Philosophy Forums
Forums Articles Gallery Links


Register Login Members Calendar New Posts Search Chat Help
Philosophy Forums » Philosophy of Religion » As if truth requires faith ... » As if truth requires faith ...

As if truth requires faith ...
How true is the scriptural source of your faith?

PrintPrint


Page: 1 2 3 4

As if truth requires faith ...
180 Proof
kynic
Avatar

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: Apr 27, 2003
Location: NOTHINGlifeNOTHING

Total Topics: 84
Total Posts: 5124
Posted 08/14/09 - 09:33 AM:
Subject: As if truth requires faith ... 		quote post
#1
Two questions for JCI believers:

1.What percentage of the Tanakh / Christian Bible / Qur'an do you consider to be "literally true", "figuratively true", "fictional" & "literally false"?

a. literally true ____
b. figurative true ____
c. fictional (e.g. narrative devices) ____
d. literally false ____
(total ------------ 100%)

2. For those of you who consider any significant share of your scriptures to be "literally true" (a), why is faith in the inspired/revealed source (i.e. God) needed?
The question isn't "Which explanations do I believe?" but rather "Which explanations do I least disbelieve?"

Absence of evidence THAT MUST BE THERE (i.e. implied by any claim, concept, or (its) predicates, that affects changes in/to the world) entails evidence of absence.

[What cannot be done?[What cannot be hoped?[What cannot be known?]]]
NothingtoSay
Assistant Professor

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 11, 2009

Total Topics: 5
Total Posts: 285
Posted 08/14/09 - 09:47 AM:
quote post
#2
What do you mean by faith? And what do you mean by truth?
TempletonEsquire
Irrationally Biased

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Mar 05, 2009
Location: Close To Nil

Total Topics: 9
Total Posts: 315
Posted 08/14/09 - 09:52 AM:
quote post
#3
a. literally true 12% (there is some capture of history here)
b. figurative true 100%
c. fictional (e.g. narrative devices) 88%
d. literally false 88%

These categories do not allow for a 100% sum.
MarchHare
Graduate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jun 23, 2009

Total Topics: 4
Total Posts: 190
Posted 08/14/09 - 10:10 AM:
quote post
#4
I still can't see why a benevolent god who transcends time would allow his communication to mankind through figurative devices, especially when one considers the various drifts between what is considered literal and what is considered figurative.

Is there any excuse for an all-wise, all-knowing, temporally transcendant god not to be familiar with de Sauessere, semantic drift and the arbitrariness of the signfier with the sign?
Doubt requires a reason to doubt.

Nothing is immune from potential doubt.

The correct response to a question isn't always to try to give the question's answer.
180 Proof
kynic
Avatar

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: Apr 27, 2003
Location: NOTHINGlifeNOTHING

Total Topics: 84
Total Posts: 5124
Posted 08/15/09 - 04:59 PM:
quote post
#5
NothingtoSay wrote:
What do you mean by faith? And what do you mean by truth?

Let's start with this:

a. "truth" as in true statements, those propositions which warrant assent through sufficient evidence and/or sound arguments

b. "faith" as in trust in the purported source of statements despite those statements (including those about the source) being uncorroborated (i.e. lacking sufficient evidence or sound arguments), even contradicted by other true statements

and ask ourselves: If a, then why b? since If b, then ~a. Capisce? cool
The question isn't "Which explanations do I believe?" but rather "Which explanations do I least disbelieve?"

Absence of evidence THAT MUST BE THERE (i.e. implied by any claim, concept, or (its) predicates, that affects changes in/to the world) entails evidence of absence.

[What cannot be done?[What cannot be hoped?[What cannot be known?]]]
NothingtoSay
Assistant Professor

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 11, 2009

Total Topics: 5
Total Posts: 285
Posted 08/16/09 - 05:34 AM:
quote post
#6
180 Proof wrote:

Let's start with this:

a. "truth" as in true statements, those propositions which warrant assent through sufficient evidence and/or sound arguments

b. "faith" as in trust in the purported source of statements despite those statements (including those about the source) being uncorroborated (i.e. lacking sufficient evidence or sound arguments), even contradicted by other true statements

and ask ourselves: If a, then why b? since If b, then ~a. Capisce? cool


So what is true is what is based on evidence and sound argument. So what would be considered evidence, what would be considered sufficient evidence?
And of course sound argument must be built on sufficient evidence (i.e, the truth), no?

I take it by this that truth does not necessarily have to contradict faith, right?
And what do you mean by "If a, then why b? since If b, then ~a"?
180 Proof
kynic
Avatar

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: Apr 27, 2003
Location: NOTHINGlifeNOTHING

Total Topics: 84
Total Posts: 5124
Posted 08/16/09 - 06:00 AM:
quote post
#7
NothingtoSay wrote:
So what is true is what is based on evidence and sound argument. So what would be considered evidence, what would be considered sufficient evidence?

Evidence would consist in whatever can be examined as corroborating a specific claim, expressed in scripture, about some aspect of the world. Sufficient evidence would consist in corroboration beyond a reasonable doubt given.

And of course sound argument must be built on sufficient evidence (i.e, the truth), no?

No. If the evidence is sufficient for the claim then a supporting argument is not needed. Sound arguments are valid inferences drawn from true premises that necessarily yield a true conclusion that indirectly supports some claim at issue. The difference is between direct & indirect corroboration, respectively.

I take it by this that truth does not necessarily have to contradict faith, right?

Right.

And what do you mean by "If a, then why b? since If b, then ~a"?

If X is true, then why is faith in X, or the mysterious source of X, needed (insofar as faith is practically indifferent to demonstrable, or discernible, truths)?


Edited by 180 Proof on 08/17/09 - 08:13 AM. Reason: grammar ...
The question isn't "Which explanations do I believe?" but rather "Which explanations do I least disbelieve?"

Absence of evidence THAT MUST BE THERE (i.e. implied by any claim, concept, or (its) predicates, that affects changes in/to the world) entails evidence of absence.

[What cannot be done?[What cannot be hoped?[What cannot be known?]]]
NothingtoSay
Assistant Professor

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 11, 2009

Total Topics: 5
Total Posts: 285
Posted 08/16/09 - 10:40 AM:
quote post
#8
180 Proof wrote:

Evidence would consist in whatever can examined as corroborating a specific claim about some aspect of the world expressed in scripture. Sufficient evidence would consist in corroboration beyond a reasonable doubt given.

So if, say, the Qur'an tells me that there is water underground, evidence would be, in this case, seeing water contained underground (extracting it from there too)? Or if it says that women give birth, evidence would be seeing women actually give birth?
Or would evidence be something else?

180 Proof wrote:

No. If the evidence is sufficient for the claim then a supporting argument is not needed. Sound arguments are valid inferences drawn from true premises the necessarily yield a true conclusion that indirectly support some claim at issue. The difference is between direct & indirect corroboration, respectively.


I think you misunderstood my thought, I didn't mean that if we have sufficient evidence we MUST build a sound argument on it; I meant that sound arguments cannot be built (if we so choose to build them) on false statements. Not that, given clear evidence, sound argument must be built... I mean, I'd imagine if an argument is unsound it's because it's either invalid or at least one of its premises is false, right?

180 Proof wrote:

If X is true, then why is faith in X, or the mysterious source of X, needed (insofar as faith is practically indifferent to demonstrable, or discernible, truths)?


Honestly, I'm not sure what you mean--mind giving an example?
Phaedruswax
banned

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Aug 05, 2009

Total Topics: 6
Total Posts: 104
Posted 08/17/09 - 06:12 AM:
quote post
#9
NothingtoSay wrote:

So if, say, the Qur'an tells me that there is water underground, evidence would be, in this case, seeing water contained underground (extracting it from there too)? Or if it says that women give birth, evidence would be seeing women actually give birth?
Or would evidence be something else?



I think you misunderstood my thought, I didn't mean that if we have sufficient evidence we MUST build a sound argument on it; I meant that sound arguments cannot be built (if we so choose to build them) on false statements. Not that, given clear evidence, sound argument must be built... I mean, I'd imagine if an argument is unsound it's because it's either invalid or at least one of its premises is false, right?



Honestly, I'm not sure what you mean--mind giving an example?


A. If you and other well-adjusted physiologically normal human beings not in hallucinogenic states observed them, yes. The relevance of your state of being lends to the accuracy with which your observations are made. The presence of other people lend to the precision of the observation. Accurate and precise observations are the only means to honestly evidencing anything.

B. How important is validity anyhow? Sounds to me like a rhetoric tool used by romantics to counter classical minds and their accurate/precise predictions.
oag
banned
Avatar

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jun 13, 2009

Total Topics: 2
Total Posts: 555
Posted 08/17/09 - 09:34 AM:
quote post
#10
180 Proof wrote:

Evidence would consist in whatever can be examined as corroborating a specific claim, expressed in scripture, about some aspect of the world. Sufficient evidence would consist in corroboration beyond a reasonable doubt given.
Since most of the Scripture is not about the world but about otherworldly planes of existence and supernatural forces, beings and events your request is designed to dismiss almost the entire tome from the outset. I find it highly disingenuous.


If X is true, then why is faith in X, or the mysterious source of X, needed (insofar as faith is practically indifferent to demonstrable, or discernible, truths)?
Faith is always needed where truth is concerned. Even demonstrable or discernible truths are representative statements that are either believed or dismissed according to individual parameters or whims.
Download thread as

Page: 1 2 3 4



Sorry, you don't have permission to post. Log in, or register if you haven't yet.

Powered by WSN Forum

The time is now 11/21/09 - 10:43 AM.