If there were a just God

[spidergoat]

It does not determine truth in a metaphysical sense, no. But it does figure out how the universe works, and builds incrementally better models of how things work based on evidence. I don't see religions being that honest with anyone about the limitations of it's methods, which are far less reliable than those of science. The method of determining religious truth seems to be whatever sounds good.

 

[wynn]

It does not determine truth in a metaphysical sense, no.

So what should we use as a tool to ascertain truth in the metaphysical sense?

Or should we abandon metaphysics altogether?

But it does figure out how the universe works, and builds incrementally better models of how things work based on evidence.

But what is the scope of this "how the universe works"?
Does the knowledge/information provided by science satisfy every need humans have?

I don't see religions being that honest with anyone about the limitations of it's methods, which are far less reliable than those of science.
The method of determining religious truth seems to be whatever sounds good.

I don't understand?


I suppose matters of religion only become really problematic in two cases:

1. If we presume that God is an old moloch.

2. If we presume that the point of being religious is one or more from this list: to be accepted by others, to be liked; to be able to sit back and relax, to find solace in thinking "I am right, I have done it, I don't have to look anymore"; to be able to use it as a tool of one-upmanship in relationships with others; to serve as a source of feeling good about oneself; to establish a socially relevant personality and reputation, to gain fame.

 

[lightgigantic]

Having a text only shows that he probably said it. It says nothing about the essential truth of the statement. Just like a sacred text only shows that someone probably said something, not whether it's true or not.

sure

Thats because there are no inherent issues of application with Benjamin Franklin (an absence of normaytive descriptions).

Atthe moment we are just determining the role texts play in determining the personal nature or even existence of a person.

My point is that it is not sufficient to say that its not reasonable to suggest that a person (whether it is god or benjamin franklin) actually exists since we only have books (even if you want to work with the absence of normative descriptions that surround teh act of knowing god, at this point) about them.

Even a casual system of investigation clearly reveals that we have a system of literacy and accreditation that makes certain personalities distinct from fiction.

IOW just because Alice in wonderland is a book doesn't mean a Concise history of america is also in the same sort of category.

 

[spidergoat]

sure

Thats because there are no inherent issues of application with Benjamin Franklin (an absence of normaytive descriptions).

Atthe moment we are just determining the role texts play in determining the personal nature or even existence of a person.

My point is that it is not sufficient to say that its not reasonable to suggest that a person (whether it is god or benjamin franklin) actually exists since we only have books (even if you want to work with the absence of normative descriptions that surround teh act of knowing god, at this point) about them.

Even a casual system of investigation clearly reveals that we have a system of literacy and accreditation that makes certain personalities distinct from fiction.

IOW just because Alice in wonderland is a book doesn't mean a Concise history of america is also in the same sort of category.

If we only had a book, that is not proof of the existence of a person, much less a much more unlikely supernatural being. It is entirely reasonable to suggest that a person known only from a text might not have actually existed.

If that were true, then scientific theories need only be written down and sound plausible in order to be accepted, but that is not the case.

Religion has only subjective arguments for the existence of God, which is why it can all be doubted. Science has objective arguments for it's hypotheses that do not depend on the observer.

 

[lightgigantic]

If we only had a book, that is not proof of the existence of a person, much less a much more unlikely supernatural being. It is entirely reasonable to suggest that a person known only from a text might not have actually existed.

Given that you don't have problems with the existence of benjamin franklin, and even involved discussions on what he did and didn't say, its not clear what resources you are drawing on aside from texts and the narratives of others.

If that were true, then scientific theories need only be written down and sound plausible in order to be accepted, but that is not the case.

perhaps a discussion of scientific theories would be pertinent to a discussion of normative descriptions (since there is a "doing" aspect to the text that grants a type of knowledge or perception not dissimilar from the outlines drawn up by the authors/contributors) but at the moment we are discussing how to determine what another person (particularly another person to whom we have no current direct perception of) wants

Religion has only subjective arguments for the existence of God, which is why it can all be doubted. Science has objective arguments for it's hypotheses that do not depend on the observer.

Well of course if you disband the normative descriptions that surround a claim it will be subjective.

For instance even if one declares that all the "doing" activity that props up scientific claims is a bunch of baloney, all that one will be left with ios a heaps of subjective perspectives outside of any means of investigation.

 

[spidergoat]

I assume that Ben Franklin exists for the purposes of conversion. His texts are not proof of his existence.

In regard to your point about scientific claims, it is the fact that they actually work that is proof of the legitimacy of the original hypothesis. Why isn't this standard applied to religion?

 

[lightgigantic]

And you think these issues of analysis apply to information about the divine as well, not only to mundane matters?

In a general sense, yes.

For instance, as a mundane example, the means we utilize to determine who is our father is quite similar to the means we utilize to know god.

I wouldn't know ...
I just don't understand how so many people can portray God as if he were an insane old moloch, and then say that it is just our idle human sensitivities which see something negative in that image ... and then torture and even kill those people who refuse to subscribe to such an image of God.

I think it has something to do with a person being unable to reconcile the issue of suffering in the material world (so painting a portrait of the universal #1 as a little whacko or something eases the pain)

Not, it does not. But why do people spread such a ghastly image of God, and commit so much violence in the name of that image?
And how come I have such a problem with this?

Most people have a vested interest in portraying god as distant, or neurotic or whatever.

 

[lightgigantic]

I assume that Ben Franklin exists for the purposes of conversion. His texts are not proof of his existence.

why

what are the problems you have with accepting the existence of benjamin franklin

(actually having this sort of paranoid doubt is a good example of blind doubt, the diametric opposite of blind faith)

In regard to your point about scientific claims, it is the fact that they actually work that is proof of the legitimacy of the original hypothesis.

Well sure ... once you inject a little bit of application in to them ...

Why isn't this standard applied to religion?

why it isn't in the case of your knowledge is that you can't/won't/don't know how to approach the issues of application.

Or conversely, if I don't have access to the issues of application, I have no means to determine the legitimacy of the claims.

Science is not unique in this regard. Neither is theism.
:shrug:

 

[wynn]

Allright, I'll take this up:

Atthe moment we are just determining the role texts play in determining the personal nature or even existence of a person.

My point is that it is not sufficient to say that its not reasonable to suggest that a person (whether it is god or benjamin franklin) actually exists since we only have books (even if you want to work with the absence of normative descriptions that surround teh act of knowing god, at this point) about them.

Even a casual system of investigation clearly reveals that we have a system of literacy and accreditation that makes certain personalities distinct from fiction.

IOW just because Alice in wonderland is a book doesn't mean a Concise history of america is also in the same sort of category.

No, it doesn't.

But three points:

One, notions of what is literature/fiction vs. what is non-fiction have changed over time.
Also, some books have clearly "changed genres" - for example, the Bible used to be considered strictly a religious text (in the West, that is), but nowadays, some file it among literary texts. Descartes' Meditations went from being written as and considered a religious text, to being considered a philosophical text (ie. considered neutral in relation to religion).

Another interesting issue is the relative relevance of a text. A text may be considered fictitious, but its message still taken seriously. A good historical example are Aesop's fables - people generally accept the moral reasoning presented through the fables, and do not get hung up on the fact that in those fables, animals are portrayed as being able to speak, or do things that animals do not do (such as foxes desiring to eat grapes and reaching for them).

In fact, much of Western education of children, and also for young adults and adults, especially concerning moral reasoning, is based almost exclusively on fictitious characters and fictitious stories. Whole generations were raised by phenomena ranging from the Teletubbies, Tom & Jerry, Popeye to the first three Star Wars films, by The Lord of the Rings and Harry Potter.

Which suggests that people are actually not so concerned with whether some discourse is fictitious or not, but whether it can be engaging, and this usually involves a discourse on values.

And thirdly, to get to your point about the system of literacy and accreditation that makes certain personalities distinct from fiction. I'm not so sure this is so clear, although there seems to be a great desire that there would exist such clarity.
Some historical personalities are canonized (within a particular culture) as being "real" as opposed to being "fictitious", and some texts and other artefacts are canonized as being "historically reliable" (and thus considered as supporting the notion that those personalities really existed) and others are not. But apart from this canon, I am not aware of any clear-cut rules as to how to establish, beyond doubt, that such and such really existed.
For example, we trust tradition when it says that Christopher Columbus really existed, but it is not like we can prove it ourselves.

If we take (a particular) tradition as the authoritative pramana, then this suffices to accept that God exists and that the scriptures are indeed talking about God.
But what when we do not take tradition as the authoritative pramana?

 

[wynn]

In a general sense, yes.

For instance, as a mundane example, the means we utilize to determine who is our father is quite similar to the means we utilize to know god.

You mean by trust??

I think it has something to do with a person being unable to reconcile the issue of suffering in the material world (so painting a portrait of the universal #1 as a little whacko or something eases the pain)

Actually, I have been reading William James' essays. What you are outlining above, is similar to James described as a symptom of when a person's "natural religiousness" goes bankrupt, proves to be insufficient (in Is life worth living?, esp. section III).

Most people have a vested interest in portraying god as distant, or neurotic or whatever.

Oh. And in the past, I was probably one or more persons from this list, perhaps even the first one? It would certainly explain a lot ...

 

[spidergoat]

why

what are the problems you have with accepting the existence of benjamin franklin

Texts attributed to him could be fake. It is only by combining the information from multiple sources that I find his existence to be likely. Not sure, just likely, because those discriptions are fully consistent with natural laws and self-consistent.

why it isn't in the case of your knowledge is that you can't/won't/don't know how to approach the issues of application.

Or conversely, if I don't have access to the issues of application, I have no means to determine the legitimacy of the claims.

Science is not unique in this regard. Neither is theism.

Religious texts aren't even self-consistent in many cases. They make claims that violate natural laws. What application of the claim that a supernatural being exists could be manifested? As far as I'm aware, no supernatural ideas we get from religious texts actually work.

Application of something like prayer, if it only has subjective benefits, cannot be said to work in a metaphysical sense. Name an application that could only work if the initial hypothesis (a supernatural being) is true.

 

[lightgigantic]

Allright, I'll take this up:




No, it doesn't.

But three points:

One, notions of what is literature/fiction vs. what is non-fiction have changed over time.

The way a piece may get framed or retold over time may change but the intention of the author/s is something else.

Also, some books have clearly "changed genres" - for example, the Bible used to be considered strictly a religious text (in the West, that is), but nowadays, some file it among literary texts. Descartes' Meditations went from being written as and considered a religious text, to being considered a philosophical text (ie. considered neutral in relation to religion).

hence the framing changes according to the needs of the audience. For instance just compare a 200 year old newspaper (if they are that old?) with today's. If people were simply after a good story, one could simply reprint the old ones.

Another interesting issue is the relative relevance of a text. A text may be considered fictitious, but its message still taken seriously. A good historical example are Aesop's fables - people generally accept the moral reasoning presented through the fables, and do not get hung up on the fact that in those fables, animals are portrayed as being able to speak, or do things that animals do not do (such as foxes desiring to eat grapes and reaching for them).

You won't find such books in the zoology section of the library however

In fact, much of Western education of children, and also for young adults and adults, especially concerning moral reasoning, is based almost exclusively on fictitious characters and fictitious stories. Whole generations were raised by phenomena ranging from the Teletubbies, Tom & Jerry, Popeye to the first three Star Wars films, by The Lord of the Rings and Harry Potter.

hence there are different models of literacy that surround the non-fiction element of a narrative.

For instance I recall one comic of a person bleeding with shards of mirror stuck in them screaming "Lewis Carrol lied!!". IOW if we package the take home message that we can travel to different worlds by jumping through mirrors from his books, we probably should brush up on our literacy skills a bit.

Which suggests that people are actually not so concerned with whether some discourse is fictitious or not, but whether it can be engaging, and this usually involves a discourse on values.

That depends on the frame.

For instance if someone asks what another did on the weekend, not letting the truth get in the way of a great story is probably not what they had in mind.

And thirdly, to get to your point about the system of literacy and accreditation that makes certain personalities distinct from fiction. I'm not so sure this is so clear, although there seems to be a great desire that there would exist such clarity.
Some historical personalities are canonized (within a particular culture) as being "real" as opposed to being "fictitious", and some texts and other artefacts are canonized as being "historically reliable" (and thus considered as supporting the notion that those personalities really existed) and others are not. But apart from this canon, I am not aware of any clear-cut rules as to how to establish, beyond doubt, that such and such really existed.
For example, we trust tradition when it says that Christopher Columbus really existed, but it is not like we can prove it ourselves.

So would you classify a book that exposes the historical unreliability of a canonized figure as a work of fiction or nonfiction?
Why?

If we take (a particular) tradition as the authoritative pramana, then this suffices to accept that God exists and that the scriptures are indeed talking about God.
But what when we do not take tradition as the authoritative pramana?

I am not sure exactly how you are using the word tradition here

 

[wynn]

Well sure ... once you inject a little bit of application in to them ...


why it isn't in the case of your knowledge is that you can't/won't/don't know how to approach the issues of application.

Or conversely, if I don't have access to the issues of application, I have no means to determine the legitimacy of the claims.

Science is not unique in this regard. Neither is theism.

But in either case, science or theism, the task of application is enormous!

When it comes to science, we in the West are just more accustomed to its discourse, and are raised to confidently babble on about the Big Bang, and molecules and so on and on - but it's not like we actually have much first-hand experience with them, we are mostly just repeating after others.

Were we born in a society where the theistic discourse would be the dominant one, we'd likely repeat after others just as well, and just as well have little clue about what we are talking about ...

But the difference between the two is that knowing the truth about God seems so much more important and pertinent than knowing the truth about material nature.

There is generally very little at stake if we are wrong about some molecule or some such, we don't think it will have eternal consequences for us. But being wrong about God could.

Or perhaps the point is that "being wrong about God" isn't so bad after all, and that what matters is that we keep working on the theistic path to the best of our abilities, learn from our mistakes, strive to improve?

This seems reasonable enough. But it has been my experience that reading theistic scriptures and attending to theistic practices with such an outlook is quite disturbing. I can't read and chant with an attitude of "I don't know if this is true, but I'll find out". It feels like I would first need to be sure it is true, and only then could I attend to the reading and chanting.

I have met or read from several devotees who seem to have that attitude - "First I knew it was true, and then I chanted and read."

 

[spidergoat]

But the difference between the two is that knowing the truth about God seems so much more important and pertinent than knowing the truth about material nature.

There is generally very little at stake if we are wrong about some molecule or some such, we don't think it will have eternal consequences for us. But being wrong about God could.

Knowing about material nature should include knowledge about God, if God is the origin and continues to interfere with it. Actually, knowledge about the material world is of vital importance. Whether, for instance, the universe will expand forever or contract tells us fate of our species if we happen to live that long.

 

[lightgigantic]

Texts attributed to him could be fake. It is only by combining the information from multiple sources that I find his existence to be likely. Not sure, just likely, because those descriptions are fully consistent with natural laws and self-consistent.

Natural laws? Self consistent?

You mean a historical continuum?

Religious texts aren't even self-consistent in many cases. They make claims that violate natural laws.

This is a classic fallacy since even the disciplines that the natural laws appear in are ruled as inconsistent by the merit of the disciplines they appear in. IOW if you want to examine an inconsistency in say, astronomy, simply investigate what was being advocated as astronomical truths 75 years ago.

Its not clear why you expect religion to be any different.

What application of the claim that a supernatural being exists could be manifested? As far as I'm aware, no supernatural ideas we get from religious texts actually work.

Sure

Absence of application equals brick wall.

For instance if I had no access to the means of application for splitting an atom I also have a few problems with the manifestation thing too.

Application of something like prayer, if it only has subjective benefits, cannot be said to work in a metaphysical sense. Name an application that could only work if the initial hypothesis (a supernatural being) is true.

close

Commonly we take the vehicle of perception as the senses. The senses however are accommodated by consciousness, and its this that one is working with. IOW theistic claims are surrounded by existential conditions (or ways that you have to "be") of the performer. So to use your example of prayer, its not so much the act of doing it but the state of doing that is important (since all sorts of nonsensical people pray for all sorts of nonsense).

Don't spose you can name an application for determining the state of being for a person, eh?

 

[lightgigantic]

Knowing about material nature should include knowledge about God, if God is the origin and continues to interfere with it. Actually, knowledge about the material world is of vital importance. Whether, for instance, the universe will expand forever or contract tells us fate of our species if we happen to live that long.

Its not clear how on earth you expect empiricism to lodge anything other than the tentative about the nature of the universe. IOW if the universe is the very thing that contextualizes our senses, its just trying to jump over one's knees.

As for how vitally important it is, death, old age and disease still have a 100% success rate.
:shrug:

 

[spidergoat]

Of course, have a person pick up an apple. He could not have picked up the apple had he not existed. One needs no particular training to notice the apple being picked up.

For instance if I had no access to the means of application for splitting an atom I also have a few problems with the manifestation thing too.

But we can know nuclear power plants work. If the atom could not be split, a nuclear power plant would not work.

There is no parallel in religion, and thus you cannot know if any particular religious authority knows what they are talking about. You may follow someone's teaching for personal subjective reasons, but you cannot expect any rational skeptic to believe it. This is in stark contrast to scientific claims, which have a clear observable track record of working.

 

[wynn]

The way a piece may get framed or retold over time may change but the intention of the author/s is something else.

Sure. The author's intent is a very delicate issue.

Personally, and I am definitely not the only one, I try to avoid it altogether, and try to glean what I can from the text as it is.

At school, esp. in literature classes, from elementary level on, we were pressed with the question "What did the author mean by that? What did the author want to convey with that?" I hated this line of questioning, because it struck me as mere speculation and imposing one's own projections on the author, without there being any means of verifying whether the author really meant what someone else claimed he meant. That is gossip!

hence the framing changes according to the needs of the audience. For instance just compare a 200 year old newspaper (if they are that old?) with today's. If people were simply after a good story, one could simply reprint the old ones.

Yes. As William James would say, "We must know the truth, and we must avoid error". We seem to be driven by these musts.

hence there are different models of literacy that surround the non-fiction element of a narrative.

For instance I recall one comic of a person bleeding with shards of mirror stuck in them screaming "Lewis Carrol lied!!". IOW if we package the take home message that we can travel to different worlds by jumping through mirrors from his books, we probably should brush up on our literacy skills a bit.

Certainly. But what constitutes literacy depends on many factors, especially the particular culture and what is considered "common sense".

And as for the example you give above: We could argue that the person's reading of Alice in Wonderland was simply inaccurate, because one can use only special, magic mirrors as doors to other worlds, but not just any mirror (unless it actually says in the text that all mirrors serve as doors to other worlds and can be used in the same manner Alice did, but I don't remember that).

We could argue that part of literacy skills is to know when to generalize/universalize and what information in the text to omit, and when not and instead read the text as an account of an individual phenomenon that should not be understood in a generalized/universalized manner.

For instance if someone asks what another did on the weekend, not letting the truth get in the way of a great story is probably not what they had in mind.

Of course.

The crux is that truth seems like such an easy notion when it comes to mundane, everyday things, but becomes problematic the bigger (or smaller) the scope.

So would you classify a book that exposes the historical unreliability of a canonized figure as a work of fiction or nonfiction?
Why?

Actually, this seems like a popular genre lately - some new writer digs out some new evidence about something old and rewrites history.
Personally, I can't decide where to place such a book. The general atmosphere seems to be to place them somewhere in a grey zone, calling them "controversial", "thought-provoking", "paradigm-redefining".
Upon which we are told to read and weigh the evidence ourselves. uke:

I am not sure exactly how you are using the word tradition

The canon - the specific contents that are being traded and the act that they are being traded (and not perhaps individually (re)discovered by each person).

 

[wynn]

Of course, have a person pick up an apple. He could not have picked up the apple had he not existed. One needs no particular training to notice the apple being picked up.

Of course one does.
If a person would, from birth on, live in a dark room (and somehow survive), he wouldn't have color vision, nor distance vision, and unless someone told the person about apples and picking them up, he wouldn't know what that is and how to recognize it ...

IOW, we undergo a lot of training, but we are often not aware of it and take it for granted.

But we can know nuclear power plants work. If the atom could not be split, a nuclear power plant would not work.

Do you know that?
Did you ever split an atom? Did you ever try to build a nuclear plant yourself?
Or are you just trusting others who claim they did it?

There is no parallel in religion, and thus you cannot know if any particular religious authority knows what they are talking about. You may follow someone's teaching for personal subjective reasons, but you cannot expect any rational skeptic to believe it. This is in stark contrast to scientific claims, which have a clear observable track record of working.

A rational skeptic doesn't believe anything anyway; if he would, he wouldn't be a skeptic.

 

[spidergoat]

That's my point, there is no rational skepticism in religion, in spite of them imposing unreasonable standards of evidence on science.