What is the relationship of faith and reason? [Archive]

Captain Ochre

July 19th 2005, 08:48 AM

A page back we were discussing how one evaluates the Christian miracle claims, and what role reason has in doing so.

So here's my question.

What is the relationship of faith and reason?

They compliment one another with respect to all beliefs. The most firmly held and reasoned beliefs, such as the conviction that there are no one-sided triangles, have the most minimal aspect of faith. On the other side of the coin, firmly held beliefs for which the reasoning provides weak or negligible support have a higher degree of faith involved. Diminishing degrees of faith might also figure in if beliefs of the aforementioned types are not held firmly.

What degree of skepticism is justified when evaluating early Christian historical claims?

In one sense, any degree of skepticism is justified so long as the person exercising the skepticism is consistent.
Further, the rationale for various beliefs ought not involve fallacious reasoning and (inductively) should have a reasonable case toward the best explanation.

Certainly most apologists on this site would say that blind faith without evidence or reasons is unjustified, and I agree.

What role does reason have in evaluating these claims?

Assessing for contradiction, and testing alternate hypotheses against positions offered as the best explanation.

spiritmech

July 19th 2005, 11:10 AM

I won't say that Christianity is competely rational with respect to a naturalistic worldview. But I do think it can be coherent/non-hypocritical, such that it ought not to make critiques of other religions that can be used against itself.

I believe there is a place for reason, but it can only get you so far with some things. My view is that faith undergirds reason.
sm

Doubting John

July 19th 2005, 04:27 PM

We are fairly in agrement so far. But....

The relationship of faith to reason is sort of a catch-22 for me. I know that reason cannot figure it all out. Take for instance the existence of God. It’s undeniable that something now exists, without even trying to come to a common understanding of the nature of that which exists, be it spirit, matter, or a combination of both. That means there are basically two choices for us. Either something has always and forever existed, or something popped into existence out of absolutely nothing. Either horn you grab onto presents us with deep problems. On the one hand, how can we understand what it means for something, let’s say God, or the universe for that matter, has always existed without a beginning? Can anyone say they comprehend that? It’s almost absurd.

On the other hand, every attempt to understand how something, let’s say the universe as we know it, or even God for that matter, popped into existence out of absolutely nothing fails. Can anyone say they comprehend that? It’s almost absurd. In fact every scientific attempt I’ve read to describe how our universe began to exist always begins with something—from the “swerving atom” of ancient Greek philosopher Democritus, to Paul Davies’ “cosmic repulsion in a quantum vacuum,” to Stephen Hawking’s “quantum wave fluctuation.” These things are not nothing. According to Mark William Worthing in God Creation, and Contemporary Physics (Fortress Press, 1996): “For a true creation out of nothing there can be no scientific explanation. Any theory explaining how something has come from nothing must assume some preexisting laws or energy or quantum activity in order to have a credible theory. It could be claimed, naturally, that there was nothing and then suddenly there was, without apparent physical cause or ground, something. But this would be more a statement of philosophical or theological belief than a genuine scientific theory.” (p. 105).

So with regard to God’s existence reason cannot help us. It really can’t. So the bottom line is that I simply don’t know how we got here. But when pushed to make a choice between the options I must start with faith. St. Anselm taught us that our “faith seeks understanding.” We believe in order to understand. We must start somewhere, and the place to start is with faith, or as I like to say it, we begin with a set of presuppositions that we construct into a worldview, and seek to test them for consistency and to see whether they explain what we experience.

The catch-22 here—damned if I do, damned if I don’t—is that if I start with reason I get nowhere, but if I start with faith, and I must, the question becomes this: what if I start out by believing the wrong set of things? There are several belief systems to choose from along with many “in house” arguments between those who share the same world-view. But the curious thing to me is that every worldview has some major anomalies intrinsic to it. That is to say, I see some major problems with most every worldview position. But the curious thing to me is that people are usually born into their faith, whether Muslims and Jews in Palestine, Catholics in Mexico, Buddhists in Asia.

In addition to this, many of these worldviews are circular in nature, that is to say, the premises they believe support each other and vice versa. The question these thinkers must continually ponder is whether their arguments are viciously circular, or just circular. So the catch-22 is that beginning with reason gets us nowhere, but faith can get it wrong and lead us into wrong circular thinking.

Captain Ochre

July 19th 2005, 05:38 PM

So with regard to God’s existence reason cannot help us. It really can’t.

That doesn't follow, and I'll explain it as we go.

So the bottom line is that I simply don’t know how we got here. But when pushed to make a choice between the options I must start with faith.

Faith in what?

St. Anselm taught us that our “faith seeks understanding.” We believe in order to understand. We must start somewhere, and the place to start is with faith, or as I like to say it, we begin with a set of presuppositions that we construct into a worldview, and seek to test them for consistency and to see whether they explain what we experience.

And how is that not "reason"?

The catch-22 here—damned if I do, damned if I don’t—is that if I start with reason I get nowhere, but if I start with faith, and I must, the question becomes this: what if I start out by believing the wrong set of things?

If you reason correctly then you get either a consistent and incorrect view, or a consistent and partially correct view, or possibly a correct view outright.
So what's the problem?

There are several belief systems to choose from along with many “in house” arguments between those who share the same world-view. But the curious thing to me is that every worldview has some major anomalies intrinsic to it. That is to say, I see some major problems with most every worldview position. But the curious thing to me is that people are usually born into their faith, whether Muslims and Jews in Palestine, Catholics in Mexico, Buddhists in Asia.

Right, and the majority apparently don't bother to use reason to assess their own worldview, so I have to wonder why you'd bring it up in this context.

In addition to this, many of these worldviews are circular in nature, that is to say, the premises they believe support each other and vice versa. The question these thinkers must continually ponder is whether their arguments are viciously circular, or just circular. So the catch-22 is that beginning with reason gets us nowhere, but faith can get it wrong and lead us into wrong circular thinking.

I shared a thread with John Powell on circular reasoning that you might perhaps find illuminating on this issue. The vicious circle is not fallacious because of it's illustration of the property of identity, but because it is an enthymeme that under the surface offers the property of identity as a reason to believe that selfsame proposition.
If you can find a worldview that suffers that problem, then by all means point it out as a fallacy. Otherwise, don't worry about it. :smile:

!Fluffy!

July 19th 2005, 06:09 PM

So here's my question.

What is the relationship of faith and reason?

I have faith that I am a reasonable person.

For me the relationship of faith and reason, though infinitely practical to me, is too subjective to be of much use to you.

I am a Christian now. Prior to my conversion I could never say with such certainty that I was a reasonable or even a rational person. I was so preoccupied with the emptiness of not knowing: is there a God, is there a Savior, is there a Satan, what happens when we die, what is the point of being born, living a life of quiet desperation/pain/despair as so many do, just to die. Period. Etc. etc. etc. - the usual 'angst' was in me magnified ten-fold. There was no meaning to existence, and the fact that there was no meaning made no logical sense to me. Why would I have such a yearning for 'something more' if nothing more existed?

I find incredible intellectual satisfaction in having all the questions that were driving me crazy answered so completely since I met Christ. NOW everything makes more sense. I have no fear of the unknown, but take joy in meeting uncertainty head-on, knowing my God delights in imparting truth to those who would seek it earnestly. My God IS truth, and He never changes.

jason

July 19th 2005, 06:36 PM

What is the relationship of faith and reason?
It depends how you understand the terms.

People want to try to make faith and reason opposites, but that is clearly impossible.

After all, reason itself is intimately dependent on axioms that cannot be derived from reason. They simply must be assumed to be true.

Reason without axioms is worthless, and axioms must be assumed to be true, you must have "faith" (in the modern sense) to even start to use reason.

Reason cannot even get you as far as knowledge of an external world. You take its existence on "blind faith".

What degree of skepticism is justified when evaluating early Christian historical claims?
The same degree of skepticism that should be applied to any historical claim.

What role does reason have in evaluating these claims?
If the claims are contray to reason then there is a problem.

But miracles are not contray to reason, nor is the existence of God.

Jason

Minnesota

July 19th 2005, 07:09 PM

F
R

A
E

I
A
T
S

H
O

N

Captain Ochre

July 19th 2005, 07:14 PM

F
R

A
E

I
A
T
S

H
O

N

And I suppose that we'll have to accept that analysis on faith, since there is no reason given in support.
:teeth:

jason

July 19th 2005, 07:17 PM

F
R

A
E

I
A
T
S

H
O

N
I wonder how Minn reasoned his way into believing that an external world exists and that he is not just talking to figments of his own imagination ? :huh:

Or perhaps he is simply insane and likes talking to figments of his own imagination. :shrug:

Jason

Jin-Roh

July 19th 2005, 07:36 PM

What degree of skepticism is justified when evaluating early Christian historical claims?

Skepticism that does not rule out miracles and such a priori is justified.

So with regard to God’s existence reason cannot help us. It really can’t. So the bottom line is that I simply don’t know how we got here. But when pushed to make a choice between the options I must start with faith. St. Anselm taught us that our “faith seeks understanding.” We believe in order to understand. We must start somewhere, and the place to start is with faith, or as I like to say it, we begin with a set of presuppositions that we construct into a worldview, and seek to test them for consistency and to see whether they explain what we experience.

You almost sound like a Presuppostionalist here, but I'll let those who know that camp better than I discuss that.

Minnesota

July 19th 2005, 08:42 PM

And I suppose that we'll have to accept that analysis on faith, since there is no reason given in support.

Yes. And the sooner the better.

I wonder how Minn reasoned his way into believing that an external world exists and that he is not just talking to figments of his own imagination ?

There are some things in life that need neither faith nor reason to accept, and to suppose the external world is not one of them, as you do, is a bit simple minded.

Captain Ochre

July 19th 2005, 08:48 PM

Yes. And the sooner the better.

There are some things in life that need neither faith nor reason to accept, and to suppose the external world is not one of them, as you do, is a bit simple minded.

:rofl:

What a blowhard.

jason

July 19th 2005, 09:03 PM

There are some things in life that need neither faith nor reason to accept, and to suppose the external world is not one of them, as you do, is a bit simple minded.
I'm not sure this even makes sense.

What in life don't you take on faith at some level ?

Clearly you simply assume the existence of the external world.

Or perhaps you are insane. It is kind of hard to tell at times.

Jason

Minnesota

July 19th 2005, 10:26 PM

Yes. And the sooner the better.
What a blowhard.
That's what I get for kidding with someone devoid of a sense of humor. Lesson learned.

I'm not sure this even makes sense.
It does, but I understand why you're having trouble with it. My suggestion is to let it pass and go on to something easier.

Tophet

July 19th 2005, 10:36 PM

Hi, gang:

I think the Oxford English Dictionary can shed some light on this.

faith, n.

b. Belief proceeding from reliance on testimony or authority.

1551 T. WILSON, The rule of reason, conteinyng the arte of logique 1551 (1580) 60b, An historicall faithe. As I doe beleve that Willyam Conquerour was kyng of Englande.

a1628 JOHN PRESTON, The breast-plate of faith and love
(1630) 15 Faith is..assenting to Truthes for the Authority of the Speaker.

1725 ISAAC WATTS, Logick: or the right use of reason in the enquiry after truth 1725 ii. §9 When we derive the Evidence of any Proposition from the Testimony of others, it is called the Evidence of Faith.

ApologiaPhoenix

July 19th 2005, 10:40 PM

Minnesota. Perhaps you could define the faith you're placing opposite of reason. I could place that faith of it opposite of reason myself also. ;-)

Captain Ochre

July 19th 2005, 10:56 PM

That's what I get for kidding with someone devoid of a sense of humor. Lesson learned.

My comment was in response to my entire quotation of you, not simply to the portion that you preserved (somewhat misleadingly).
Your response to me combined with your response to jason makes you a blowhard--even if both responses were intended as jokes.

It does, but I understand why you're having trouble with it. My suggestion is to let it pass and go on to something easier.

:rofl:
What a blowhard!

Doubting John

July 20th 2005, 10:05 AM

Jason:

People want to try to make faith and reason opposites, but that is clearly impossible.
After all, reason itself is intimately dependent on axioms that cannot be derived from reason. They simply must be assumed to be true.
Reason without axioms is worthless, and axioms must be assumed to be true, you must have "faith" (in the modern sense) to even start to use reason.
Reason cannot even get you as far as knowledge of an external world. You take its existence on "blind faith".

Excellent! We actually agree. Don't tell anyone, just yet, 'cause we'll surely find something about this we don't agree--how to apply it.

What degree of skepticism is justified when evaluating early Christian historical claims?
The same degree of skepticism that should be applied to any historical claim.

Really? Really? Really? We agree here too, oh boy to we agree. Have you seen the thread "Can a Historical Religion Be Believed?"

Just go here:

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?t=56632

What role does reason have in evaluating these claims?

If the claims are contray to reason then there is a problem.

But miracles are not contray to reason, nor is the existence of God.

You offered the test of coherence in your second sentence. Is that it?

Miracles and God are not contrary to reason? If you mean not contradictory, then I'll say that miracles cannot be contradictory because they are claims about what happened in history. And I'll only say that God's existence may not be contradictory, because it may be--I just don't know. But there are definitely contradictory sets of problems with a Trinitarian God. See the thread: "Four conceptual problems with an Incarnate God that have never been answered."

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?t=57180

But if reason leads us to believe in what's probable, then it's highly improbable that a miracle has ever occurred. See the thread: "Can We Today Believe in Miracles?"

Just go here:

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?t=56630

jason

July 20th 2005, 04:40 PM

Miracles and God are not contrary to reason? If you mean not contradictory, then I'll say that miracles cannot be contradictory because they are claims about what happened in history.
No, contrary. My bad, typo.

con·trar·y adj.

1. Opposed, as in character or purpose: contrary opinions; acts that are contrary to our code of ethics.
2. Opposite in direction or position: Our boat took a course contrary to theirs. See Synonyms at opposite.
3. Music. Moving in the opposite direction at a fixed interval: playing scales in contrary motion.
4. Adverse; unfavorable: a contrary wind.

And I'll only say that God's existence may not be contradictory, because it may be--I just don't know. But there are definitely contradictory sets of problems with a Trinitarian God. See the thread: "Four conceptual problems with an Incarnate God that have never been answered."
Actually in my experience there i no problem with the trinity, just a problem with people misrepresenting it.

But if reason leads us to believe in what's probable, then it's highly improbable that a miracle has ever occurred. See the thread: "Can We Today Believe in Miracles?"
Improbable is not impossible, and given additional factors being added to the equation, certianly in Christ's case they look decidely probable.

Jason

Captain Ochre

July 20th 2005, 04:52 PM

Improbable is not impossible, and given additional factors being added to the equation, certianly in Christ's case they look decidely probable.

Jason

I'll add that we already have an inescapable improbability of our own existence via the anthropic principle. Our existence is improbable. Perhaps DJ is setting us on a road to some form of solipsistic thinking (though how likely is it that DJ is the only real grounding of reality?).

jason

July 20th 2005, 05:06 PM

I'll add that we already have an inescapable improbability of our own existence via the anthropic principle. Our existence is improbable. Perhaps DJ is setting us on a road to some form of solipsistic thinking (though how likely is it that DJ is the only real grounding of reality?).
I don't know, how self-absorbed is he ?

Jason

Doubting John

July 20th 2005, 05:41 PM

Ochre:

I'll add that we already have an inescapable improbability of our own existence via the anthropic principle. Our existence is improbable. Perhaps DJ is setting us on a road to some form of solipsistic thinking (though how likely is it that DJ is the only real grounding of reality?).

Self-absorbed?

That was good, even I chuckled.

The fact is, it's extremely unlikely to the point of 0% that a person who is uniquely you would be reading these very words in the place you now sit, with the hair style you have, wearing the exact clothes you have on, feeling the way you do (sick or well), at the exact time you are now doing it, that is if some human person were to have predicted this 100 years ago. We'd have to see how your grandparents met, which sperm sank into which egg, along with where they moved including your experiences and your parents, and why you didn't die in that accident 10 years ago, etc. etc.

No one could've predicted you reading these words 100 years ago. They were extremely extremely extremely unlikely to the point of there being no snowballs chance in hell that you would. Of course, that would also mean the same for me and my geneological history, and that I typed these words on TWEB when I did, so that you could read them when you did.

No chance! NONE! Not from the perspective of 100 years ago, anyway.

But here you are reading them.

Was this a miracle?

No. Not unless we say that anything that is unlikely is a miracle.

The same things could be said about our aforementioned existence. Improbable? Yes! Absolutely! That is, from the perspective of billions of years ago.

Jason, with that in mind, please tell me how the following quote helps any.

Improbable is not impossible.

I actually agree with you on the above quote--who wouldn't? I never said anything was impossible, just improbable. And since probabilities is all we have to work with, I'll go with what is probable every time.

Minnesota

July 20th 2005, 06:09 PM

Minnesota. Perhaps you could define the faith you're placing opposite of reason. I could place that faith of it opposite of reason myself also. ;-)

I like the following from A Dictionary of Common Philosophical Terms.

FAITH: The belief in the truth of a doctrine that may not be capable of being proven true by reason or evidence, and which may require suspension of rational judgment through an act of will

REASON: The faculty of the mind that has to do with logic, analysis and rationality.

jason

July 20th 2005, 06:13 PM

I actually agree with you on the above quote--who wouldn't? I never said anything was impossible, just improbable. And since probabilities is all we have to work with, I'll go with what is probable every time.
Actually I don't think you apply that even remotedly consistently.

Certianly the average skeptic does not. Look at the lunacy of Johnny Skeptic or Minn. They will grasp at any straw as long as it is not the alternative. Or the new kid on the block TealTerror, he is quickly showing that he has no interest in what is probable.

You, my mind is not made up yet, but I wont hold my breath.

Jason

kd1023

July 20th 2005, 06:33 PM

Quite simply, in regards to Christianity, reason has nothing at all to do with faith as it corresponds to belief in God. It is, in fact, a gift and works with His grace so as to save. No amount of reasoning can enable one to cross the threshold of faith. At least, that is how I see it.

Doubting John

July 20th 2005, 07:58 PM

John:
I actually agree with you on the above quote--who wouldn't? I never said anything was impossible, just improbable. And since probabilities are all we have to work with, I'll go with what is probable every time.
Jason:
Actually I don't think you apply that even remotedly consistently.

Sure I do, at least I try to with everything I have in me. How would you know otherwise?

It's just that we disagree on what's probable.

As for me it's just not probable that miracles have ever occurred.

Captain Ochre

July 20th 2005, 09:45 PM

Self-absorbed?

That was good, even I chuckled.

I like a debate partner with a sense of humor.
:smile:

The fact is, it's extremely unlikely to the point of 0% that a person who is uniquely you would be reading these very words in the place you now sit, with the hair style you have, wearing the exact clothes you have on, feeling the way you do (sick or well), at the exact time you are now doing it, that is if some human person were to have predicted this 100 years ago. We'd have to see how your grandparents met, which sperm sank into which egg, along with where they moved including your experiences and your parents, and why you didn't die in that accident 10 years ago, etc. etc.

No one could've predicted you reading these words 100 years ago. They were extremely extremely extremely unlikely to the point of there being no snowballs chance in hell that you would. Of course, that would also mean the same for me and my geneological history, and that I typed these words on TWEB when I did, so that you could read them when you did.

No chance! NONE! Not from the perspective of 100 years ago, anyway.

But here you are reading them.

Was this a miracle?

No. Not unless we say that anything that is unlikely is a miracle.

I think we've just experienced something of a bait-and-switch. I'm not suggesting that something is a miracle if it is unlikely. Far from it. I simply observed that your stated reason for not believing in miracles is that they are so very unlikely.
It seems to me that despite your claim there is some kind of difference between your view of miracles and the staggeringly small chance of the event you recounted above.

The same things could be said about our aforementioned existence. Improbable? Yes! Absolutely! That is, from the perspective of billions of years ago.

Yet you believe in our existence (or yours, at minimum-- :wink:).
Why is that, given the staggeringly low likelihood?

Doubting John

July 20th 2005, 10:32 PM

Captain Ochre:

Yet you believe in our existence (or yours, at minimum-- ).
Why is that, given the staggeringly low likelihood?

Because I'm here, or at least I was the last time I checked.

But don't ya see? Since I'm here I know that these improbabilities happened even though they were all improbable, to say the least.

But what I don't have, when it comes to miracles, is any evidence today that miracles ever happened (like for instance me existing here).

Harfelugan

July 20th 2005, 11:24 PM

Captain Ochre:

Because I'm here, or at least I was the last time I checked.

But don't ya see? Since I'm here I know that these improbabilities happened even though they were all improbable, to say the least.

But what I don't have, when it comes to miracles, is any evidence today that miracles ever happened (like for instance me existing here).
Exellant thread DJ --Can I get a verification on your use of the word miracle.Are you refering to historical proof of New Testiment as a miracle, Creation and our existance as a miracle,or independent acts past, present, that that might be a miracle. Pardon us slow people but I'm enjoying this to much to lose you now.

Doubting John

July 20th 2005, 11:47 PM

Okay, Roger. Why not?

We couldn’t argue that a miracle is just a surprising event that was timed right, or a psychosomatic healing, because then how could we assert that it is a miracle at all? It could all be explained naturally.

We couldn’t argue that a miracle is an event that occurs outside the knowledge and control of natural law as available to the miracle worker at that time. For instance, something surprising happened, like a baby being born. A 1st century man living before the science of medicine was discovered, might call this a miracle. Today we know how babies are made, of course. If we defined miracles this way, then the problem resurfaces, maybe people believed for less than adequate reasons?

A miracle is an event that by definition must have no natural explanation. I say it this way: the evidence for a miracle must "require" a supernatural explanation. Anything less would lead me to suspend rational thinking. And while I do not rule them out in advance, I have never seen any evidence that "requires" a supernatural explanation for an event, unless it were creation itself. The evidence for a miracle should outweigh my overwhelming confidence in the laws of nature which I have experienced all of my life without fail.

Captain Ochre

July 21st 2005, 12:59 AM

Captain Ochre:

Because I'm here, or at least I was the last time I checked.

So it comes down to observed evidence instead of probabilities. Right?

But don't ya see? Since I'm here I know that these improbabilities happened even though they were all improbable, to say the least.

I'll admit that I anticipated your answer. I think you're left without the appeal to overwhelming improbability. Your argument against miracles seems to ultimately rest on your personal experience after all.

But what I don't have, when it comes to miracles, is any evidence today that miracles ever happened (like for instance me existing here).

Miracles happen all the time, AFAICT. Scientists tell us that quantum particles arise uncaused (in a manner that is unpredictable in principle). If that's not a miracle, then we need for you to establish a definition for us.

Doubting John

July 21st 2005, 09:19 AM

themuzicman

July 21st 2005, 09:52 AM

So here's my question.

I'll jump in here.

What is the relationship of faith and reason?

Faith represents your presuppositions. Reason is what you build upon from there.

What degree of skepticism is justified when evaluating early Christian historical claims?

Intellectual honesty without cynicism.

Certainly most apologists on this site would say that blind faith without evidence or reasons is unjustified, and I agree.

You do? How do you know you exist?

We all have presuppositions that are, quite simply, blind faith. We may try to examine or justify them, but there they are.

What role does reason have in evaluating these claims?

Your presuppositions have a lot to do with where your reasoning takes you, so understanding presuppositions of those you are evaluating is key.

Michael

Captain Ochre

July 21st 2005, 11:18 AM

Captain:

Maybe our posts crossed each other, so here is what I make of a miracle.

A miracle is an event that by definition must have no natural explanation. I say it this way: the evidence for a miracle must "require" a supernatural explanation. Anything less would lead me to suspend rational thinking. And while I do not rule them out in advance, I have never seen any evidence that "requires" a supernatural explanation for an event, unless it were creation itself. The evidence for a miracle should outweigh my overwhelming confidence in the laws of nature which I have experienced all of my life without fail.

I think that an event that is random and unpredictable in principle most certainly qualifies as a miracle according to your definition, unless your definition makes miracles impossible by definition (which would be cheating, IMHO).
The two cosmological alternatives we appear to have might also qualify. If you make randomness occur according to lawful processes you have effectively arranged things so that nothing is beyond being considered "natural". If God exists, God is natural. If the Red Sea gets parted, that is also natural. Quantum randomness (in particle formation) is an apparent exception to our chains of causation.

The probabilities without any observed evidence dictates what I will believe, and my beliefs are as probable as what the probabilites dictate.

There are no probabilities without observed evidence. You can listen to the weatherman tell you that there is a 70% chance of rain, but your probability is based either on what he tells you or on your personal observations regarding the probability of rain. Both figure in as your own observations from which you derive your probabilities.

If it's 70% probable that something didn't happen, then my belief is that there is a 30% chance such an event didn't happen. However, when there is observed evidence the probabilities no longer matter, because probabilities are just probabilities.

I cannot tell whether or not you are considering the origin of perceived probability from what you have written above.

Captain:
Actually that is true, but not just my own personal experience, the experience of every modern person, including every Christian I've talked to on TWEB. No one yet has seen a miracle as defined above.

If random quantum particle formation doesn't qualify, then you probably defined miracles out of existence. I doubt that you did so intentionally, but it's a problem if you did it regardless of the circumstances.
I think that you should either admit that miracles are common, or reconsider whether there is any way to satisfy your definition of a miracle.

But what you don't realize is that the same can be said about you--yes, you read me right!--not that you have personally experienced a miracle, but rather that you claim to experience God in your life, and you experience God in the lives of others whom you worship, and you claim to hear God speaking directly to you from the pulpit or as you are reading the Bible.

I'm not sure why you think I don't realize that the same can be said about me. I may not be as quick as you to reject an account from a friend where he reports driving off a mountain road but seemingly without material cause being bumped back onto the road without any marks on the vehicle to indicate a physical cause. That's evidence that I have to consider, regardless of what I do with it. For you, it seems that if you can come up with any "naturalistic" (whatever that means) cause for the event then you can be assured that no miracle took place regardless of how unlikely the natural cause happens to be.

Since your experience leads you to believe in the Christian God, you believe in the Biblical miracles. The evidence does not convince you. You started looking at the evidence through the eyes of your experience, just like me.

IMO, I was confronted with things for which I could contenance no "naturalistic" explanation from the time I could think, even prior to any mention of God that I could recollect.
At the moment, I'd be hard pressed to say why your skepticism regarding all miracles rests on a better foundation than my openness to miracles--based on what you've written on the subject.

So, would these same scientists agree with you that this is a miracle, as defined above?

They should, but I'd have my doubts about it. Scientists have worldviews, too.

I'll grant you that scientists who already have faith will say so, but if this is a miracle then why do all of these scientists continue to figure out why this happens, and what laws of the universe might predict such an outcome. This is what they do. They're not acting like it's a miracle when they continue to try to explain it rationally within the confines of the natural order of things.

They probably have faith that it's not really a miracle.
:smile:

Doubting John

July 21st 2005, 06:15 PM

Music Man:

I mostly liked what you wrote, and I agree with you.

Faith represents your presuppositions. Reason is what you build upon from there.

What degree of skepticism is justified when evaluating early Christian historical claims?
Intellectual honesty without cynicism.

Explain cynicism? History is replete with forgeries, frauds, and tricks. We have to be critical of what these documents say, just in case they were deceiving people in their own day, like the "Donation of Constantine" (look this up).

Certainly most apologists on this site would say that blind faith without evidence or reasons is unjustified, and I agree.
You do? How do you know you exist?
We all have presuppositions that are, quite simply, blind faith. We may try to examine or justify them, but there they are.

Okay, there are a few things we believe that might best be described as blind faith, but I wasn't dealing with those here. I was speaking to the historical claims of Christianity.

What role does reason have in evaluating these claims?
Your presuppositions have a lot to do with where your reasoning takes you, so understanding presuppositions of those you are evaluating is key.

Captain,

There is a lot in your last post that I don't understand why you wrote what you did, given what I had previously written. Better try again, sorry.

But you did say:

At the moment, I'd be hard pressed to say why your skepticism regarding all miracles rests on a better foundation than my openness to miracles--based on what you've written on the subject.

My foundation is as I said earlier: "The evidence for a miracle should outweigh my overwhelming confidence in the laws of nature which I have experienced all of my life without fail."

I have all of the experiences in my entire life to rest on. These are hard cold facts, too I might add. I think that's a firm enough foundation. Your foundation is based upon someone telling you a story which must be true because it's a truly amazing one--and the bigger the story the more believable it is, too. Then you started checking into that story WITH FAITH. That is, you wanted it to be true, just like I initially did when I became a Christian. But neither one of us stopped to truly evaluate the case in a neutral fashion.

I found the evidence for Christian miracles not to be there, even though I approached it with a bias of faith. That is, even though I wanted it to be true and was biased that way, I found that it wasn't true. You however have never studied it as long as I have (you couldn't have) and you've never approached it without that faith bias (I'm supposing here).

I have the firmer foundation by far....by far....

themuzicman

July 21st 2005, 06:31 PM

Music Man:
[quote]Explain cynicism? History is replete with forgeries, frauds, and tricks. We have to be critical of what these documents say, just in case they were deceiving people in their own day, like the "Donation of Constantine" (look this up).

A certain amount of skepticism is probably healthy, but a bias to believe that a claim is false is just as bad (if not worse) than a bias to believe that a claim is true.

Okay, there are a few things we believe that might best be described as blind faith, but I wasn't dealing with those here. I was speaking to the historical claims of Christianity.

All we have to deal with are the records that exist. You can choose to accept them or not accept them. Your presuppositions will have more to do with this than anything. It requires a measure of blind faith both ways.

Michael

Doubting John

July 21st 2005, 11:07 PM

Music Man:

A certain amount of skepticism is probably healthy, but a bias to believe that a claim is false is just as bad (if not worse) than a bias to believe that a claim is true.

But you would have to agree with me that we cannot investigate the past without bias of some kind.

That's what this thread is all about.

The truth is, as a former Christian I approached Biblical history through the eyes of faith. I was biased in favor of what I defended as an apologist.

But even with that bias I came away from my studies thinking that the evidence and the reasons that supported Christianity just were not there. So now I approach the Bible with what I believe is justified skepticism.

Captain Ochre

July 22nd 2005, 01:52 AM

Captain,

There is a lot in your last post that I don't understand why you wrote what you did, given what I had previously written. Better try again, sorry.

That's a bit vague, save for the suggestion that I try again.
:frown:

I don't see why it's difficult to understand why quantum particle formation as unpredictable in principle meets your stated definition of a miracle.
Let's start with that concept and work through what I wrote--in concept even if we don't follow the text--step by step in subsequent posts.

My foundation is as I said earlier: "The evidence for a miracle should outweigh my overwhelming confidence in the laws of nature which I have experienced all of my life without fail."

I think I've got a great counterexample to your claim above (see reference to quantum particle formation).

I have all of the experiences in my entire life to rest on. These are hard cold facts, too I might add. I think that's a firm enough foundation.

You overstate the case by a long shot. Your hard cold facts are established primarily on the basis of faith in naturalistic processes. You can't pretend to know as an established fact that all events in your life have been the result of continuous causal chains.

Your foundation is based upon someone telling you a story which must be true because it's a truly amazing one--and the bigger the story the more believable it is, too.

That's a rather strawy account of my foundation. Why do you give no credit to my explanation of having encountered inexplicable (and improbable!) events from the time I could think?

Then you started checking into that story WITH FAITH. That is, you wanted it to be true, just like I initially did when I became a Christian. But neither one of us stopped to truly evaluate the case in a neutral fashion.

I don't believe that strict neutrality is possible, but my Christianity at one point had eroded down to deism and at the time my closest friends were atheists. We discussed theism and I defended it at that time because I felt that the facts recommended it (coincidentally or not, my atheist acquaintances much later converted to Christianity).
I think that your approach is rather too close to psychologizing your opponent. I trust that you'll receive better treatment than that from me.

I found the evidence for Christian miracles not to be there, even though I approached it with a bias of faith. That is, even though I wanted it to be true and was biased that way, I found that it wasn't true.

That's incredible.

You however have never studied it as long as I have (you couldn't have)

Quantity over quality?
:wink:

and you've never approached it without that faith bias (I'm supposing here).

At the terminus of my deistic phase, I asked God to deliver a particular unusual answer to prayer to indicate whether or not God was interested in people. The results came in a way that surprised me considerably. By your faith in naturalism, you can call it a coincidence so I can't be surprised if my experience means nothing to you. AFAICT, I was skeptical at that time. I don't see how you can gainsay me on that without psychologizing me.

I have the firmer foundation by far....by far....

Mainly because you've not begun to address the argument that I've apparently placed beyond your understanding via my style of presentation.
You deal with the common exception to your uniformity of natural causes and laws (random quantum particle formation), and we'll see what happens from there. Your claim of basing your disbelief in miracles on the vanishingly low probability has already been undermined, AFAICS.

Calvinist4Him

July 22nd 2005, 02:06 AM

You can't pretend to know as an established fact that all events in your life have been the result of continuous causal chains.

He can't even pretend to know as an established fact that his immaterial memories of all events in his life are true memories (especially if certain substances were in his body). How would he prove his memories are true? From his memory? :lol: Oh yes of course, trusty eyewitnesses...how could I forget? You don't suppose anything eventful took place when he was alone without eyewitnesses? :hehe:

Doubting John

July 22nd 2005, 10:25 AM

I found the evidence for Christian miracles not to be there, even though I approached it with a bias of faith. That is, even though I wanted it to be true and was biased that way, I found that it wasn't true.

That's incredible.

Incredible, but true.

Look, I am a philosophy instructor. I know very well that I believe things I cannot prove, we all do. I dare say that you could not prove to me that you even have a physical body! While that may be a strange idea to you, it's quite likey that George Berkeley's Idealism cannot be refuted. And yet I do believe I have a physical body, anyway.

And with scientists I believe that the fundamental structure of the universe operates by ordered laws, that's why they investigate them--otherwise just quit trying. Scientists operate on that assumption, and see the apparent chaos on the subatomic level as a mere limitation of their understanding, not something that is actually there. That is, they just don't understand it yet, not that it's really chaotic.

But that's a far cry from declaring it a miracle. Even if it is, that doesn't bother me too much, because while I'm an agnostic, if I were to guess beyond that, I do believe in a creator God who sustains his creation. God exists and that is all. If you ask me how he created this universe, then he may only have had to create what Hawkings described as "a quantum wave fluctuation," and that too is a far cry from creation instantaneously by fiat.

Scientists can also measure the results of gravity, but they know of no known mechanism which produces it. But that doesn't mean it's a miracle--just that they don't know yet.

The question I'm asking is how we can believe that a historical miracle took place on a macro level, and just because there might be strange things that happen on a micro level (did you know that the ground you walk on, if looked at through a electron microscope looks like a swarm of moving bees?), that doesn't mean we see any strange things on a macro level.

themuzicman

July 22nd 2005, 10:42 AM

[QUOTE=Doubting John]Music Man:

A certain amount of skepticism is probably healthy, but a bias to believe that a claim is false is just as bad (if not worse) than a bias to believe that a claim is true.

All we have to deal with are the records that exist. You can choose to accept them or not accept them. Your presuppositions will have more to do with this than anything. It requires a measure of blind faith both ways.

Michael
You know, I was thinking...

We're all pursuing that absolute truth thats' out there. The real question is whether our presuppositions will lead us in the right direction.

Michael

Captain Ochre

July 22nd 2005, 01:24 PM

Incredible, but true.

It seems to me that you would have to have traded one faith stance for another prior to rejecting miracles you were predisposed to believe, unless you had evidence in contradiction of the supposedly miraculous events.

Look, I am a philosophy instructor. I ...

That's all very wonderful.

And with scientists I believe that the fundamental structure of the universe operates by ordered laws, that's why they investigate them--otherwise just quit trying. Scientists operate on that assumption, and see the apparent chaos on the subatomic level as a mere limitation of their understanding, not something that is actually there. That is, they just don't understand it yet, not that it's really chaotic.

That's why when scientists admit that quantum particle formation is unpredictable in principle you should listen closely. They are confessing that their fundamental assumptions (the ones you share with them on faith) do not agree with the observed data.

Randomness most famously appears in quantum mechanics. Here we have an extremely successful theory which, as far as we can tell, describes how the world works at the most fundamental level. And it gives us probabilities, not definite predictions. The results of quantum measurements are random. Events in the quantum realm happen at random, including, for example, particle-antiparticle pairs popping into existence out of nothing, and vanishing again.

Of course, quantum physics is also notoriously weird, and we might take the random fluctuations of the quantum realm to be yet another aspect of its overall strangeness
http://www2.truman.edu/~edis/writings/articles/accident.html

I deny that the world is fundamentally causal, deriving the skepticism on non-Humean grounds from our enduring failures to find a contingent, universal principle of causality that holds true of our science. I explain the prevalence and fertility of causal notions in science by arguing that a causal character for many sciences can be recovered, when they are restricted to appropriately hospitable domains. There they conform to a loose collection of causal notions that form a folk science of causation. This recovery of causation exploits the same generative power of reduction relations that allows us to recover gravity as a force from Einstein's general relativity and heat as a conserved fluid, the caloric, from modern thermal physics, when each theory is restricted to appropriate domains. Causes are real in science to the same degree as caloric and gravitational forces.
http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/archive/00001214/01/norton.doc

But that's a far cry from declaring it a miracle.

I agree. But if you don't call it a miracle, then the status is being withheld based on your faith stance. You refuse to count the quantum particle formation as a miracle because it does not fit your worldview, not because it fails to give every appearance of meeting to a "T" your definition of a miracle.

Even if it is, that doesn't bother me too much, because while I'm an agnostic, if I were to guess beyond that, I do believe in a creator God who sustains his creation. God exists and that is all. If you ask me how he created this universe, then he may only have had to create what Hawkings described as "a quantum wave fluctuation," and that too is a far cry from creation instantaneously by fiat.

Oh? And why is that? Does God run over to the quantum wave store, buy a quantum wave and then bring it home and then merely "fluctuate" it?

Scientists can also measure the results of gravity, but they know of no known mechanism which produces it. But that doesn't mean it's a miracle--just that they don't know yet.

Great. So we see that something can have every appearance of being a miracle yet you will withhold granting it miracle status based on your new faith. Your new faith was apparently generated based on your own experiences rather than probabilities, remember. Now you're discounting some experiences based on other experiences in order to preserve your faith. It seems inconsistent, on the surface.

The question I'm asking is how we can believe that a historical miracle took place on a macro level, and just because there might be strange things that happen on a micro level (did you know that the ground you walk on, if looked at through a electron microscope looks like a swarm of moving bees?),

Good grief! It's not like I've never seen "The Adventures of Bucaroo Banzai: Across the Eighth Dimension"!
:lol:
One would think I'm in middle school with the stuff you're saying to me.

that doesn't mean we see any strange things on a macro level.

I've suggested from the first that we see strange things at the macro level regardless of what we observe at the quantum level. Please don't imply that I had attempted to establish a logical progression from quantum randomness to macro miracle. A middle schooler might do such a thing. :wink:
I simply pointed out a great big exception (albeit not macro!) to your expectation of uniform causes and laws. Then we saw you appeal to your faith in order to downplay that evidence.

OTOH, the generation of a macro world based on a random quantum wave fluctuation (which you appear to countenance as a possibility) should give me a suitable macro example of a miracle.
Pretty unlikely, huh?

Requote:

The question I'm asking is how we can believe that a historical miracle took place on a macro level

You can't, if you insist a priori that there is no such thing as a miracle.
OTOH, if you allow that miracles could happen, then you simply apply the otherwise normal process of reasoning toward the best explanation of the facts. Following from that, one can believe that a historical miracle took place on the macro level where the historical miracle represents the best explanation.

FlimFlamboyant

July 22nd 2005, 02:37 PM

What role does reason have in evaluating these claims?
It depends on what you mean by "reason", I suppose. Although the Bible does on rare occasions use the word "reason" the way you are using it in this thread, you will more frequently find "knowledge" and "wisdom" used. The Bible also draws a distinction between these two terms.

(Eph 1:17) That the God of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of glory, may give unto you the spirit of wisdom and revelation in the knowledge of him:

So what we really need to ask ourselves is what roles do knowledge and wisdom play in evaluating these claims? Let's start with knowledge. Knowledge is simply the acquisition of information. For instance:

(Rom 10:2,3) For I bear them record that they have a zeal of God, but not according to knowledge. For they being ignorant of God's righteousness, and going about to establish their own righteousness, have not submitted themselves unto the righteousness of God.

The Israelites that Paul was speaking of in this chapter had a zeal of God, but they were ignorant of the righteousness of God. They were lacking (or just flat-out ignoring) the information that Paul was trying to present to them.

(Rom 10:17) So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God.

Without at least some knowledge of the word of God (specifically the gospel in this case), not only is one incapable of using reason, but he is also incapable of placing his faith in something that he knows nothing of.

Then there is wisdom, in which there are two major spheres; the wisdom of God, and the wisdom of the world. To this end, Paul has this to say (I'll try to make this as concise as possible):

(1Co 1:18,19) For the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness; but unto us which are saved it is the power of God. For it is written, I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and will bring to nothing the understanding of the prudent.

God has set out to destroy the wisdom of the wise (the wisdom of this world) through saving people via the preaching of the cross, which the "wisdom" of the world considers to be foolish.

(1Co 1:21-23) For after that in the wisdom of God the world by wisdom knew not God, it pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe. For the Jews require a sign, and the Greeks seek after wisdom: But we preach Christ crucified, unto the Jews a stumblingblock, and unto the Greeks foolishness;

I am reminded of this verse when you speak of being a philosophy instructor. I don't imagine that there was ever anyone that was more stooped in such ideology (and more in the dark) than the Greeks.

(1Co 1:24) But unto them which are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God, and the wisdom of God.

That simple message, "Christ died for your sins" is the wisdom of God, showing that the wisdom of God and the wisdom of the world are diametrically opposed to each other.

(1Co 1:27-29) But God hath chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise; and God hath chosen the weak things of the world to confound the things which are mighty; And base things of the world, and things which are despised, hath God chosen, yea, and things which are not, to bring to nought things that are: That no flesh should glory in his presence.

The "wise" of this world will eventually be crushed by their own arrogance. God's choice to appeal to us on the basis of faith instead of the wisdom of the world confounds the self-proclaimed "wise" among us. This of course leaves us no room to boast, and thus will accomplish God's goal "that no flesh should glory in his presence".

On the other hand, every attempt to understand how something, let’s say the universe as we know it, or even God for that matter, popped into existence out of absolutely nothing fails. Can anyone say they comprehend that? It’s almost absurd.
You have knowledge in the sense that you know that the universe exists. You then begin to question how it got here. Your logic tells you that you "cannot comprehend" the eternal nature of God, or how the universe could have just popped out of nothing. But you then abandon logic/reason and turn to speculation and philosphy (the wisdom of the world) when you say "it's almost absurd", followed by a long series of "such and such a scientist or philospher said thus".

(2Ti 3:7) Ever learning, and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth.

In the end, it comes down to simply taking someone's word for it, and I think you're aware of that, aren't you?

The catch-22 here—damned if I do, damned if I don’t—is that if I start with reason I get nowhere, but if I start with faith, and I must, the question becomes this: what if I start out by believing the wrong set of things?
There's room for reason, as long as it isn't "the wisdom of the world". Never having been in your position, I can't offer you specific advice, but I will say that you can start by simply considering what you already know. I imagine you're well aware of the fact that you are a "sinner" (in one way or another). The question then becomes, "what's the solution?", to which end there can be only one answer; Jesus Christ. Why? Because every vain religious system on the face of this earth that has attempted to address this problem ends up amplifying our failures even more by having its followers set out to establish their own righteousness through a system of commandments, rather than by faith.

(Rom 10:3,4) For they being ignorant of God's righteousness, and going about to establish their own righteousness, have not submitted themselves unto the righteousness of God. For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to every one that believeth.

Doubting John

July 23rd 2005, 11:54 AM

Music Man:

You know, I was thinking...

We're all pursuing that absolute truth thats' out there. The real question is whether our presuppositions will lead us in the right direction.

EXACTLY!

Since our presuppositions will lead us to see "facts" where other presuppositions will lead others to see "non-facts" you have asked the best question of this thread.

Where do we gain our presuppositions? How do we evaluate them? And how do we know that with our present set of presuppositions we will be led to the correct "facts?"

Captain Ochre

July 23rd 2005, 04:24 PM

Music Man:
EXACTLY!

Since our presuppositions will lead us to see "facts" where other presuppositions will lead others to see "non-facts" you have asked the best question of this thread.

Where do we gain our presuppositions? How do we evaluate them? And how do we know that with our present set of presuppositions we will be led to the correct "facts?"

Seems to that we've been mostly on that issue all along, with DJ's firm foundation our object of examination.
Wouldn't you say that a statement from you such as "I have the firmer foundation by far....by far...." would suggest that you think you possess the answers to your own questions, DJ?

Doubting John

July 23rd 2005, 05:25 PM

Captain:

I think my presuppositions have a firmer basis, yes.

Captain Ochre

July 23rd 2005, 08:38 PM

Captain:

I think my presuppositions have a firmer basis, yes.

That statement seems a bit paradoxical, IMHO.

Doubting John

July 23rd 2005, 09:03 PM

DJ:
I think my presuppositions have a firmer basis, yes.
Captain:
That statement seems a bit paradoxical, IMH

Please tell me how this is paradoxical. We can evaluate presuppositions, ya know, and I have.

Anyway, here is the context for my claim, which I said in an earlier post.

My foundation is as I said earlier: "The evidence for a miracle should outweigh my overwhelming confidence in the laws of nature which I have experienced all of my life without fail."

I have all of the experiences in my entire life to rest on. These are hard cold facts, too I might add. I think that's a firm enough foundation....I found the evidence for Christian miracles not to be there, even though I approached it with a bias of faith. That is, even though I wanted it to be true and was biased that way, I found that it wasn't true....I have the firmer foundation by far....by far....

Harfelugan

July 23rd 2005, 10:44 PM

Please tell me how this is paradoxical. We can evaluate presuppositions, ya know, and I have.

Anyway, here is the context for my claim, which I said in an earlier post.
Correct me if I'm wrong , or even if I'm right if you want to. Reason can only take you as far on any subject as your intuitiveness to comphrehend the subject at hand , even if you approach it with bias hoping the results would be in your favor . You dont send a blind man outside to count how many birds are gathered at your bird feeder.

Calvinist4Him

July 24th 2005, 02:54 AM

Since our presuppositions will lead us to see "facts" where other presuppositions will lead others to see "non-facts" you have asked the best question of this thread.

The question both should be asking is, are the "facts" or "non-facts" objectivly "fact" or objectively "non-fact"? If so, how can subjectivism ever lead to objectivism, by what method (like how can one prove the accuracy of the human eye without referring to the human eye)? If the "facts" are subjective, then the "facts" are not authoritative, and justification for presupposing such facts is personal relative.

Where do we gain our presuppositions?

Are presuppositions like the anus in that everyone has at least one? :teeth: Here is where I think it should be noted that presuppositions are inseperatable from epistemologies. Perhaps the better question is, what are our presuppositions based on, which epistemology is assumed in forming a presupposition?

How do we evaluate them?

That all depends on the particular presupposition, no?

And how do we know that with our present set of presuppositions we will be led to the correct "facts?"

We cannot know except that God exists. We cannot prove anything except that God exists. If we are left with subjectivism and skepticism, pray tell what is a "fact"? I want to know what your philosophy of a fact is, before we decide whether or not a fact is correct or not. IF my most basic presuppositions are true then I can be confident that I am being led into the correct "facts".

Calvinist4Him

July 24th 2005, 03:27 AM

I think my presuppositions have a firmer basis, yes.

I think not.

God centered facts = objective facts

man centered facts = subjective "facts"

Your presupposition based upon your epistemology cannot unify your experiences.

Doubting John

July 24th 2005, 09:20 AM

Roger Anderson:

Reason can only take you as far on any subject

Without faith there is no knowledge, because knowledge and faith are inseparable. Assumptions are necessary for knowledge. There are some things we have to assume in order to know anything, like you are there to know it and there is something to be known. You have to presuppose the rules of logic (because you cannot use those rules to show that those rules are trustworthy without arguing in a circle), which means you have to have faith that you can use reason to come to an understanding of truths.

I said that we can evaluate presuppositions. Yes we can. We may not be able to do so without referencing our world-view, but there are appropriate tests for each presupposition. How do we test logic & science? Pragmatism, that is, they work--we see it everywhere. Could they be wrong? Yes, but again, they work.

Then too, they just may fit into our world-view. If we believe in a reasonable God then logic flows from him, and science is merely discovering the order that God placed in an ordered creation.

Why we believe in God or not depends upon what we think of the arguments for his existence and/or whether we personally experience him in our lives.

However, Pantheistic world-views think that world order and the rules of logic are an illusion, and consequently no help when it comes to understanding ultimacies.

I had a book once called, "What is a Fact?" It was an amazing look at the things we call "facts" which are no such thing. I cannot find it now.

The presupposition that God does miracles is what I was specifically talking about, in an earlier post. Just because God exists doesn't guarantee that God does miracles, no more than it guarantees this God will help you in times of trouble (tsunami's, earthquakes, hurricanes, terrorist's, etc).

So how do we evaluate this presupposition?

I actually have done that in two different threads:

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?t=56630

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?t=56632

Captain Ochre

July 24th 2005, 11:08 AM

Please tell me how this is paradoxical. We can evaluate presuppositions, ya know, and I have.

1)

You can't pretend to know as an established fact that all events in your life have been the result of continuous causal chains.

He can't even pretend to know as an established fact that his immaterial memories of all events in his life are true memories (especially if certain substances were in his body). How would he prove his memories are true? From his memory? Oh yes of course, trusty eyewitnesses...how could I forget? You don't suppose anything eventful took place when he was alone without eyewitnesses?
http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showpost.php?p=1125108&postcount=40

2) You've admitted, DJ, there there are elements of your belief system that are beyond proof. This at least tells us that you find something below "proof" as a firm(er) foundation.

Anyway, here is the context for my claim, which I said in an earlier post.

And above I provided sufficient evidence to undermine your unsupported claim that your experience has been "without fail".
So support the claim, modify it, or abandon it.

Doubting John

July 24th 2005, 12:47 PM

Captain,

What exactly does your latest post have anything to do with what I previously posted?

In the first place, I never talked in terms of what I could prove.

In the second place, if I already admitted that there there are elements of my belief system that are beyond proof, which I did, then there is no debate about that. We agree on this.

Orchre:
This at least tells us that you find something below "proof" as a firm(er) foundation.

Look, I cannot prove that God exists or doesn't exist. I cannot prove miracles have never happened, nor that they have happened. But who's looking for proof? Not me. But I already spelled out a few tests to evaluate our presuppositions, but I'll state them here using the technical terms:

Pragmatism;
Coherence & Consistency;
and even,
Correspondence (although this is a slippery one all by itself, without regard for the issue at hand--and yet it's the one Christians are forced to use when evaluating historical claims).

Anyway, I find that you make comments on things I didn't comment on, and you want to debate things with me that we agree about. You also mischaracterize what I say and fail to properly understand me, too.

See one other example of this in posts 27-29 here:

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?t=56633&page=2&highlight=Doubting+John

Hail Mary

July 24th 2005, 01:00 PM

Doubting John

July 24th 2005, 01:23 PM

My sweet Maria:

DJ, you're still saying the same thing you've said in just about every thread. And I'll still say you are wrong, because you are assuming faith only has a basis in reason and knowledge. And it doesn't matter if you think you had faith when you were 18, but have lost it 32 years later. Faith is still a leap beyond reason. If you had it when you were 18, then how did you get it? And how have you lost it now?

If you have faith in the rules of logic alone, you can't expect the rules of logic to bring you to a belief in God. If you have faith in reason alone, you can't expect reason to bring you to a belief in God.

Let's put faith and reason on a horizontal line stretching from the left to the right, shall we? We'll place reason on one side and faith on the other, like this:

Faith_______________________________________________________________________Reason

Now here's my position on the issue. This line is a continuum where there is always an element of faith to every element of reasoning, and likewise there is always an element of reasoning to every element of faith.

At the right side of the continuum we have pure unbridled reasoning, like what one would find in math and symbolic logic. But even here at this extreme we would also find faith. We would have to assume that reasoning and logic will get us to the truth, and that's not something that reasoning and logic can show us. Because of this Pantheists can argue from within their world-view that such an attempt is impossible, and an illusion.

But at the other end of the spectrum is what I'll call here "blind faith." That is, faith in something that seems to have no reasons or evidence on its behalf. But even here, "blind faith" is not so blind. For when one begins to tell me what they believe at this side of the spectrum, and I question it, then they'll offer some reasons why they accept it, even if these reasons are as small as "personal experience" and "pragmatism." Sometimes the reasons for so-called "blind faith" is merely the result of reasoning through the alternatives and finding all known alternatives are faulty, or inconsistent, leaving so-called "blind faith" the only reasonable alternative.

Everything in between these two lines contains a mixture of both faith and reason. Everything you believe has a mixture of both--everything. Just give us one example and I'll show you that it's true.

And, if the above is true then your statement :

Faith is still a leap beyond reason.

simply doesn't make sense at all.

Captain Ochre

July 24th 2005, 02:03 PM

Captain,

What exactly does your latest post have anything to do with what I previously posted?

Unless you suppose that all of your presuppositions have been based on evidence, your claim that your presuppositions have a basis consititutes a paradox given that some of them are very probably assumed on the basis of either zero or ambiguous evidence (and a uniformity of laws of causation serves as an appropriate example).

In the first place, I never talked in terms of what I could prove.

You talked in terms of what you could not prove. Two sides of the same coin.

I know very well that I believe things I cannot prove, we all do.
http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showpost.php?p=1125347&postcount=41

This should cause us to wonder, I think, in what category we should find DJ's presuppositions. Initially, he told us that he disbelieved miracles based on probability. This rationale seems to have been refuted, however, leaving him to draw on personal experience. How can DJ's personal experience give him a firm(er) foundation in believing in a uniformity of physical causes and laws?

Will he not eventually use exactly the same foundation used by the person who believes in miracles (personal experience)?

In the second place, if I already admitted that there there are elements of my belief system that are beyond proof, which I did, then there is no debate about that. We agree on this.

Right. It's just that I want to pin down the category in which your central belief (in a uniformity of causes and laws) happens to fall.

Look, I cannot prove that God exists or doesn't exist. I cannot prove miracles have never happened, nor that they have happened. But who's looking for proof? Not me. But I already spelled out a few tests to evaluate our presuppositions, but I'll state them here using the technical terms:

Pragmatism;
Coherence & Consistency;
and even,
Correspondence (although this is a slippery one all by itself, without regard for the issue at hand--and yet it's the one Christians are forced to use when evaluating historical claims).

I'm hoping for some description from you, DJ, that will demonstrate beyond mere assertion that your foundation is firmer.

Anyway, I find that you make comments on things I didn't comment on,

For example?

and you want to debate things with me that we agree about. You also mischaracterize what I say

Where have I mischaracterized what you say?

and fail to properly understand me, too.

See one other example of this in posts 27-29 here:

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?t=56633&page=2&highlight=Doubting+John

Read through posts 30-31 in that thread to see my vindication (and even more unintended irony from DJ).

Doubting John

July 24th 2005, 02:11 PM

I'm sorry Captain, but Ave Maria and I were having an intelligent discussion. You are an annoyance.

For a reminder of what happens when you and I talk for very long look at posts 27-32 here:

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/s...t=Doubting+John

So it's not productive, and I'll not comment further on what you say until you show otherwise.

But as before, you'll claim the victory, which is what stupid people do when people like me stop responding to them.

Oh, did I single you out here? I meant to.

Captain Ochre

July 24th 2005, 02:48 PM

I'm sorry Captain, but Ave Maria and I were having an intelligent discussion. You are an annoyance.

Then ignore me. Do you need for me to explain to you how to do that?

For a reminder of what happens when you and I talk for very long look at posts 27-32 here:

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/s...t=Doubting+John

Right. I remember now. You say something and it turns out that you don't know what you're talking about. Then you start with the insults.

So it's not productive, and I'll not comment further on what you say until you show otherwise.

I found that other piece potentially productive. It should have instructed you that your confidence in your ability stacked up next to mine was a wee bit overestimated. Apparently you didn't learn it yet, so you'll go into hiding hoping that I'll go away--though apparently you'll reply to me enough to unload an occasional insult.

But as before, you'll claim the victory, which is what stupid people do when people like me stop responding to them.

Oh, did I single you out here? I meant to.

At least you didn't go to the extreme of pretending that you hadn't, this time.

Harfelugan

July 24th 2005, 03:48 PM

[D.J. : I had a book once called, "What is a Fact?" It was an amazing look at the things we call "facts" which are no such thing. I cannot find it now.]
Arrgh you make it to hard to resist... You say you once believed you had salvation through Christ but you cant find it now as well as the book mentioned above. I have a presupposition that people who lose things should proove they had them in the first place. Do you have a reciept for that book D.J. or am I expected to believe you had it just because you said so.
[D.J. :The presupposition that God does miracles is what I was specifically talking about, in an earlier post. Just because God exists doesn't guarantee that God does miracles, no more than it guarantees this God will help you in times of trouble (tsunami's, earthquakes, hurricanes, terrorist's, etc).

So how do we evaluate this presupposition?

I actually have done that in two different threads:

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?t=56630

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?t=56632[/QUOTE]
Thank you for that information as I dont have time to research these things by myself. I've read them all ... and like they did make sense of what I hear you saying . For the most part they cant be refuted because the deal with logic and reason with set rules. But as Humes said and you have said . This does not rule out the possibility of miracles past or present. Yes , I'd have to agree with you on the reason part.But I'm nowhere close to what I think you've been doing . Which is presenting a case that if there's doubt you suspect faith or throw it out. Micheal Schremer's views on being skeptical of your faith are something all Christians should make an attempt to try but if our faith remains intact even by suspecting or throwing out reason I say it stands as secure as an argument as your argument does because neither side can provide proof for or against it.

Tophet

July 24th 2005, 04:46 PM

I like the following from A Dictionary of Common Philosophical Terms.

Of what use is a dictionary that ignores the epistemology and historic use of words?

In this regard the Oxford English Dictionary is far superior. I cite this again for the sake of the newcomers to this thread:

faith, n.

b. Belief proceeding from reliance on testimony or authority.

1551 T. WILSON, The rule of reason, conteinyng the arte of logique 1551 (1580) 60b, An historicall faithe. As I doe beleve that Willyam Conquerour was kyng of Englande.

a1628 JOHN PRESTON, The breast-plate of faith and love
(1630) 15 Faith is..assenting to Truthes for the Authority of the Speaker.

1725 ISAAC WATTS, Logick: or the right use of reason in the enquiry after truth 1725 ii. §9 When we derive the Evidence of any Proposition from the Testimony of others, it is called the Evidence of Faith.[/QUOTE]

We do know that the apostles appealed to reason when presenting the gospel.

Acts 17:2
Then Paul, as his custom was, went in to them, and for three Sabbaths reasoned with them from the Scriptures,

Acts 17:17
Therefore he reasoned in the synagogue with the Jews and with the Gentile worshipers, and in the marketplace daily with those who happened to be there.

Acts 18:4
And he reasoned in the synagogue every Sabbath, and persuaded both Jews and Greeks.

Acts 18:19
And he came to Ephesus, and left them there; but he himself entered the synagogue and reasoned with the Jews.

Acts 19:8-10
8And he went into the synagogue and spoke boldly for three months, reasoning and persuading concerning the things of the kingdom of God. 9But when some were hardened and did not believe, but spoke evil of the Way before the multitude, he departed from them and withdrew the disciples, reasoning daily in the school of Tyrannus. 10And this continued for two years, so that all who dwelt in Asia heard the word of the Lord Jesus, both Jews and Greeks.

1 Thessalonians 5:21
Test all things; hold fast what is good.

Philippians 1:8-10
8For God is my witness, how greatly I long for you all with the affection of Jesus Christ.
9And this I pray, that your love may abound still more and more in knowledge and all discernment, 10that you may approve the things that are excellent, that you may be sincere and without offense till the day of Christ,

1 Peter 3:15
But sanctify the Lord God in your hearts, and always be ready to give a defense to everyone who asks you a reason for the hope that is in you ...;

Hail Mary

July 24th 2005, 05:36 PM

Faith_______________________________________________________________________Reason

Now here's my position on the issue. This line is a continuum where there is always an element of faith to every element of reasoning, and likewise there is always an element of reasoning to every element of faith.

DJ, its still the same problem. You are evaluating faith on a scale based upon reason. They're not on the same scale, you have a one dimensional perspective on a multidimensional issue. For example, a person could max the scales on both faith and reason, but you have them in an inversely proportional relationship.

At the right side of the continuum we have pure unbridled reasoning, like what one would find in math and symbolic logic. But even here at this extreme we would also find faith. We would have to assume that reasoning and logic will get us to the truth, and that's not something that reasoning and logic can show us. Because of this Pantheists can argue from within their world-view that such an attempt is impossible, and an illusion.

But at the other end of the spectrum is what I'll call here "blind faith." That is, faith in something that seems to have no reasons or evidence on its behalf. But even here, "blind faith" is not so blind. For when one begins to tell me what they believe at this side of the spectrum, and I question it, then they'll offer some reasons why they accept it, even if these reasons are as small as "personal experience" and "pragmatism." Sometimes the reasons for so-called "blind faith" is merely the result of reasoning through the alternatives and finding all known alternatives are faulty, or inconsistent, leaving so-called "blind faith" the only reasonable alternative.

Everything in between these two lines contains a mixture of both faith and reason. Everything you believe has a mixture of both--everything. Just give us one example and I'll show you that it's true.

But you've already stated that logic and reason themselves rest upon some amount of faith, which you've labeled as assumptions. So 'pure unbridled reasoning' can't exist without faith. (Where do you start?)

simply doesn't make sense at all.

I'm going to agree with the Captain here and think you've painted yourself into a paradox, and that's the reason it doesn't make sense to you.

Calvinist4Him

July 24th 2005, 06:05 PM

Without faith there is no knowledge, because knowledge and faith are inseparable. Assumptions are necessary for knowledge. There are some things we have to assume in order to know anything, like you are there to know it and there is something to be known.

As much as I appreciate your admission(s), you seem to have equivocated "faith" and "assumption". Perhaps assumptions are assumed on faith, that is trust, but I think you fail to recognize your inability to account for induction. As tempted as I am to agree, I disagree with your first sentence. If God does not exist, and if He has not revealed Himself to mankind, there can be no knowledge in an objective sense. I presuppose the impossibility of the contrary. If you are indeed a philosphy instructor as you say, I believe you are oversimplifying on purpose to avoid certain conclusions...

You have to presuppose the rules of logic (because you cannot use those rules to show that those rules are trustworthy without arguing in a circle), which means you have to have faith that you can use reason to come to an understanding of truths.

IOW, you have faith in circular reasoning. :lmbo: Fear not though, I am not of the belief that ALL circular reasoning is invalid, at least not at the axiom level. How do you account for the rules of logic you presuppose? Can the rules of logic exist outside of a mind?

I said that we can evaluate presuppositions. Yes we can. We may not be able to do so without referencing our world-view, but there are appropriate tests for each presupposition. How do we test logic & science? Pragmatism, that is, they work--we see it everywhere. Could they be wrong? Yes, but again, they work.

But you're missing the point. What do the tests presuppose? How can tests be applied without presupposing the accuracy of the test? And what if a worldview cannot account for the tools used to test a worldview? You seem to be implying that all worldviews are equal (or can be shown to be "just as true or valid") within their presuppositional framework, but that's a slap in the face, if not a denial of objective truth.