Islam, Christianity, and religion prevent reconciliation

[Tom Wetmore]

...But I insist, it is white...

And as I determine my own absolutes, black is now white.

Upon what basis can you say that black is not white (I am talking about the colour - not the language).

If it is not about language, then you could just as easily say black is "X". If it is not about language then you must find a way to prove you are indeed trying to make a point about colour without using language. My point is you are not. Actually you are doing neither.

To be rather technical, if you are indeed speaking of black, you are in fact not talking about colour. And if you are associating that complete lack of colour with a property commonly referred to as white, you are in fact speaking of two completely different and quite antithetical things. It would be quite impossible, like the liar's paradox - "This sentence is false."

[Overaged]

So; if black is not about color; then, according to this topic, and what is being said, religion prevents reconciliation; just because of similar rationalizing? The subjective nature of your rationalizing here leaves lots of room for "interpretation." Language" is sometimes more to do with interpretation; not how one sees a certain color. Those who are color blind, would need a different explanation (language) to have some idea what was being talked about.

I'm glad God and His Word do not imbibe in the wine of rationalized religions such as latitudinarianism, atheism, or agnostics.

PS Please note that my comments are not intended to be personally directed at anyone - I am speaking to certain ideologies only.

[SivartM]

I'm glad God and His Word do not imbibe in the wine of rationalized religions such as latitudinarianism, atheism, or agnostics.

But... those aren't religions. And I think God is very much in favor of rationality.

[SivartM]

There is nothing about the quality of "black" that makes it necessary to call it anything. We could call it "white", "orange", or "snarfle".

[Twilight]

Originally Posted By: cardw

There cannot possibly be absolute truth because there is no system of proof that could deduce from all the possible circumstances arising from eternity, in order to prove any claim of absolute.

This statement is an absolute truth to whomever wrote it, and to those who would subscribe to it. It is a circular/anecdotal argument at best.

Missed that one, well spotted. :-)

[Twilight]

Originally Posted By: Twilight

...But I insist, it is white...

And as I determine my own absolutes, black is now white.

Upon what basis can you say that black is not white (I am talking about the colour - not the language).

If it is not about language then you must find a way to prove you are indeed trying to make a point about colour without using language.

Why must I?

If there are no absolutes, upon what basis do you expect me to accept you arguments?

I can say it is about colour and establish my own absolute, I do not need to follow your rule.

After all, it is all subjective isn't it?

:-)

[Overaged]

quote=Overaged]

I'm glad God and His Word do not imbibe in the wine of rationalized religions such as latitudinarianism, atheism, or agnostics./quote] But... those aren't religions. And I think God is very much in favor of rationality.

I will respectfully disagree that these are not religions. They are religions in every sense of the Word; and I am of the opinion that God supports reasoning together, (Isa 1:18), but He would have a problem with most rationalization that is directed against religion. There is a wide difference between the two words...

[cardw]

Originally Posted By: cardw

There cannot possibly be absolute truth because there is no system of proof that could deduce from all the possible circumstances arising from eternity, in order to prove any claim of absolute.

Originally Posted By: Overaged

This statement is an absolute truth to whomever wrote it, and to those who would subscribe to it. It is a circular/anecdotal argument at best.

Missed that one, well spotted. :-)

Nobody is missing anything other than the point. The point is that it's circular reasoning to claim anything to be absolute.

[Bravus]

The black/white and absolutes discussion is actually missing the point entirely, because cardw's original comment was not about absolutes at all, but about reason and evidence versus authority and revelation. There's a logical link there, of course, but it hasn't been elucidated. I'll get to that in my next post (which might be in an hour and a half because I have to go to class soon).

But on black and white: are those names for those colours established in the Bible? Well, of course not, since the Bible was not written in English. So in other words, 'black' and 'white' are *not* divinely revealed absolutes. Rather, they are human constructs and conventions, developed using evidence and reason. So if we want to argue about the existence or otherwise of absolutes, black and white constitute a particularly poor choice of example.

[Bravus]

Righto, let's try to back it up a few steps. The original cardw comment was that reason is greater than or better than authority. I've added, because it was implicit in his other comments, the idea that he was talking about reason as applied to empirical and experiential evidence.

It's important to make that distinction because, of course, there's a very long and noble tradition of applying reason to the study of Scripture, and I presume no-one here would suggest we shouldn't do that. (Some might argue about how far we take it, though, but without *some* application of reason, as one example, the story of Lazarus and the rich man would lead us to believe in an eternally burning hell with conscious souls suffering in it.)

So the problem is not with reason per se but with the objects to which reason is applied. The discussion slipped so rapidly to the existence of absolutes because the claim is usually that the empirical and experiential evidence we have available to us is partial and flawed, and so are our means of access to it and our underlying assumptions. This is contrasted with the claim that God has ultimate and perfect access to reality, and can share - has shared - that access with us through Scripture.

There is a set of potential logical issues there, in that if we have partial access to the world around us then we also have partial access to Scripture, and that's leaving aside the extent to which the Bible authors were able to fully capture God's full revelation with their own partial access and the flawed tools of language, but that takes us off down another set of discussions around inspiration. Those questions have been explored at length here on this site, and while they're interesting they take us some distance from the focus of the present discussion.

OK, we've spent a little time looking at the 'reason' side of the discussion: what about the 'authority' side. Because of who we are and where we are, we've kind of taken it as read (pun intended) that the source of authority that we're talking about is Scripture (and, implicitly but crucially, God Himself as revealed in Scripture).

But perhaps it's instructive to look at authority versus reason+evidence in some other contexts. We could look at the controversies around vaccination and autism, for example. Some look to the authority of the original doctor who did the studies (who, it turned out, had very mixed motives and very dodgy scientific processes and ethics). Others to the authority of celebrities like Jenny McCarthy or Jim Carrey. But actually looking, using our reason, at the best available evidence, we see that there is no established causal link between vaccines and autism... and massive increases in other life threats to unvaccinated children - and their playmates.

I definitely don't want to sidetrack this discussion into the vaccination issue (since there are sure to be some here on all sides of it). My point is that we can't say that authority is *always* better than reason+evidence. Many times it's worse.

The claim, then, is narrower: that Biblical authority is better than reason+evidence.

I won't go on to test that claim here just yet, but wait on reactions... not to any argument I've made so much, but to see whether the participants think I've laid out their positions fairly and clearly, and whether this will help with a more focused discussion.

[Neil D]

Nobody is missing anything other than the point. The point is that it's circular reasoning to claim anything to be absolute.

[Twilight]

Originally Posted By: Twilight

Missed that one, well spotted. :-)

The point is that it's circular reasoning to claim anything to be absolute.

That sounds pretty "absolute" to me Cardw...

Are you "absolutely" sure that it "absolutely" has to be the way you have stated here.

And how did you arrive at that "absolute" position?

:-)

[fccool]

Quote:

The point is that it's circular reasoning to claim anything to be absolute.

Are you absolutely sure about that ????? :)

[Twilight]

The black/white and absolutes discussion is actually missing the point entirely, because cardw's original comment was not about absolutes at all, but about reason and evidence versus authority and revelation. There's a logical link there, of course, but it hasn't been elucidated. I'll get to that in my next post (which might be in an hour and a half because I have to go to class soon).

But on black and white: are those names for those colours established in the Bible? Well, of course not, since the Bible was not written in English. So in other words, 'black' and 'white' are *not* divinely revealed absolutes. Rather, they are human constructs and conventions, developed using evidence and reason. So if we want to argue about the existence or otherwise of absolutes, black and white constitute a particularly poor choice of example.

[Twilight]

The claim, then, is narrower: that Biblical authority is better than reason+evidence.

.

Who decided that Biblical authority needs to be seperated from "reason + evidence".

This is a common secular thought that many Christians have adopted unwittingly in many cases.

Athiest: "I have science".

Christian: "I have the Bible".

Athiest: "I have logic and reason".

Christian: " I have Faith".

We have been taught this for so long that we do not stop to think to challenge it as Christians.

----------------------

Try this instead:

Athiest: "I have science".

Christian: "I have the Bible and science".

Athiest: "I have logic and reason".

Christian: " I have Faith and logic and reason".

-----------------

This clearly gives the Christian an advantage, rather than the disadvantage the world tries to educate us with...

Which is false.

I am a Christian because of reason, logic and faith...

[Bravus]

I'm happy to accept that modification of the (admittedly oversimple) formulation of the argument. The caveat, though, is that for the Christian the Bible is paramount over reason+evidence. If science disagrees with the Bible then science must be made to conform to the Bible. That's a legitimate move, but needs to be made explicit to accept the Bible+reason+evidence formulation. And it's not only about science: if our experiences of the way people live contradict the Bible, so much the worse for our experiences.

I'm not trying to win a pitched battle here, I'm trying to understand.

[cardw]

Originally Posted By: cardw

The point is that it's circular reasoning to claim anything to be absolute.

That sounds pretty "absolute" to me Cardw...

Are you "absolutely" sure that it "absolutely" has to be the way you have stated here.

And how did you arrive at that "absolute" position?

:-)

You're playing a game of floating definitions of absolute.

I actually gave you some reasoning for the position I am taking. Unlike you who just announces things.

I'm not claiming that it's absolute because I don't know if it's true for every case for all time. But, from the information that I have I have demonstrated this to be conditionally true.

Reason is a system made up by humans to describe the world. That's all it is. It demonstrates by its own rules that it cannot be absolute. It is a closed system. Reason is not a tool for every problem.

[Overaged]

I am a Christian because of reason, logic and faith...

I am a Christian; first and foremost, because of Jesus. His self-revelation through several different channels, appeals to my reason, logic, and my faith reaches out and grasps His. But I am always, and only a Christian, because of Jesus. That is an absolute truth. John 14:5, 1 Cor 1:30

[Overaged]

quote=Twilight]quote=cardw]

The point is that it's circular reasoning to claim anything to be absolute. /quote]

That sounds pretty "absolute" to me Cardw...

Are you "absolutely" sure that it "absolutely" has to be the way you have stated here.

And how did you arrive at that "absolute" position?

:-) /quote]

You're playing a game of floating definitions of absolute.

I actually gave you some reasoning for the position I am taking. Unlike you who just announces things.

I'm not claiming that it's absolute because I don't know if it's true for every case for all time. But, from the information that I have I have demonstrated this to be conditionally true.

Reason is a system made up by humans to describe the world. That's all it is. It demonstrates by its own rules that it cannot be absolute. It is a closed system. Reason is not a tool for every problem.

Your "reasons" are the best examples here of absolutes; atleast within the context that you present them; but they are essentially announcements with a little innuendo; unless you want to make the claim that your "reasons" are absolutes, then all you have done is announce something to us. I think everyone will recognize that you haven't proved anything yet. You are sharing your opinions only; and that is good. I personally am enjoying the challenges!

[Overaged]

I am trying to understand the point of this post; but it has eluded me.

[Bravus]

As I said in that post, I'm trying to understand. I was simply restating and reflecting back what I'm hearing from you and Twilight. Reflective listening is one of the skills of good conversation. It gives you the opportunity to then say 'yes, that is what we meant' or 'no, that's not quite it, it was more like this'.

[cardw]

Originally Posted By: cardw

You're playing a game of floating definitions of absolute.

I actually gave you some reasoning for the position I am taking. Unlike you who just announces things.

I'm not claiming that it's absolute because I don't know if it's true for every case for all time. But, from the information that I have I have demonstrated this to be conditionally true.

Reason is a system made up by humans to describe the world. That's all it is. It demonstrates by its own rules that it cannot be absolute. It is a closed system. Reason is not a tool for every problem.

Your "reasons" are the best examples here of absolutes; atleast within the context that you present them; but they are essentially announcements with a little innuendo; unless you want to make the claim that your "reasons" are absolutes, then all you have done is announce something to us. I think everyone will recognize that you haven't proved anything yet. You are sharing your opinions only; and that is good. I personally am enjoying the challenges!

What you quoted here are not my reasons. They are definitions. If we can't agree on the definition of reason and absolute then there is no point in having a conversation.

If you want to address my reasoning you need to go back a few posts. No one has actually addressed my reasoning.

The "technique" that both of you have been using is to float the definition of absolute and reason.

[Overaged]

The "technique" that both of you have been using is to float the definition of absolute and reason.

[Bravus]

Just quickly on absolutes: a common example in philosophy is 'all swans are white'. This was true in Europe, and was able to be held absolute. Once people travelled to Australia and saw black swans, it was no longer an absolute.

The interesting question, of course, was whether that meant it had never really been an absolute at all: that it had been mistakenly assumed to be one on the basis of limited experience of the world.

What cardw is doing is taking the (internally consistent) position that it is impossible to state things with absolute certainty unless we have seen *all* the relevant evidence. And since it is impossible to see all the relevant evidence, it is therefore impossible to state things with absolute certainty.[1]

This claim is itself a claim that is supported with evidence, and therefore Overaged is correct to some extent in saying that the reasoning is circular. The 'problem of induction' is a very well known one in Western philosophy: check out the Wikipedia article if you're interested.

But the idea of 'conditional absolutes' is not a particularly good way of reflecting cardw's position - though I applaud the attempt at reflective listening.

I think a better paraphrase would be something like 'in my experience, and in the experience of those I've read and heard about, things that are claimed to be absolutes tend to be less than absolute when all the evidence is in - it is possible that there exist absolutes, but I have not so far been able to observe any'. If you like, he is agnostic about the existence of absolutes - his statement is that there is not enough evidence to convince him that they exist.

[1] This is also a different kind of statement from 'all swans are white'. I don't think it's controversial to say that it is impossible for any human to have all possible experiences. Of course, this is where an infinite God as a stater and guarantor of absolutes comes in.

[Neil D]

Let me do a bit of reflective listening.......

I hear the arguement that there is no absolutes...or that there is conditional absolutes....with the example of white swans being absolutely white...until they [who ever that was] discoved Austrailia and black swans....

I maintain the credo that there is only ONE absolute...that is death...Now, the Christian says that is not true as there is a resurrection and life will go on as if one had never died...but that is the point...they died...As of this moment in history, everyone has died...and everyone that we personally know has died or will die.....the only certainty is death...and that is the absolute....

only the interpretation of death is in doubt....

So, gentlemen, all your talk about absolutes is nothing more than....'a blowing in the wind' or as Solomon once said, " VAnity ! all is Vanity!"