in Christ means that laws of reason no longer apply? What exactly was the weakness of the law... Romans 8:x (like 2, I think)-- "what the law was powerless to do in that it was weakened by the sinful nature, God did by sending His own Son in the likeness of sinful man to be a sin offering." I'm thinking this is strictly on a moral level and is dealing more with sin issues rather than reason.
...and you shall know the truth, and the truth shall set you free... this does not set me free to be a Christian bigot. True Christians are motivated not by bigotry, but by love. Granted, there are certain aspects of Christianity beyond reason, but I would argue that the ideas presented are still consistent with reason, even though they transcend the scope of reason. By defining my position within the context of this scope, I don't think I'm susceptible to the attack that perhaps I am within a "fortress of reason," even though I recognize the importance of defending why we believe what we believe. In the same way that I view true science and true religion as complementary. You want to know what true religion is? Consult James... hehe. I don't think anyone would have a problem with that... even those who are not Christians.
And I will not even try to argue that Christianity as a belief system implies that works are unnecessary. What's the point of having legs if you never walk? What's the point of having a belief system if it's never evidenced in your life? Granted, Christianity to me is more than just a belief system as traditionally defined -- it's not a moral code, a set of do's and dont's, a doctrinal set. It is more than just a way of life -- it's a defining characteristic of an individual. But perhaps all "belief systems" are like that. That's something else I wanted to uncover with this thread, but I've been met with quite a bit of opposition.
I suppose maybe we have conflicting definitions of "formal system." For me, it is entirely consistent for a Christian to hold to this methodology. But I think we are essentially in agreement on these lines.
Final question: do you really think that the Creator made all reasoning inherently as circular as Planet Earth?
PistachioByAzul
Diamond Member
But what would there be to verify if the Bible did not exist to begin with? Doesn't self-reference cover all of our logic?
PistachioByAzul
Diamond Member
How is external consistency to be established from an internal perspective?
Because if they are not true, then they're either internally or externally inconsistent and I will be living a lie -- and that is something I intuitively know that I must not do.
The only way to stop living a lie is to cease to think, then no more lies will be told.
Because if they are not true, then they're either internally or externally inconsistent and I will be living a lie -- and that is something I intuitively know that I must not do.
The only way to stop living a lie is to cease to think, then no more lies will be told.
HellRaiserandBeerDrinker
Senior member
Some interesting points, EngineNr9.
People were verifying facts about the universe and about morality long before the Bible was even in existence. What it makes sense to believe in and what it doesn't make sense to believe in, etc. Furthermore, if the God of the Bible exists, He existed prior to the Bible and people would have to come by His existence without relying on that source.
Well, for one thing, the idea of external consistency can be used for negation. For example, I could believe that all Schmoogaborgs are white. And that might very well be consistent with my own interpretation as to what a Schmoogaborg is, but if there are no Schmoogaborgs actually in existence, then it's not externally consistent. In other words, if I make something up that's internally consistent with my belief system (i.e., there's nothing in Christianity that says that Schmoogaborgs can't or will never exist) but doesn't exist in nature or in what I can observe, then it's not externally consistent. Moreover, an *INTERNAL* perspective is not the same thing as an *INTROVERTED* perspective. I'm not talking about a closed-minded and solipsistic philosophy here. I don't think that a proper worldview is one in which somebody buries his head in the sand and starts pondering the mysteries of the universe.
That disturbs me. Stopping to think in no way prohibits me from talking. That's why idiots shoot their mouths off all the time. I'd post links to other threads, but that'd just be plain mean. Anyway, the solution is not to stop thinking, and I the only way one can even consider whether or not he is living a lie is by thinking about it, internal reflection, philosophical evalutation, etc. But to take the drastic measure of halting the though process is like shooting yourself in the head so that you won't sin. Ridiculous. (Hope that didn't come across to harsh.) Although this question disturbs me, it doesn't disturb me nearly as much as HellRaiserandBeerDrinker's link. 😉
People were verifying facts about the universe and about morality long before the Bible was even in existence. What it makes sense to believe in and what it doesn't make sense to believe in, etc. Furthermore, if the God of the Bible exists, He existed prior to the Bible and people would have to come by His existence without relying on that source.
Well, for one thing, the idea of external consistency can be used for negation. For example, I could believe that all Schmoogaborgs are white. And that might very well be consistent with my own interpretation as to what a Schmoogaborg is, but if there are no Schmoogaborgs actually in existence, then it's not externally consistent. In other words, if I make something up that's internally consistent with my belief system (i.e., there's nothing in Christianity that says that Schmoogaborgs can't or will never exist) but doesn't exist in nature or in what I can observe, then it's not externally consistent. Moreover, an *INTERNAL* perspective is not the same thing as an *INTROVERTED* perspective. I'm not talking about a closed-minded and solipsistic philosophy here. I don't think that a proper worldview is one in which somebody buries his head in the sand and starts pondering the mysteries of the universe.
That disturbs me. Stopping to think in no way prohibits me from talking. That's why idiots shoot their mouths off all the time. I'd post links to other threads, but that'd just be plain mean. Anyway, the solution is not to stop thinking, and I the only way one can even consider whether or not he is living a lie is by thinking about it, internal reflection, philosophical evalutation, etc. But to take the drastic measure of halting the though process is like shooting yourself in the head so that you won't sin. Ridiculous. (Hope that didn't come across to harsh.) Although this question disturbs me, it doesn't disturb me nearly as much as HellRaiserandBeerDrinker's link. 😉
PistachioByAzul
Diamond Member
Stopping to think in no way prohibits me from talking.
I was referring to the lies we tell ourselves, I thought that's what you meant by "living a lie". The impossible question of, where really does the lie/dream end and the truth, the "real" reality begin, seems to be another function of the "epistemic circularity" paradox.
It seems like, the state of being able to simply live and let live in the highest sense involves being and not thinking. Maybe I'm wrong, but I think if you really try to think objectively, to honestly question, you will be entirely caught in the Land O'Lakes butter box world of false awakenings. We all make compromises in our reasoning, there's always some kind of self-serving rational involved no matter how deep you get. That's the counter-force that keeps the questions unanswered. So I would say, to think in the abstract is to lie.
What are those chimps thinking about when they are swinging from tree to tree or enjoying a nice banana? That's what I try to ask myself.
I was referring to the lies we tell ourselves, I thought that's what you meant by "living a lie". The impossible question of, where really does the lie/dream end and the truth, the "real" reality begin, seems to be another function of the "epistemic circularity" paradox.
It seems like, the state of being able to simply live and let live in the highest sense involves being and not thinking. Maybe I'm wrong, but I think if you really try to think objectively, to honestly question, you will be entirely caught in the Land O'Lakes butter box world of false awakenings. We all make compromises in our reasoning, there's always some kind of self-serving rational involved no matter how deep you get. That's the counter-force that keeps the questions unanswered. So I would say, to think in the abstract is to lie.
What are those chimps thinking about when they are swinging from tree to tree or enjoying a nice banana? That's what I try to ask myself.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 25K
-
-
-
