The Process of Justifying One's Beliefs

[3abdulmesii7]

What would you consider is a "high standard of evidence?"

The only miracle mentioned is an Elvis sighting. If only there were Jesus impersonators floating around in the first century...

[pancreasman]

By the way, I am not in the "Roman Church" per se. I love Western Christianity, when done properly, but I am currently in the Greek Melkite Catholic Church, which is an Orthodox Church in full communion with the Holy See.

I wasn't aware that the dictionary was a source of divine revelation.

Alright, more fundamental, then. What criterion do you use to determine whether or not a particular truth is divinely revealed?

I think that question is a good one. My experience is that appeal to divine revelation is the REAL basis of a lot of Christianity. A lot of times in conversation people seem to stress an interior, subjective criteria for knowing any particular text or statement is divinely inspired. That's fine as far as it goes in that such interior feelings may be very convincing to the person that has them, but are pretty useless as evidence in discussion with others that don't share them.

Again, objectively examining history and culture we see many people making claims of divine revelation, and so certain are they, that they are prepared to die, or even wear silly clothes, for these claims. An outsider has no way of evaluating the divine revelation status of any truth claim. More than that, these truth claims are often contradictory. What is an outsider supposed to do?

[seer]

Not Descartes, your silly over generalization of what he implies.

No, points may be boiled down but they are not silly.

1. There is no deductive way to prove that what goes on in your mind corresponds to reality. The argument must be circular. So logic fails.

2. Any empirical evidence one points to could equally be evidence of what evil demon was causing you to believe - or in modern terms would simply be evidence of life in the Matrix. So empiricism fails.

Now since both logic and empiricism are out the window what is left but pure, naked faith? Do you have another option?

And since you know Descartes so well P, he did have a way out - what was that?

[pancreasman]

No, points may be boiled down but they are not silly.

1. There is no deductive way to prove that what goes on in your mind corresponds to reality. The argument must be circular. So logic fails.

2. Any empirical evidence one points to could equally be evidence of what evil demon was causing you to believe - or in modern terms would simply be evidence of life in the Matrix. So empiricism fails.

Now since both logic and empiricism are out the window what is left but pure, naked faith? Do you have another option?

And since you know Descartes so well P, he did have a way out - what was that?

Solipsism. It must be sad world you live in where your coherent Christian faith is intellectually indistinguishable from a schizophrenic's ravings. Luckily I don't live life like that.

[pancreasman]

I think I'll add a little about Descartes since you seem so enamored with him. Descartes' radical doubt is only the first half of his philosophical construction. I'll readily admit to only being an amateur in philosophy and will quite happily accept correction from some of our more professional philosophers.

Descartes used his radical approach to doubt to find (what he thought) was one certain piece of knowledge the cogito, 'I think therefore I am'. You treat this as if it was the end of his argument rather than the middle. Descartes then went on to ask what was so special about this statement that we recognized it as inescapably true. He reasoned that if we could discern the characteristics of the cogito's 'truthiness' we could use that as a basis to recognize other things as certain knowledge too. He settled on the idea of it being so clear and distinct.

"I now seem to be able to lay it down as a general rule that whatever I perceive very clearly and distinctly is true."

I'm sure we can all see the potential problems with this idea, or at least the points at which it might be attacked. He knew he needed some way to guarantee the truth of clear and distinct ideas, so he invoked God. He used several arguments to 'prove' God, all of which are at best debatable. In fact, he argued that because the idea of God was so clear and distinct, that God must exist. This series of arguments became famously known as a Cartesian circle since it seems to be a circular argument of the sort where one assumes a conclusion one wishes to prove.

I hope this helps you see that radical doubt was not Descartes' final position but rather a 'clearing of the decks' before he went on to establish a methodology of what he thought would lead to certain knowledge.

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/de...-epistemology/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cartesian_circle

[seer]

I think I'll add a little about Descartes since you seem so enamored with him. Descartes' radical doubt is only the first half of his philosophical construction. I'll readily admit to only being an amateur in philosophy and will quite happily accept correction from some of our more professional philosophers.

Descartes used his radical approach to doubt to find (what he thought) was one certain piece of knowledge the cogito, 'I think therefore I am'. You treat this as if it was the end of his argument rather than the middle. Descartes then went on to ask what was so special about this statement that we recognized it as inescapably true. He reasoned that if we could discern the characteristics of the cogito's 'truthiness' we could use that as a basis to recognize other things as certain knowledge too. He settled on the idea of it being so clear and distinct.



I'm sure we can all see the potential problems with this idea, or at least the points at which it might be attacked. He knew he needed some way to guarantee the truth of clear and distinct ideas, so he invoked God. He used several arguments to 'prove' God, all of which are at best debatable. In fact, he argued that because the idea of God was so clear and distinct, that God must exist. This series of arguments became famously known as a Cartesian circle since it seems to be a circular argument of the sort where one assumes a conclusion one wishes to prove.

I hope this helps you see that radical doubt was not Descartes' final position but rather a 'clearing of the decks' before he went on to establish a methodology of what he thought would lead to certain knowledge.

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/de...-epistemology/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cartesian_circle

Yes P, but he could only escape the doubt by invoking God. And by the way - the Christian God who is "truth." This "truthful" God was his only ground for certain knowledge (the only exception being one's self). And P, I'm not preaching solipsism, I'm saying that we all take reality by faith if you will - without logical or empirical proof - I think both of my points above are self evident, why both empiricism and logic fail. I have no problem with one taking reality by faith, I just don't like the double standard I often see coming from non-believers.

[pancreasman]

Yes P, but he could only escape the doubt by invoking God. And by the way - the Christian God who is "truth." This "truthful" God was his only ground for certain knowledge (the only exception being one's self). And P, I'm not preaching solipsism, I'm saying that we all take reality by faith if you will - without logical or empirical proof - I think both of my points above are self evident, why both empiricism and logic fail. I have no problem with one taking reality by faith, I just don't like the double standard I often see coming from non-believers.

I see you didn't actually read what I wrote, especially about the weaknesses of his proofs of God and the Cartesian circle. That's what I expected. You continue to make all faith equivalent, no matter how wacky, and don't have a nuanced view how faith may be warranted. Your inability or unwillingness to address these points means that (as usual with you) no more productive conversation can be had.

[shunyadragon]

How many cases of Catholic miracles have you examined?

I have spent many years investigating 'Miracle claims' in the Roman Church, from the perspective of being inside the Roman Church in Latin America and outside the church. I find them decidedly unconvincing, and at best nothing more then anecdotal claims of events that potentially can happen naturally. There are several threads on this problem in recent history of Tweb, one started by me.

[shunyadragon]

What would you consider is a "high standard of evidence?"

I would accept standard plan old fashioned evidence, and whether the claims can be objectively verified.

[shunyadragon]

By the way, I am not in the "Roman Church" per se. I love Western Christianity, when done properly, but I am currently in the Greek Melkite Catholic Church, which is an Orthodox Church in full communion with the Holy See.

I would consider being full communion with the Roman Church to be within the fold of the Roman Church.

Alright, more fundamental, then. What criterion do you use to determine whether or not a particular truth is divinely revealed?

From the Baha'i perspective this is an interesting question. The criteria from my perspective would be interesting. One criteria would be that which would be consistent with the universal, for example; would be the claim of a church that it is 'Catholic.' From my perspective the doctrines and dogma of the various possible church choices including the Roman Church do not represent a good foundation for claiming to be 'universal,' because of their inconsistent history.

[shunyadragon]

Yes P, but he could only escape the doubt by invoking God. And by the way - the Christian God who is "truth." This "truthful" God was his only ground for certain knowledge (the only exception being one's self). And P, I'm not preaching solipsism, I'm saying that we all take reality by faith if you will - without logical or empirical proof - I think both of my points above are self evident, why both empiricism and logic fail. I have no problem with one taking reality by faith, I just don't like the double standard I often see coming from non-believers.

I agree you did not actually read what pancreasman wrote

[seer]

I see you didn't actually read what I wrote, especially about the weaknesses of his proofs of God and the Cartesian circle. That's what I expected. You continue to make all faith equivalent, no matter how wacky, and don't have a nuanced view how faith may be warranted. Your inability or unwillingness to address these points means that (as usual with you) no more productive conversation can be had.

Nonsense, I don't care if you think Descartes argument for God was weak - that was not the point, the point was that that was they only way he could escape out of the rabbit hole. But again look at the double standard you employ - his argument is circular - yes, but to justify your view of reality you too have to employ a circular argument - how can you show that what goes on in your mind corresponds to reality except to assert that what you perceive actually does correspond to reality - a vicious circle if I ever saw one, question begging at its worse. The atheist has no better ground for epistemology than the theist who takes the bible by faith - and never did - you guys just hate to admit it.

[3abdulmesii7]

Which in particular did you find unconvincing? And how do *I* know that your finding them unconvincing is the same thing as their not being true miracles?

I mean, there's a whole bucketload of Catholic miracles. Either God is trying to tell us something, or the Catholic Church is a forger of miracles on a massive scale.

[3abdulmesii7]

Islam does not prohibit honor killing or polygamy. On that grounds, is honor killing or polygamy permissible in Bahaa'ism?

[shunyadragon]

Islam does not prohibit honor killing or polygamy. On that grounds, is honor killing or polygamy permissible in Baha'ism?

Neither does the OT nor NT specifically prohibit polygamy. and for that matter slavery and indentured servitude..

Baha'i Laws prohibit honor killing and polygamy. From age to age laws change as humans spiritually evolve, and just like the spiritual laws and belief supersede those of the OT, likewise the spiritual laws of the Baha'i Faith supersede those of Christianity and Islam. The laws of the OT and NT do not prohibit slavery nor indentured servitude, but the more objective and specific moral laws of the Baha'i Faith prohibit slavery and indentured servitude.