I don't think that the probable truth of a proposition depends upon the probable truth of alternative propositions, as if truth were the kind of thing that could be parcelled out in that way. Te my mind, a propositon is in general, either true or false, depending upon whether it corresponds to reality. The issue is determing whether it corresponds to reality or not.
That is interesting, because I see things very differently. In science, there may be two hypotheses based on a model. One model predicts reality better than another and so we accept it, at least provisionally. Or in thinking about the Cosmological argument, there are several hypotheses about the origin of the universe. We may regard one as unlikely, but if others are judged to be more unlikely or impossible, then we will accept the least unlikely one. As Sherlock Holmes said: "when you have excluded the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth". But it is as I expected, we make different assessments, at least in part, because we are looking at different levels or standards of demonstration.
Quote:
2. Agnostics might take you to task over this. Your example is ambiguous. Prevaricating over whether to marry someone is not the same as deciding not to marry someone. Eventually a decision has to be made, unless the other person takes it out of your hands. Practically, the outcome is the same, but the pyschology is different.
I don't think we disagree much here.
Quote:
A person who does not believe in God may or may not be in the same pyschological position as someone who believes there is no God, I don't know. I think that too much is made of the distinction to be honest. The same person can make both statements as far as I can see. I know I have, but the one statement expresses the same truth as the other. I could say both that I don't believe in the Loch Ness Monster, and that I believe there is no Loch Ness Monster. One entails the other.
But the other does not entail the one!
Quote:
3. Yes,I agree. But you are talking about practical decisions here, not beliefs. However, I agree that we often form decisions on the basis of the best available evidence.
More agreement!! : )
Quote:
4. A person can be certain of something on very little evidence, and uncertain of something even though the evidence is overwhelming.
I am not talking of our emotional sense of certainty, but our assessment of the evidence or truth. As I commented in #1 above, I think you are seeking a higher probability (proof = 100% ??) than I think is reasonable, and higher than we seek or obtain on most issues in life.
Quote:
In my view, faith is irrelevant when it comes to deciding the probability of the truth of this or that proposition. If something is true, it is true. Where does faith come into it? One discovers what is true by examing the evidence.
You speak as if our knowledge of truth is binary, but it clearly isn't - even scientific truth is often within 95% confidence limits. Of course truth itself is binary, but our knowledge of it almost never is. So when we only have probability, what do we do? You seem to suggest this leads to no decision in the matter of God, even though agreeing that we make decisions on many other things in such situations of uncertainty. And when we do, something like faith is involved - e.g. I can't decide on the basis of the clear facts which of two job offers to accept, so I make a choice based on my feeling that one manager is more to be trusted than another. Of course if the two jobs were factually different (e.g. one paid more or required longer working hours), such intangibles may not arise, but when the facts alone won't determine the choice, the intangibles do help.
Same with God. An example is Jesus. The gospels are there. The historians have assessed them. Suppose for the moment you accept that the historians' conclusions are valid. They are the best facts we have. The are enough to suggest we might believe in him, but not enough to compel us to do so. What do we do? I suggest the same as the two job offers. Do we trust the person described there to tell us the truth? I think we can, and should. Others think we can't. You seem to think there isn't enough certainty for you to make a decision. Therein lies a significant difference.
Quote:
I almost sounds tome as if you are accusing me of being too dogmatic in my views. But that's ok.
No, just seeking greater certainty than life generally affords.
Quote:
Let me ask you, are you not convinced of the truth of Christianity? If you are, is that not dogmatic too? Does your certainty go beyond the available evidence? Evidence plus faith = certainty?
It depends what 'convinced' means to you. I feel there is enough evidence for me to conclude it is probably true, and to make a life decision accordingly. But not certainty.
Quote:
And if you are not certain of the truth of Christianity, why not? Is it that the evidence is not sufficient, and you just know that faith does not add one iota of difference to the likelihood of it being true?
The faith doesn't make it any more certain (except psychologically), but it helps me make a decision within uncertainty, as I have outlined above.
Quote:
I just have difficulty with this notion of faith - and I think I always have.
Faith is just being willing to trust someone in the face of uncertainty. You probably do it all the time in your normal life - almost everyone does. Sometimes they get burnt, but mostly it works out. There isn't anything magical about it and it isn't foreign to you - you just don't apply it in this case.
Quote:
Of course, it may be the case that God deliberately makes the evidence ambiguous to make room for faith, and that faith is very valuable to God - and maybe He decided that when he was dishing it out, that he wasn't going to give me any.
I don't think it's like that at all. If you are drowning and someone throws you a rope, you trust them to pull you out. That's faith. But it isn't the faith that saves you, it's the rope and the person on the bank. And the faith isn't a virtue that the person says you must have before he pulls you in, it's simply the willingness to hang on.
Quote:
I have prayed for years and years for the gift of faith, and at the end of the day, the heavens have remained silent.
I appreciate your saying this, and it's probably the hardest comment for me to answer. And I don't really have an answer. All I have is a feeling of genuine distress at your frustration. All I can suggest is (1) if I am right about God and you have been genuine in your prayers, you won't miss out (Romans 2 again), and (2) perhaps you have been misunderstanding faith, and looking for faith and praying for faith when instead you should have been looking for Jesus- not only praying for faith, but praying that God would reveal himself to you. As CS Lewis said, if we look at eyes we don't see much, but if we use our eyes we see a lot. Faith is the same, it is the act of trusting.
Quote:
The nearest I have EVER come to a religious experience - listening to Mozart.
I don't think I have ever had that sort of religious experience. Some people do, some don't. My faith is based much more on a pragmatic appreciation of Jesus and the kingdom of God. Most christians will tell you that religious experiences are not the substance of their faith.
Quote:
I didn't embrace atheism willingly. I still don't. I fought it, my god I fought it!. I wanted so badly for there to be a god, and eternal life, and a happy ending. But that would have required faith, but I just don't have it in me! I just don't.
Again, this distresses me. I have 'met' (on the internet) other non-believers who have said similar things, and I feel sorry that you and they have felt anguish over this question. What more can I say? I guess I can only encourage you to "keep on seeking" as Jesus says.
Quote:
I fell in love with Plato at college. I have all his dialogues, and a shelf full of academic studies. I love the allegory of the cave - are you familiar with it?
No, I'm afraid I'm a Philistine. I trained as an engineer, and my religious interests are generally very practical - how to better join in the work of the kingdom of God - and I mostly read to that end.
Quote:
I won't be posting for a few days as I will be away, but I look forward to your response when I get home.
I'm sorry my reply has again been so long though I have tried to be brief. But I have appreciated your candour and the comments you have made, and I wanted to respond to many things. I have much appreciated our discussion. Although I feel strongly about Jesus and very much would like to see unbelievers see him as I believe is correct, I also very much want to move beyond the atheist vs christian wars to build on our common humanity and at least understand each other. You have allowed that to happen, and I appreciate it.
Hi UnkleE. Ihave enjoyed reading your comments as well, and appreciate your honesty and courtesy. I think that we could go on and on in this discussion, but to be frank, it might become wearisome to us both! And we have got widely off topic in any event - I am surprised James hasn't told us off. You have made some points that I want to take away and think about, and maybe revisit at some point in the future, particularly about the nature of faith. Can I recommend the following website - I think you would like it. http://www.edwardfeser.com/
HI think that we could go on and on in this discussion, but to be frank, it might become wearisome to us both!
I have read Feser's website occasionally, and while I think he is a persuasive philosopher, he is a little more combative than I think is best.
Yes, I agree, I think a pause might be best. But I just wanted to answer one question in your previous post which I hadn't got to ...
Quote:
Do you honestly believe that those things are only evil because God exists?
No I do not. I think ethics are truths just like maths, only we have a choice whether to obey them. And I think they are built into each one of us, though we are free to disregard them. And I think that most people recognise this and accept it - atheists as well as theists.
But ....
I cannot see how atheists can fit those facts into their worldview. I cannot see how they can satisfactorily explain why we should obey any ethic if we don't want to, or if it doesn't aid our survival or our genes' survival.
And so I think the very fact that every atheist I have discussed this with has strongly argued that they are as ethical as any theist shows that ethics are real. But atheism cannot (IMO) explain them satisfactorily (only as a result or means of natural selection on individual or group level, which is an explanation of behaviour but not of ethics).
Thanks again. Happy to discuss the nature of faith any time, I think it may be the most interesting thing to come out of our discussion. Best wishes.
Is it true that J.P. Holding is not your real name?
Not anymore. That's an issue that was often raised as a substitute for answering my arguments, and it still is now and then. Fact is, it was my birth name; it was changed when I was an infant, and I changed it back in July 2007. In between I figured it made a good nome de plume so I used it -- partly as a matter of safety for my family back when I worked for my state's correctional system.
This is even more hilarious; the only times he cites a real heavyweight are when he's citing someone who doesn't agree with his conclusions.
I see only that you're making the name mistake and engage in mudslinging instead of showing where he's wrong.
It would be mudslinging if I was making personal attacks or failing to address his argument. I haven't done either. I have demonstrated, using direct quotations from original sources, that Turkel has quoted very selectively from heavyweight scholars who do not agree with him on the very points of his argument concerning which he's trying to use them for support.
Given that Turkel is in disagreement with the scholarly consensus, it's hardly necessary for others to spend additional time attempting to prove him wrong (though the quotations I gave show several of his errors); it's for him to try and prove that the scholarly consensus is wrong and that he is right.
Given that Turkel is in disagreement with the scholarly consensus, it's hardly necessary for others to spend additional time attempting to prove him wrong (though the quotations I gave show several of his errors); it's for him to try and prove that the scholarly consensus is wrong and that he is right.
He made the effort of writing his articles and making an argument. Now it's your turn.
He made the effort of writing his articles and making an argument. Now it's your turn.
As I said, the quotations I provided show several of his errors. For everything else, there's the scholarly consensus. If he were denying anthropogenic climate change I wouldn't have to write a counter-argument either, I would just have to point out where he misleadingly quotes sources selectively, and point to the scholarly consensus.
If he were recognized in the relevant scholarly literature, he might be worth spending time on, but since he's just another proof-texting Fundamentalist (who writes for Creation Ministries International, for goodness' sake), and since he doesn't engage the relevant scholarly literature, and since the scholarly consensus contradicts him, there's little point.
I've written pages of demonstrating the weaknesses of Fundamentalist claims about the trinity, but I don't go around insisting that people like Turkel respond, and I don't feel the need; I only have to point to the scholarly consensus.
If he were recognized in the relevant scholarly literature, he might be worth spending time on, but since he's just another proof-texting Fundamentalist
No it isn't, those are facts. He isn't represented in the relevant scholarly literature; fact. He is just another proof-texting Fundamentalist; fact. Remember, I am not saying that these facts mean that his arguments are necessarily wrong (that would be well poisoning), I am simply explaining why there's no need to address his arguments in detail.
Quote:
Appeal to authority fallacy.
No, that is not the fallacy of appeal to authority. It's amazing how many people get this wrong. Remember, I am not saying that since the scholarly consensus has a different view his arguments are necessarily wrong (that would be a logical fallacy), I am simply explaining why there's no need to address his arguments in detail.
Meanwhile, I note there has been no response to the actual issues I raised with his claims.
[*]Original sin is not a sin in the sense of positive sinful acts. It is rather the origin-of-sin, which Aquinas equated with concupiscence or "wanting stuff." We an call that "selfishness."
A minor point - Holding legally changed his name from Robert Turkel in mid-2007. Do keep up
I don't like him much, but I am curious - do you know why the different names?
His birth name is Robert Turkel, and he used JP Holding for a pseudonym (I think his old prison job had something to do with it). Some of his critics attacked him on the basis of using a pseudonym, which seems rather petty to me even though I'm not a big fan of Holding. So he got his name legally changed because he thought it would silence them.
![[Home]](http://images.proboards.com/menu/home.gif "[Home]")
![[New Topics]](http://images.proboards.com/menu/topics.png "[New Topics]")
![[Help]](http://images.proboards.com/menu/help.gif "[Help]")
![[Search]](http://images.proboards.com/menu/search.gif "[Search]")
![[Calendar]](http://images.proboards.com/menu/calendar.gif "[Calendar]")
![[Login]](http://images.proboards.com/menu/login.gif "[Login]")
![[Register]](http://images.proboards.com/menu/register.gif "[Register]")
![[Search This Thread]](http://images.proboards.com/search2.gif "[Search This Thread]")
![[Share Topic]](http://images.proboards.com/new/buttons/share.png "[Share Topic]")
![[Print]](http://images.proboards.com/buttons/print.gif "[Print]")
Author
![[avatar]](http://i1071.photobucket.com/albums/u504/unklee99/f075d7d4.jpg "[avatar]")
![[homepage]](http://images.proboards.com/buttons/www_sm.gif "[homepage]")
Logged![[avatar]](http://www.bitgamer.su/imagebucket/german_knt.gif "[avatar]")
What you have there is standard Fundamentalist 'proof text' apologetics. 