buckhorn, I know you’re a busy guy, but let me see if I understand you regarding the truth/reality distinction. And from there, I’ll see if I can’t point out the problem at the heart of your argument. The distinction you make between truth and reality seems to invoke a sort of Cartesian skepticism. Specifically, you’re arguing that “truth” amounts to a series of reasonable propositions about the world, and that we are left to validate the truth of these propositions by whatever method of investigation is at hand. And yet, even something as straightforward as “the hand before my face” is merely a proposition with which we have been confronted, and even if we say that the proposition is true, we still lack the sort of epistemic validation needed for the proposition to assume the status of “reality”. The assumption of this line of thinking is that we begin in a state of ignorance, and that, from this original state, we begin our journey into the world of propositions, acquiring what you’ve referred to as “truth”—but not reality—along the way. For each proposition, we select either the positive alternative (to believe) or the negative alternative (to not believe). And in this way we develop our own particular “truth” or worldview. This does not mean, apparently, that these decisions are arbitrary. For in accepting the hand in front of your face and rejecting fairy tales, you have asserted reason as the principle by which some propositions are judged as probable and others as “unlikely”. You repeatedly express the need to find “good reasons” for believing in what you regard as unlikely propositions. So it is that the original state of ignorance is not a state of total ignorance, but instead we have use of reason to navigate our way through the various propositions that come our way. According to this view, no proposition can be taken for granted as a self-evident “reality”. Truth, however, is a different matter. Truth can be judged so long as we understand that reason alone is fit to determine which propositions are to be accepted and which propositions are to be rejected as “unlikely”. It seems well enough so far. And yet I think this approach leaves the Cartesian skeptic in an interesting corner. And here is what I mean: The idea that reason alone is fit to arbitrate between which propositions are to be accepted or rejected is itself a proposition, and as such it must be determined whether or not the proposition is reasonable or likely. It is still possible at this point for the skeptic to accept as an article of faith that “reason alone is fit to arbitrate”. If he does so, he exempts the heart of his argument from its consequences; he invokes a philosophical exception to his own rule. It is far more likely, though, that he will say instead that there must exist, a priori, some authentic connection between truth and reality—an authentic connection that only reason is capable of illuminating. For if reason were not capable of illuminating that connection, then it would not be fit to judge between likely and unlikely propositions. At this point, all that remains is to ask what is meant when a skeptic says that a proposition is likely or unlikely:—Likely or unlikely to be what, exactly? Surely he doesn’t mean “likely to be truth”, for truth, according to the definition you’ve asserted, is the object rather than the basis of reasonable arbitration. It would amount to saying that a proposition is true because it is likely true. What the skeptic means, of course, when he regards a proposition as “likely” is that it is likely to be reality. It follows, then, that the skeptic asserts that we accept a proposition as true because it likely approximates reality. And therefore we have undone the premise of original ignorance that is a key feature of your argument. It would be permissible, I think, to allow the state of original ignorance to be accompanied by reason, except that in the case of your argument, reason—if it is ultimately dependent upon some stamp of “reality” that is impressed upon the mind of the skeptic—is a mere slave to an original state that apparently wasn’t quite as ignorant, or pure, or blank, as you wanted it to be. You have said, regarding the proposition of God, that you “don't know anything about it, really”, but that statement would suggest a neutral, rather than a skeptical view. And while some aspects of your text seem neutral and conciliatory enough, the key fact of your skepticism remains the original “unlikeliness” of God to which your argument ultimately appeals. You have not arrived at disbelief by rational means, at least not from the narrative that’s been presented so far. Not that the logic would be any different or less troublesome for a believer. But of course believers would be more inclined to opt for the philosophical exception before carrying the argument to the point of no return. Such would also be the case for the wisest among the skeptics. Softly and tenderly Jesus is calling, Calling for you and for me; See, on the portals He’s waiting and watching, Watching for you and for me. Come home, come home, You who are weary, come home; Earnestly, tenderly, Jesus is calling, Calling, O sinner, come home!
Whether the ladies are mawking or the jams cloying is, I suppose, a matter of personal taste. I tend to enjoy the hymns best when a few off key, over the top voices join. The "joyful noise" of church singing is a sort of parallel to living the Christian life. Some are ostentatious about it, some are inconspicuous, some think their efforts purer than they really are. Some get angry with the song leader for letting the tempo drag. It's all fitting and good, in a metaphorical kind of way. Meanwhile, I have another question for you, Dionysus, in addition to the one on the other thread that you have so far avoided. Do you agree with buckhorn's truth/reality distinction, and if so, how do you answer the problems I raised in the most recent post? Or, if you do not agree with buckhorn's distinction, why not? Where did he go wrong? Is there such a thing as objective reality? What do you say, Dionysus? Will you let your pride overcome your caution and enter the arena? Really, I can do you no physical harm. At most, I can only show that you are in error on an issue that can't be too near to your heart. And even if I do so (which seems unlikely, given your abilities), then you are the one who gains as a result of the exchange.
Coelacanth, for whatever it's worth: I participate in these threads for no other reason than to entertain myself and enjoy some back-n-forth with the few strong minds and free spirits that elevate and adorn these parts. If I've also informed or entertained or educated others in the process, or encouraged someone to think for themselves — well, there's an incidental benefit. Sometimes it's fun to dive down into the marrow of an argument, to engage on the finer points of logic and philosophy, but mostly I'm bored with those maneuvers anymore, and once boredom sets in: finis. I spent my time in Waggener Hall and maybe the dialectic just doesn't delight like it used to.
And so it seems that nobody on the skeptical side really wants to do the hard work of thinking through their assumptions about the world. Buckhorn gave it a shot, but he's tired and out of things to add, or so he says. Dionysus, who never fails to engage the finer points of the Christian worldview, when he finds it to be problematic, suddenly finds the exercise boring when the scrutiny begins to point in the direction of his assumptions. I wonder: who will pick up where buckhorn left off? Who here can demonstrate that the skeptical view is more reasonable than the religious view?
Who here can demonstrate that the skeptical view is more reasonable than the religious view? When it comes to science? Are you kidding? I haven't gone through all the prior blather, but since the title is "why do we doubt science" .... Berger made a good case for skepticism/doubt in his latest book, In Praise of Doubt.
Religion can't steer clear of anything because it declares to be the origin of everything. It makes very large claims for itself, claims to knowledge that it can't possibly hold, e.g., the loving goodness and mercy of their creator. But when pressed to explain evil and suffering in the world, see how quickly the posture changes: well, we can't really know what goodness and mercy means on God's terms—we're just mere mortals, existing on the periphery of a divine plan we can never fathom. If it happened that's because God allowed it to happen, therefore it is ultimately good. Such excuse-making and intellectual evasion is the essence of Christian apologetics. Ludwig Feuerbach put it well: God is the explanation for the unexplainable which explains nothing because it explains everything without distinction [...] the not-knowing which solves all doubts by repudiating them, which knows everything because it knows nothing in particular and because all things which impress reason are nothing to religion [...] the night is the mother of religion.
The Bible explains the existence of evil and suffering very well actually. I think that is one of its strong points. The fall of man (and therefore creation) and God's subsequent withdrawing from that creation gives the framework for evil and suffering.
GT WT, God's response to the sin of mankind perfectly demonstrates His character. God is both holy and loving. God's holiness is demonstrated by His removing Himself from sin and His judgment of it. When I say "removing" I am referring to what I see in Genesis. At the beginning you see God very personally involved with humanity. As mankind continues to sin more and more He interacting with mankind as a whole less and less. There are also verses where explain that God can not allow sin in His presence. That is all showing His holiness. At the same time, He shows that He is loving because His interaction with mankind is never completely removed. He is still calling out to people. He tells Abraham that from his descendants all the nations of the earth will be blessed. He creates a nation. He promises a Messiah. He becomes that Messiah and then He dies for all the sins of mankind past, present, and future. God is holy and loving. Neither characteristic diminishes the other in either way and in some ways amplifies them.
I wouldn't say that. God didn't create evil. Creation was good and mankind was very good before the fall. We are all responsible for our choices. Sin is a human choice. I don't know if I would define God as the original and final cause. That may be true but I don't see anything in the Bible that makes that statement be absolutely true of God in all cases. I would say that God is the god of heaven and hell though. That is a Biblical statement. God rules over both. Most times though our cultures view of hell is actually more Greek than Biblical. Hell in the Bible is a place created by God for judgment. The devil is not the ruler of hell. He will be punished in hell one day though. According to the Bible, the devil is not in hell currently. He is roaming all over the earth looking to increase his influence.
