If Christians Know...

[Exrev]

This is not directed at all Christians mostly to the fundies. And specific to the person that I was debating.

The point of my line of questioning in that "other thread" was not about what "ultimate truth" (whatever that means) looks like, but what are valid approaches towards defining and understanding truth, what "evidence" is relevant and material, and the underlying whys (mostly because it seemed some were arguing the scientific method of materialistic naturalism is the only tool required).

"Science is the best tool we humans have to understand our universe. If you know of a better tool then we'll use that one." Bill Nye The Science Guy

I wish I came up with that quote but I didn't.

[WorldlingWatcher]

This is not directed at all Christians mostly to the fundies. And specific to the person that I was debating.

At this point I'll echo Mitch's request for a definition of what we're going to use as a definition of "absolute truth" for this discussion.

I don't know, you tell me you're the one who claims to have it.

Damn! I lost the absolute truth again!

Can I use a lifeline?

"Science is the best tool we humans have to understand our universe. If you know of a better tool then we'll use that one.".

Again, what do you think Mr. Nye meant by "best", and what do you think should be considered within the scope of "our universe".

[Kiwi]

RE: your opening question HG... I don't think a lot of Christians are actually 100% sure about what they believe. And nor should they be. Nothing is that certain, is it? There are all sorts of nuances to faith, and neither does believing in something like the Bible preclude you from being interested in other philosophies even if it's out of mere interest.

Standing ovation for the brief exchange you and Exrev had over writing quality, by the way.

[ChristianHeretic]

Hi ExRev.

I'm sorry but I've got to ask you: is English a second language for you?

Sorry man, I had to comment on this one. Bravo! This had me in stitches for about 5 minutes...

[JustJim]

Why would someone who knows that Christ rose from the dead to remove their sins and that the god of the Jews is the one true God care about other philosophies, other people's beliefs or lack of them? If you know that something is true then you know it, obviously, and so quite naturally you would dismiss that which you know is not true.

Maybe it's because those of us who come here to read or to participate are very interested in these things, so we assume everyone else must also be. But I don't think that's the case. I think the vast majority of believers don't care about other philosophies and other people's beliefs or lack of them. They don't even spend much time or energy thinking about their own philosophies and beliefs. It's a very small, background part of their lives, and they have a lot more pressing things to attend to. If pushed, they'd probably argue for a while and then go back to their lives. It's only a tiny, tiny handful of believers (and non-believers) who actually care enough to come to a forum (or any other venue) and discuss these things, let alone argue them.

Most people on both sides really don't give much of a crap about this stuff most of the time. And they could care less what other people think or believe. At least it seems that way to me. You folks and I are the only people I know who seem to really care a lot about these things....

Jim

[Keep The Reason]

I concur, JJ though I take great interest in the growth of the skeptics / atheist movements in the USA. living in Los Angeles, one can really see the difference. I routinely go to events hosted by Michael Shermer at Skeptic Society, and most people who know me know I'm a non-believer and there's no backlash at all about it (I know it's otherwise in a lot of other places). He'll, as I drive to work a local section of a freeway here is adopted by Atheists United (I routinely call them to let them know the sign is, once again, vandalized... And I gotta say, I doubt it's being vandalized by atheists).

It's slow, but ever since 9/11 people have been reevaluating their beliefs and a momentum has built. A high price to pay, but there's no changing the past. We simply need to look to a better future.

[Keep The Reason]

Fair enough KTR but let's not begin by projecting a cynical take on the topic at issue where the Christians are concerned before any Christian has made a comment. That isn't fair. The question, I think, is fair, and I do ask it in all sincerity.

Nothing cynical meant, HG. it's just the fact of the doctrine. Christians believe that they need to spread the gospel, and save non believers from eternal Hell. That's the primary answer to the "why should they care when they think they are right?" question.

[humanguy]

I guess I'll go to writers hell.

Writers hell is all around us, nor are we out of it.

[WorldlingWatcher]

But I'll chase after this one: "Why would a knowledge of truth in Christianity cause one to preclude the truth of other things?"

Bad logic. Just because Christianity is the only place you will find some truths doesn't mean Christianity is the only place you will find things that are true.

[humanguy]

But I'll chase after this one: "Why would a knowledge of truth in Christianity cause one to preclude the truth of other things?"

Bad logic. Just because Christianity is the only place you will find some truths doesn't mean Christianity is the only place you will find things that are true.

But here again we have the "some truths." You're right, the Bible doesn't cover air conditioning, piano tuning or writing a kick-ass resume but, and correct me if I'm wrong, what it does cover is nothing less than the meaning of human life in this vast universe, where we came from, where we're going and how to live, that's the most important thing, it tells us how to live, how to be happy, to be without guilt and envy and confusion and despair and loneliness, and best of all how to actually have a personal relationship with the awesomeness that created life and the universe, to have a personal relationship with God.

If you've got that one-to-one relationship with the creator of life and the universe then why would you need to go anywhere else for something that's true? And if you do need to go to a source other than the creator of life and the universe to find things that are true, things that you can't find from going to the creator of life and the universe, then what does that tell us about the Biblical God?

[mitchellmckain]

Well, I hate to disappoint, but I basically agree with Mitch's comments and questions on truth and the pursuit of it. All truths must be compatible with one another, so when one is faced with two beliefs which are incompatible, one must either find a coping tool to get comfortable with cognitive dissonance or find out where the falsehoods are lurking.

But... compatable according to whom? Once it would have been assumed as obvious that the claims, "light is a wave" and "light is a particle" are incompatable statements. The evidence has forced us to accept the fact that they are not, even though our common sense still percieves them as incompatable. I would suggest that there is also abundant evidence that people are routinely misled by "common sense" in religion also when they insist that the claims of different religions are incompatable. As a result I seek an understanding of Christianity that avoids this as much as possible. I am sure that many Christians think I go too far, while I acknowledge that I may not go far enough. I think there is something fundamentally subjective about the nature of spiritual things. This is the only explanation for why it is inaccessible to scientific methods. But it also means that the subjective nature of it has to be acknowledged and the diversity of thinking about it accepted as only natural.

Philosophy, science, logic, etc..., are all valid tools, but in my view no one will suffice to do the whole job in every circumstance. The point of my line of questioning in that "other thread" was not about what "ultimate truth" (whatever that means) looks like, but what are valid approaches towards defining and understanding truth, what "evidence" is relevant and material, and the underlying whys (mostly because it seemed some were arguing the scientific method of materialistic naturalism is the only tool required).

What is this "scientific method of materialistic naturalism"? Huh? There is the scientific method and it is the method of modern science and not any philophophy of any kind. It IS the only methodology we know of that get past our inherent subjectivity to tell us things about the physical world. Yes it is limited in what it can tell us. But science is a tool only -- a displine that one learns in order to investigate certain kinds of questions. It is not a philosophy or a religion and you should be wary of the atheists that have basically turned science into their own personal religion. You can tell they have done this is when they talk of science as something one can live ones life by. This is utter nonsense of course, so what they are calling science is not anything of the kind.

[WorldlingWatcher]

What is this "scientific method of materialistic naturalism"?

Sorry; meant to type metaphysical naturalism, which employs the scientific method but adds a number of metaphysical assumptions.

[WorldlingWatcher]

And if you do need to go to a source other than the creator of life and the universe to find things that are true, things that you can't find from going to the creator of life and the universe, then what does that tell us about the Biblical God?

Perhaps that he made sure we had a guide that included all the things we need to know, but not all the things that might be useful to know. One of the things it seems clear to me God does through the Bible is invite us, like Dickens' Ghost of Christmas Present invited Scrooge, to "Come, and know me better, man."

[darkumbra]

If you know that something is true then you know it, obviously, and so quite naturally you would dismiss that which you know is not true.

Correct. But why would a knowledge of truth in Christianity cause one to preclude the truth of other things?

Mitch, I'm not going to address everything you said because you know that I'm not talking about you. You're worlds apart from the kind of Christian I'm talking about here and you know that, and you know that I know that.

But I'll chase after this one: "Why would a knowledge of truth in Christianity cause one to preclude the truth of other things?"

If the truth in Christianity is really true then how can there be any truth of other things? How many truths can there be?

1=1
1 != 2
1+1=2
a full house beats a straight
I love my wife
It might rain today
Store beer in a dark cool place
.
.
.
Need i go on?

[mitchellmckain]

If you've got that one-to-one relationship with the creator of life and the universe then why would you need to go anywhere else for something that's true? And if you do need to go to a source other than the creator of life and the universe to find things that are true, things that you can't find from going to the creator of life and the universe, then what does that tell us about the Biblical God?

It tells us that the Biblical God wants us to use the brains he gave us to figure out some things... most things out for ourselves. It tells us that God has no intention of living our lives for us but only seeks to promote the development of life and when required preserve it from the things which destroy it like bad habits and bad religion.

That one to one relationship with the creator of life and the universe is not one of control. He provides what He decides that we need and not whatever we demand. So why bother asking Him anything? Because asking Him is an action which can conceivably alter what it is that we need.