Truth and knowledge : Not relative and not plural

[The Protector]

. I'm not of the opinion we are required to to pick a religion and go with it hook, line and sinker anymore than I think people should be required to pick a particular genre of music or type of art and appreciate it at the exclusion of all else.

I risk embarrassing myself by even posting as i am way out of my league so please be gentle... but while it is certainly fashionable to say one doesn't have to pick a religion and go with it any more than one must pick one genre of music, but does that really work with religions that make very explicit claims to exclusive truth? Beethoven never claimed that his music was the only way to aural pleasure, after all, nor did Van Gogh claim his paintings were the only way to depict the world. Perhaps that's taking things too far off-topic, though. If so, I apologize.

[Canuckster1127]

I actually agree with the sense that we are not to "pick a religion". Religion is man's construction to understand and relate to God. God has given us, not a religion that we should rely upon ourselves in that regard, but I believe God revealed Himself to us in Jesus Christ. Jesus Christ is not a religion per se. Jesus Christ is not about God. Jesus Christ is God fully revealed to us and it's through Jesus Christ that we are reconcilled with God and redeemed. Christianity as a religion isn't necessarily the same thing as coming to God through Jesus Christ as the bridge between God and Man. We cross the bridge God provides us or we try to build our own bridges and regardless what brand we put to it, Christian or otherwise, the religious effort and striving ultimately fails and Jesus Christ remains.

[jlay]

On what Bart said. Religion is not the answer. However, everyone picks something. Just making the statement.....

I'm not of the opinion we are required to to pick a religion and go with it hook, line and sinker anymore than I think people should be required to pick a particular genre of music or type of art and appreciate it at the exclusion of all else.

....is in fact picking a religious position. Everyone is mastered by something. Just because you are mastered by self, or something that doesn't fit within the traditional framework, doesn't mean you aren't. You are making a claim for truth. It gets back to contradiction. Saying there is no utlimate truth is in fact claiming that very thing.

[The Protector]

I actually agree with the sense that we are not to "pick a religion". Religion is man's construction to understand and relate to God. God has given us, not a religion that we should rely upon ourselves in that regard, but I believe God revealed Himself to us in Jesus Christ. Jesus Christ is not a religion per se. Jesus Christ is not about God. Jesus Christ is God fully revealed to us and it's through Jesus Christ that we are reconcilled with God and redeemed. Christianity as a religion isn't necessarily the same thing as coming to God through Jesus Christ as the bridge between God and Man. We cross the bridge God provides us or we try to build our own bridges and regardless what brand we put to it, Christian or otherwise, the religious effort and striving ultimately fails and Jesus Christ remains.

In a sense I think our only diffence is semantics. I agree with you whole-heartedly. As Christians we do not worship an old book but rather a living God. That living God, however, made some very remarkable and exclusive claims, if the old book can be believed. And if we don't believe that old book (yes, I know it's actually a compilation of several books, just bear with me), at least in a broad sense, then I'm not sure we can be rightly called Christians. Certainly one can be wrong on theology and still be saved if one puts one's faith in Christ, but if one believes in several different religions (or some mish-mash thereof), it's difficult for me to see too many ways in which one is simultaneously putting one's faith in Christ as the one living God.

[Canuckster1127]

Only God knows in the end who is saved. What we believe about Jesus Christ and about the Bible etc. is important but the "what" is not what saves us. The quality of what we think is important and can have impact in many areas in terms of the quality of our walk. If it were what saved us however, we'd not be much different than the gnostics who arose in the early Church who attempted to merge their "hidden Knowledge" with the person of Christ. Jesus saved the thief on the cross on the basis simply of his confession of Christ. There wasn't time for anything else and there wasn't anything else required. Sometimes I think we complicate things more than they need to be.

[The Protector]

Again, I think you are misunderstanding what I'm getting at. I pretty much agree with everything you've said here. However, I'm not trying to get into soteriology. I'm merely saying that, as nice as it sounds to say that one doesn't have to be "pinned down" by one religion, it seems to me that there are certain foundational principles within the major faiths that are in conflict with one another. I'm merely saying that I am puzzled as to how one reconciles a belief that Jesus is the Son of the one living God with the belief that Jesus a was a great human prophet but nothing more, with the belief that Jesus was once merely a man like us but became a god and that we have the same potential, with the belief that there exists a whole pantheon of gods and goddesses and they all have little to do with Jesus or any near-eastern Jewish messianic movements. Certainly, faith in and relationship with God is not the same thing as "religion"', and surely we can learn from and appreciate the thought of many different faith traditions, but when it gets down to brass tacks it seems to me that each of these faiths involves certain beliefs that cannot be both true and not true. Whether belief that Jesus is the Son of God is necessary for salvation or not, the statement "Jesus is the Son of God" cannot be both true and not true. Can it?

[Canuckster1127]

No worries. I'll sit down and try to digest things better on this thread. It's not something that should be glanced at and responded to. Sorry for not being better in the flow of things to better respond to what you're trying to say.

[Proinsias]

I risk embarrassing myself by even posting as i am way out of my league so please be gentle... but while it is certainly fashionable to say one doesn't have to pick a religion and go with it any more than one must pick one genre of music, but does that really work with religions that make very explicit claims to exclusive truth? Beethoven never claimed that his music was the only way to aural pleasure, after all, nor did Van Gogh claim his paintings were the only way to depict the world. Perhaps that's taking things too far off-topic, though. If so, I apologize.

Works for me, religions can still have value without their truth claims being exclusively true. If, for example, Jesus is not the one true son of God he still made a wonderful contribution to humanity, or if reincarnation is a load of old cobblers there's still a lot to learn from Buddhism. If there are two mutually exclusive religious explanations they may simply both be inadequate - the theological equivalent of light being a wave or a particle. If Jesus claims we can only get to the father through him we are not compelled to either accept or reject this statement - he may have some useful advice on developing a relationship with the divine that has some exaggerated claims within.
I enjoy early 90's hip hop music, many of those rapping often claim they are the best, cannot be beaten, made the most money etc. If I believe their claims to be exaggerated or even false that does not force me to make a decision as to wether I take their claims onboard along with everything else or dismiss them as charlatans. A claim to being the one true son of God and the only vehicle through which humanity can be saved is a good intro but it being true, false or just a rather confused statement does not validate or invalidate 2000 years of Christianity for me.


jlay: I'm aware I'm picking a religious position and that it differs from yours. I'm not arguing against picking a religious position, I'm attempting to show that approaching something like Christianity from a perspective other than it being true or false can be worthwhile.

[The Protector]

That's all fine and fair, and I'm glad you at least feel that you've gotten something positive out of Christ's message, but finding something personally fulfilling regardless of its veracity is not the same thing as demonstrating that its truth is relative.

It makes no difference to you whether or not a 90s rapper's claims that he is the greatest are true not because his status or ranking as a rapper does not change the meaning or implications of his work. Whether or not you want to acknowledge it, the veracity of Christ's claims carry pretty heavy implications. While it may be true that you (and the world) gain something valuable from Christ's teachings even if his claim of divinity was false, it is not true that we gain the same thing if his claim was true. If Jesus was just a confused, deluded, or misunderstood yet wise teacher, we can comfortably take what we like from his teachings and dismiss what we don't like (we can decide for ourselves what is relatively true or relatively false, it you will); if Jesus was indeed God incarnate, we cannot be so cavalier.

In other words, what you are saying is not that the veracity Jesus' claims of divinity (as they are traditionally understood) is relative; what you are saying is that you think they are false, but you still like some of his other claims. While you may genuinely believe that the truth of the teachings that you personally like is actually relative (that others may just as justifiably dismiss them as false), what you are actually saying as that Jesus' claims of divinity are objectively false; even if you say that these claims can be true for other people, what you mean is that other people believe them and find them useful or valuable.

[domokunrox]

Hello all, sorry im late. I have my newborn at home now, so its hard to find the time at the moment. Bear with me, I will try to get in here and address things as soon as I find the time.

You guys started going off towards the pluralism stuff, which is fine, but try to hold back there guys. I'll have something written for that. Be patient.

Proinsias,

Might have been something you've overlooked, but what I am presenting isn't really a "position". What I am showing is sort of a "how it works". A sort of look under the hood of finding truth and knowledge and why that particular function (which we all have) proves that truth and knowledge is not relative or plural.

Again, I was pointing out 2 types of relativism.

If you have an objection to how it works, I ask you. Can you show the other way?
There are lots of things you need to define and how they are relate to each other if they do.
For example, what is truth?
What is the criteria for knowledge?
define everything

You need to show us how you think the brain works and why its better then what I have shown.
I present one that remains completely consistent bottom to top.

I do have a few questions and comments.

You said that something that is logically impossible "may not be analogous with that being impossible". I don't disagree. Many things are "possible". But you missed the point. I don't care about something being "possible", I care about knowledge and the truth. I am presenting how we find knowledge and truth and why its impossible to be relative or plural. However, I am concerned about what knowledge and truth is. The description, and not the perspective.

For example, let's say we get into a car wreck. You say its my fault. I say its your fault. We each have a story. Its our perspective. How does my or your perspective change the fact the we crashed into each other somehow? How does it change that there has to be some evidence as to how the impact happened. Like tire marks, where cars are damaged, and so forth. There has to be a REAL truth to what happened, right? Maybe someone died in the wreck? Maybe I think you were driving under the influence? Lots of factors, but something has to be true because its real and the evidence is there for us to look at.

"You've made the assumptions that a proper and fully functioning mind is one that is internally consistent and detects errors in reason"
That's not really an assumption. Can you explain why you'd actually believe the ideas from an inconsistent mind that doesn't detect errors in reason?
That's sort of like having a sign attached saying, "Bad advice for $1". Or a restaurant with a sign outside saying "We are infested with rats".

You mentioned Doge's creed which is sort of ironic. How is that knowledge? Sleeping when tired and eating when hungry. How it is logical? Should someone just indiscriminately sleep anywhere or eat anything? Its basic, and it doesn't add anything. There is a REASON why you wouldn't do something foolish like sleep in a desert outside during the day instead of under something right? There is a REASON why you wouldn't just eat anything from any tree, right?

Lots of stuff, Proinsias. Take your time.

[Bill McEnaney]

I think knowledge is justified true belief. But it's hard to tell what what requirements a evidence needs to meet to change a true belief into a piece of knowledge.

Sir Karl Popper discovered what a professor of mine called "the asymmetry between confirmation and refutation." The idea is that natural science's inductive arguments are always inconclusive when they support their conclusions. However strongly the premises support their conclusion, there could always be a counterexample that would conclusively disprove that conclusion. You'll have very strong inductive evidence that all swans are white when you a count a million white swans. But some swans are black. But since some swans are black, some swans are nonwhite. Someone who counted a million white swans still wouldn't know that all swans are white, since the white-swan hypothesis was false before he began to count white swans. Although you can know that a proposition is false, you can't know a false proposition.

[domokunrox]

That's interesting, Bill.

I have had arguments with plenty of David Hume's or variation of his ideas, but the core of it is still there. David Hume's arguments are self defeating and argue in a circle. He ultimately commits the naturalist fallacy.

I consider him pretty much as the foundation for empirism. Nobody can get away from the ball and chain of Hume's philosophy. As long as you subscribe to Hume, you should understand the implications that lead to his conclusions.

First and foremost being that as an empirist epistemological skeptic, you simply cannot believe anything at all. Instead, you have to default to "the principal of nature" (naturalist fallacy). I give Hume credit that Hume is consistent with Hume. Gaining knowledge by relations of ideas or matter of fact is fine and dandy but that's all it is and it doesn't go further than that. He designed his system like that on purpose.

I want to point out that Hume started that proofing idea. He had another example. He gave the example of the jar of beans. If you pulled out 10 beans and they were all white, would the next bean be white? How about after 100? 1000? No, no, and no says Hume. You can believe it, but that doesn't make it rational or right. This applies to everything.

Will the sun come up tomorrow? Of course we believe it will, but it doesn't make it rational or right.

One thing I want to point out about Hume is that gravity doesn't exist. You can't see the force.
If a ball hits another ball and it moves, the force doesn't exist. You can't see it.

Yep, that's right.

I am going to point something else out.

Hume actually did concede that the universe could not exist for no reason at all. He agrees with us there. And he addresses this interesting, but I think it gets the point across here.

He agrees that the universe is ordered, yes, its rational to believe in design, BUT he also said and I quote, "the order of the universe is not perfect" and thus the designer would be "limited in power and intelligence"

His excuse for this? The principal of nature.
I can go on and on about Hume. I think he is interesting but flawed. Not consistent with his system all the time. Appeals to nature, and doesn't have reason to other then to duck the fact that he doesn't want knowledge to become a matter of fact.

[domokunrox]

I wanted to bump this back up to ask you all if you guys want to get to pluralism or move into the dynamic change of eastern philosophy "truths"?

Anyone have any specific area of focus or question they want to ask on those topics? Perhaps to help you guys with the apologetics?

[The Protector]

Personally, I think I understand enough about pluralism to allow it to refute itself. I would like to hear more of your thoughts on eastern religion and philosophy.

[Echoside]

Dom, I'm carrying this over from the other thread

Anyhow, no, these types of things are not descriptions (objective), but they are instead merely perspectives (subjective). The best pizza, hamburger, ice cream, etc are simply not propositional knowledge. They have absolutely no pull or purpose in achieving a DESCRIPTION of something.

A pepperoni pizza objectively has just pepperoni topping on it. Asking for "best pizza" description doesn't even make sense. But if you're hungry for pizza and in northern California, then I suggest you try this place called Jupiter near the UC Berkeley campus. Hand tossed, brick oven pizzas are great and be sure to try the spinach dip.

Dom, I agree that the "best pizza" question doesn't make sense. It DOES make sense if I add in the qualifier, What is the best pizza for domokunrox? Then the statement has propositional value. And the fact that the question "What is the best pizza" only has value if you add that in is why it is subjective.

So, what I want to know is how the question "What is the best moral action in situation X" is in anyway less subjective than pizza flavor. Without God I don't believe the question makes sense, in a similar way as without an objective pizza standard the question has no meaning outside of a very narrow definition.