Why Faith Isn't a Reliable Pathway to Determine the Truth

Create a topic and discuss! No subject is off limits, but moderators have the right to remove asshat posts. What's an asshat post? Selling stuff, trolling, harassing--the usual stuff you don't want to see either. Happy posting!
User avatar
SEG
Posts: 2143
Joined: Tue Feb 27, 2018 1:59 pm

Re: Why Faith Isn't a Reliable Pathway to Determine the Truth

Post by SEG »

Moonwood the Hare wrote:
Fri Oct 04, 2019 7:04 pm
This is true of every other method, a group of people using reason and evidence can also disagree. If this creates a problem for faith having a role in determining truth it creates a problem for all other methods. It's a non starter as an argument.
Yes, using reason and evidence people can also disagree. Then it is arbitration that sorts out the problem to a satisfactory conclusion. With faith there is no arbitration. It's a dead end. In some countries even today, if you argue the point you get imprisoned or given the death penalty.
Premise One: If a compassionate God exists, then he would do things just as a compassionate person would.
Premise Two: God doesn't do things as a compassionate person would.
Conclusion: Therefore, a compassionate God does not exist.

User avatar
SEG
Posts: 2143
Joined: Tue Feb 27, 2018 1:59 pm

Re: Why Faith Isn't a Reliable Pathway to Determine the Truth

Post by SEG »

Moonwood the Hare wrote:
Fri Oct 04, 2019 6:59 pm
SEG wrote:
Thu Oct 03, 2019 10:50 pm
Claire wrote:
Thu Oct 03, 2019 2:43 pm


Whoever thinks there was literally a talking snake can read what I just told you.
...and that's the problem. Who is correct, those who think that the snake is an actual snake, or people like Moonward and you that think that it was made up?
Just to be clear no one said anything about it being made up. If by made up you mean some kind of arbitrary fiction then you have not really understood what we are saying. People select metaphors or symbols because they feel they are the best way of describing a reality they discern; we all do it all the time. The term made up is itself a metaphor comparing the composition of ideas to physical craftsmanship.
So to be even clearer, was the snake in the story an actual snake?
Premise One: If a compassionate God exists, then he would do things just as a compassionate person would.
Premise Two: God doesn't do things as a compassionate person would.
Conclusion: Therefore, a compassionate God does not exist.

User avatar
SEG
Posts: 2143
Joined: Tue Feb 27, 2018 1:59 pm

Re: Why Faith Isn't a Reliable Pathway to Determine the Truth

Post by SEG »

The industrial revolution, the renaisance and the crown are all concepts. They are representations of something else. They don't exist in their own right. If you say the snake was only a symbol, it means it didn't exist in it's own right too. Ex Cardinal George Pell (currently in prison as a convicted pedophile) admitted on national tv that the story was mythical. That means it was made up according to a Christian authority in a senior position.
Premise One: If a compassionate God exists, then he would do things just as a compassionate person would.
Premise Two: God doesn't do things as a compassionate person would.
Conclusion: Therefore, a compassionate God does not exist.

User avatar
Moonwood the Hare
Posts: 455
Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2018 4:59 pm

Re: Why Faith Isn't a Reliable Pathway to Determine the Truth

Post by Moonwood the Hare »

SEG wrote:
Sat Oct 05, 2019 9:48 pm
The industrial revolution, the renaisance and the crown are all concepts. They are representations of something else. They don't exist in their own right. If you say the snake was only a symbol, it means it didn't exist in it's own right too. Ex Cardinal George Pell (currently in prison as a convicted pedophile) admitted on national tv that the story was mythical. That means it was made up according to a Christian authority in a senior position.
I don't know what you mean by existing in its own right. Almost all language represents something else, even the most literal clear proposition usually represents something other than itself. So the language regarding the snake represents something, as all language does. The industrial revolution is a concept, it is also a symbol, the symbol and concept reference an event or series of events. The crown is a concept; it is also a symbol and it isalso an object. The object as well as the concept is a symbol. They represent a person by virtue of an office. Hence a person fighting the crown is usually fighting against a particular monarch, and also against what that person represents. I don't see how anything whatsoever exists in its own right; I think all things are inter-related and symbols and the thing they symbolise especially so. I said the snake was a symbol; I did not say it was 'only a symbol'; that is not the kind of language I would use; I would not belittle or demean symbols. Myth and symbol are related but myth is an extremely difficult concept. Robert Graves used the term 'verbal iconograph' to explain what myths are, a kind of picture in words. In that sense I would agree the story is mythical; it uses picture language. You are asking what is behind the picture language. You have even asked why not simply use literal language to say the same thing. But suppose there is no such language. Someone once asked a famous dancer what one of her dances meant. She replied 'if I could tell you do you think I would bother to dance it'.

User avatar
Moonwood the Hare
Posts: 455
Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2018 4:59 pm

Re: Why Faith Isn't a Reliable Pathway to Determine the Truth

Post by Moonwood the Hare »

SEG wrote:
Sat Oct 05, 2019 9:34 pm
So to be even clearer, was the snake in the story an actual snake?
No. It was a snake in a story.

User avatar
Moonwood the Hare
Posts: 455
Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2018 4:59 pm

Re: Why Faith Isn't a Reliable Pathway to Determine the Truth

Post by Moonwood the Hare »

SEG wrote:
Sat Oct 05, 2019 9:29 pm
Moonwood the Hare wrote:
Fri Oct 04, 2019 7:04 pm
This is true of every other method, a group of people using reason and evidence can also disagree. If this creates a problem for faith having a role in determining truth it creates a problem for all other methods. It's a non starter as an argument.
Yes, using reason and evidence people can also disagree. Then it is arbitration that sorts out the problem to a satisfactory conclusion. With faith there is no arbitration. It's a dead end. In some countries even today, if you argue the point you get imprisoned or given the death penalty.
What is the arbitration? Presumably either more reasoning and evidence or some kind of consensus; do you think these do not existin relation to religiion? Do you think people have never punished others on the basis of conclusions reached by reason?

User avatar
Moonwood the Hare
Posts: 455
Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2018 4:59 pm

Re: Why Faith Isn't a Reliable Pathway to Determine the Truth

Post by Moonwood the Hare »

This is probably a good time to mention that Umberto Eco's The Name of the Rose is being serialised on BBC2. We are well into his territory at present.

User avatar
SEG
Posts: 2143
Joined: Tue Feb 27, 2018 1:59 pm

Re: Why Faith Isn't a Reliable Pathway to Determine the Truth

Post by SEG »

It is also a good time to mention again that faith is what you use when you have insufficient evidence. If you think that the snake plus Adam and Eve in Genesis was not an actual event in history, then there was no Original Sin and no need for a saviour. If Christ's crucifixion was only a story, then Christianity is a lie - which I think it is.
Premise One: If a compassionate God exists, then he would do things just as a compassionate person would.
Premise Two: God doesn't do things as a compassionate person would.
Conclusion: Therefore, a compassionate God does not exist.

User avatar
Moonwood the Hare
Posts: 455
Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2018 4:59 pm

Re: Why Faith Isn't a Reliable Pathway to Determine the Truth

Post by Moonwood the Hare »

SEG wrote:
Sat Oct 05, 2019 11:06 pm
It is also a good time to mention again that faith is what you use when you have insufficient evidence. If you think that the snake plus Adam and Eve in Genesis was not an actual event in history, then there was no Original Sin and no need for a saviour. If Christ's crucifixion was only a story, then Christianity is a lie - which I think it is.
No. Faith really is not that unless you want to conceed that we never do have enough evidence. I understand why you want faith to be that but any way of knowing has to include faith elements. Let's take reason. In order to make rational inferences I have to have a logical form, some kind of algorithm. I have to know which forms of reasoning are valid. But how can I know that? Ultimately I have to trust the intuitions that tell me certain forms are valid and others are not. If, as you seem to, I want to take a looser position and say I will just accept certain ways of reasoning because they feel right in specific contexts then even more faith is involved. You may see yourself as operating on the basis of reason and evidence alone but my observation is that you have a very poor grasp of basic logic and rarely reject a position when it is shown not to match the evidence; your typical response to having your evidence or reasoning debunked is not to abandon the view you are presenting but to switch arguments.

Original sin is a complex doctrine, introduced by Augustine in the fourth century, never accepted at all in the Eastern Church and often questioned in the west. It is not anywhere near as central to the faith as you seem to think. And as I keep insisting I have not suggested anything is only a story.

User avatar
SEG
Posts: 2143
Joined: Tue Feb 27, 2018 1:59 pm

Re: Why Faith Isn't a Reliable Pathway to Determine the Truth

Post by SEG »

Moonwood the Hare wrote:
Sat Oct 05, 2019 11:43 pm
SEG wrote:
Sat Oct 05, 2019 11:06 pm
It is also a good time to mention again that faith is what you use when you have insufficient evidence. If you think that the snake plus Adam and Eve in Genesis was not an actual event in history, then there was no Original Sin and no need for a saviour. If Christ's crucifixion was only a story, then Christianity is a lie - which I think it is.
No. Faith really is not that unless you want to conceed that we never do have enough evidence. I understand why you want faith to be that but any way of knowing has to include faith elements. Let's take reason. In order to make rational inferences I have to have a logical form, some kind of algorithm. I have to know which forms of reasoning are valid. But how can I know that? Ultimately I have to trust the intuitions that tell me certain forms are valid and others are not. If, as you seem to, I want to take a looser position and say I will just accept certain ways of reasoning because they feel right in specific contexts then even more faith is involved. You may see yourself as operating on the basis of reason and evidence alone but my observation is that you have a very poor grasp of basic logic and rarely reject a position when it is shown not to match the evidence; your typical response to having your evidence or reasoning debunked is not to abandon the view you are presenting but to switch arguments.

Original sin is a complex doctrine, introduced by Augustine in the fourth century, never accepted at all in the Eastern Church and often questioned in the west. It is not anywhere near as central to the faith as you seem to think. And as I keep insisting I have not suggested anything is only a story.
Except you just said "No. It was a snake in a story"! If the STORY of Original Sin is not central to Christianity, I don't know what is. Btw, "existing in it's own right" means that it exists because it has it's own individual characteristics and not relying on anything else. It is a concept on it's own. This may be an Australian expression.

"... but my observation is that you have a very poor grasp of basic logic" - says the guy that believes in all sorts of woo. Including 2 million ex slaves of Egypt wandered in the desert for 40 years without leaving a trace of evidence!
Premise One: If a compassionate God exists, then he would do things just as a compassionate person would.
Premise Two: God doesn't do things as a compassionate person would.
Conclusion: Therefore, a compassionate God does not exist.

Post Reply