Changing beliefs

Religion can be verified on the inside, through personal experience and faith, but objectively there is nothing overwhelmingly revealing enough to measure up to an effect of ‘proof’. But because it can be proved that many religions are capable of delivering internal verification, this is the most objective ‘proof’ we have on the matter. So actually, that proposition was based on more than just my worldview alone, it was based on everybody’s worldview.

The fact that I am looking through a computer can be agreed upon by anybody, providing they know what a computer monitor is and who ‘I’ am. This is science, establishing a common view of reality through reliable, physical demonstration. Beliefs regarding religion are definitely not verified in this manner and thus pertain to a completely different level of reality- personal reality.

Now here is the big point: A belief regarding religion that can be agreed upon by anybody is that many religions exist, and that these religions are capable of delivering internal verification in their followers. From this point I infer that it something internally human that is being reached through religion, which we all share and which does not discriminate on the basis of style of belief.

"If Christianity is true... then..."

I see your point, I do, but you are getting nowhere with it because it starts nowhere.
If Islam is true... then....
If Buddhism is true... then...

You are relating an analogy of human proportions to the situation of god. God can only be in one place at a time? How about, Tim is everywhere?

And I think you missed a point that I made with my part of the illustration. Within your analogy, those who never got word that Tim was in So Cal, or more so, were convinced by their culture and society that Tim was in New York, cannot be held accountable for the fact that they do not believe Tim was in So Cal.

Feeling is biological. Language is not.

Feeling is biological, and we all have the same inward experiences of the human body, with the same organs, the same instincts, the same impulses, the same conflicts, the same fears. And out of this common ground we share the concept of God.

So in this sense, God is nature, because we exist both within nature and within God.

Let me ask you this. Do you take the story of the Garden of Eden literally or metaphorically?

 

Since one has come to Christ and let go of their old ways.

Filling of the Holy Spirit. Once you are filled, Christ lives within you. Colossians chapter 2, verse 12 says, "Having been buried in him in baptism". When you are baptized, you have repented of your sins and accepted Christ as your saviour. You are saying that you are dead to the ways of the world.


“Enter through the narrow gate. For wide is the gate and broad is the road that leads to destruction, and many enter through it. But small is the gate and narrow the road that leads to life, and only a few find it." (Matthew 7:13-14)


Someone asked him, “Lord, are only a few people going to be saved?”
He said to them, “Make every effort to enter through the narrow door, because many, I tell you, will try to enter and will not be able to. Once the owner of the house gets up and closes the door, you will stand outside knocking and pleading, "Sir, open the door for us." "But he will answer, ‘I don't know you or where you come from." “Then you will say, ‘We ate and drank with you, and you taught in our streets." “But he will reply, "I don't know you or where you come from. Away from me, all you evildoers!’
(Luke 13:23-27)



Getting into Heaven is not easy. Getting into Heaven without having Christ is not possible. The Bible makes that crystal clear, yet so many choose to follow their own path. God has but one path.

 

You’re still ignoring what I said about a religion being a worldview, in which case by your own criterion, none of what you say can be verified, nor does it belong in the category of “truth and falsehood” since what you say is propositional by nature, and claims to be true.

What is “internal verification”? Do you mean to say that truth is conventional?

Regardless of what the claim is based on, it’s still a claim of your worldview which, by very implication means it cannot be verified and doesn’t belong in the category of “truth and falsehood.”

But this just begs the question since if your senses aren’t reliable then you can’t be sure that anybody else even exist, much less that they can agree upon anything in that regard. Notice I said, “non-fallaciously show how your faith in this axiom is warranted”

Yes, science is based upon blind assumptions as well. Atheist Bertrand Russell writes:

All inductive arguments in the last resort reduce themselves to the following form: "If this is true, that is true: now that is true, therefore this is true." This argument is, of course, formally fallacious. Suppose I were to say: "If bread is a stone and stones are nourishing, then this bread will nourish me; now this bread does nourish me; therefore it is a stone, and stones are nourishing." If I were to advance such an argument, I should certainly be thought foolish, yet it would not be fundamentally different from the argument upon which all scientific laws are based.






​

That is, science commits the fallacy of affirming the consequent:




If an animal is a cat then it has four legs
This animal has four legs
Therefore this animal is a cat

But this is fallacious since the animal may be any other animal that has four legs. Bertrand Russell also writes: "The great scandals in the philosophy of science ever since the time of Hume have been causality and induction....Hume made it appear that our belief is a blind faith for which no rational ground can be assigned”

That is, science blindly starts with principles that it fails to validate.

Again, you fail to address what I’ve said about a religion equating to ones worldview. Until then, propositions such as the one mentioned above, defeat themselves.

Again, this is just a belief in your religion. So why do you state it as if it were true?

If Islam is true then Christianity and Buddhism are false. If Buddhism is true, then Christianity and Islam are false. If Christianity is true, then Buddhism and Islam are false. It is entirely possible for Christianity to be true, and all other contradictory religions to be false. Admitting this will go a long way in ridding yourself of the irrelevant objections such as “what if so and so didn’t know”? What if I didn’t know that two plus two equals four? Does that suddenly mean 2+2=4 is false since I didn’t know it? Likewise, someone doesn’t need to know Christianity in order for it to be true; if it’s true, it’s true regardless.

We’re dealing with the matter of absolute truth. The nature of the humans in the analogy was irrelevant.

When did I say this? Does my argument depend on this this?

 

When did I say this? Does my argument depend on this?

I ignored it because it was irrelevant to the matter at hand. But since you’re curious, no they could not be held accountable for not knowing that Tim was is southern California.

But I thought language was “highly inadequate”? So how are you communicating something about the nature of feelings? How am I to understand this? Or should I just ignore this altogether?

What’s the “inward experiences of the human body”? I hope it has nothing to do with feelings.

Can you verify this? How do you not run into the problem of induction? Or is this statement not belonging in the category of “truth and falsehood”?

Can you verify this?

 

Clearly I have not ignored this.

Personal proof.

No, the claim is not just of my worldview, it is of everybody's worldview. Objective reality. Please understand this.

Reality exists objectively. If we cannot agree upon this then no more should be bothered to be discussed.

And you fail to acknowledge that it is of everybody's worldview, objective reality, that these propositions come forth.

No it was not irrelevant. A human can only be in one place at a time. Thus, through your analogy, god could only back one religion.

I said, "How about Tim is everywhere?" as in, why can't god be at the foundation of all religions?

I said that language was inadequate in communicating feelings themselves, not in communicatingthe fact that they are biological responses.

Yes -In the same way that I can verify that many different religions provide their followers with fulfillment, or that a tree exists- through objective reality.

 

Oh, and two things you did not respond to:

So in this sense, God is nature, because we exist both within nature and within God.

Let me ask you this. Do you take the story of the Garden of Eden literally or metaphorically?

 

Then quote your response.

"Personal proof” as opposed to what? Impersonal proof? What other type of “proof” is there?

Ok, now let’s look at what you posted earlier:

And that proposition was:

Now, you claim that this is a claim not just of your worldview, but “of everybody’s worldview.” But this is false since I don’t hold this proposition. And where does objective reality come into play here? And what am I not understanding about it?

When did I say otherwise? My question had nothing to do with this. We’re not talking metaphysics but epistemology--the how you know what you know. How do you know that your senses correspond to an external reality. Again non-fallaciously show how your faith in that axiom is warranted? Until then it’s just blind faith.

First this is not “of everbody’s worldview” since it’s not a proposition of mine.

Second, what does "objective reality" have to do with it? And by what means have you gained any knowledge about this “objective reality.”

What does God’s location have to do with which religion He backs?

My analogy dealt with the nature of truth and nothing else. That truth by nature is exclusive (it’s only inclusive only of propositions that do not contradict it, but everything else is excluded)

Well that depends largely on what you mean by “foundation.” But if you asking why all religions can’t be true, than I would refer back to my analogy. Truth is inclusive only of propositions that do not contradict it; the propositions of different religions contradict each other, therefore not all religions can be true.

Granted; my mistake.

“Objective reality” is not a process, verification is. Again, can you verify what you’ve said above? And how would you avoid the problem with induction?

What do you mean by exist “in God”? Is it the same way I exist “in” nature. How does it follow that God is nature? How would I predicate nature about God?

Why the false dilemma? For most part literally, but not totally.

But anyway, let’s recap with a few questions that have developed and remain unanswered:

1. If a religion isn’t a worldview, than what exactly is it?
2. If a religion is a worldview, than how can any propostion be considered true or false since “The point to get across is that 'truth' and 'falsehood' do not pertain to religious beliefs, because there is no way to verify either”
3. What exactly does it mean to verify something?
4. If verification involves something like the scientific method, than how does one go about verifying the scientific method?
5. How does one verify induction without using induction i.e. circular reasoning?
6. How does one verify causation without using causation i.e. circular reasoning?
7. How do you verify the proposition “the senses are reliable and corresponds to an external reality, without a fallacious appeal to the senses i.e. circular reasoning?”
8. Do you think that truth is only inclusive of propositions that do not contradict it?
9. If you agree with #8 then isn’t it possible that Christianity is true and that by very implication, all other religions are false since they contradict it?
10. If you disagree with #8, that is, if truth is also inclusive of proposition that contradict it, then wouldn’t #8, although a contradiction, still be included since the truth is inclusive of contradictory propositions? (In which case it would be false to say that #8 was false.)

 

11. In one post you said “See this is my point, our feelings are not contradictory, it is our ways of explaining them that are. (I believe that language is HIGHLY inadequate in its communication of feelings).” Now if this is the case—if language really is highly inadequate—then how could you know that my feelings aren't contradictory to your own? How could you even know anybody else’s feelings but your own since language is “highly inadequate”?

12. What is “objective reality” and how have you gained knowledge of its contexts?

13. How am I to understand statements such as “The ultimate truth is God” if as you say, “'truth' and 'falsehood' do not pertain to religious beliefs, because there is no way to verify either”? Is it more like an emotive statement then? Like yelling “ouch!”—a statement that has no truth-value? If so, then why is the statement set up in such a way that it appears to actually reveal a truth about reality?

 

Jatom,



All my effort to establish common ground I have given, and we simply are not able to understand each other. I would only be repeating myself at this point. My reachings out, of spiritual equality, I feel, are not being received. Clearly I am not trained in philosophical argument, so I am not able to communicate to you on this level. I would have hoped that you would recognize this and try to meet me half way, but your edge prevails. I think that if an understanding between us is really what you wanted, you would be in such a position to demonstrate this. But somehow, I feel more ego involved in this discussion than anything. I do not honor God through argument, and this is what our exchanges have become. I realized at church on Sunday that my spirit is not being nourished here, and this is an unhealthy habit I do not wish to continue. I leave for the university in 7 days, and at this time I need to be centered more than ever. There I shall gain knowledge, religious studies being a serious option of mine. Perhaps there will be another place and another time.
God bless.

 

I enjoyed reading the opposing views preceding this, and also feel that it has been valuable and informative writing.
It is my view that both views, though different, are the right ones. Each is the right one for the individual, and both can be true despite their incommensurability. I am no philosopher either, and I don't particularly like most philosophy. I find it too theoretical, and unrelated to the here and now.
Be here now.
I like that.
Philosophy seems to me to be the art of debating any side of any point, whether it is practical, ethical, possible, or not.
Such things as there being no absolute good or evil. Maybe so, but in my reality there sure is.
thank you for the good discourse.

 

Then it should be very apparent that there really are no common grounds. Everybody starts from their respective presuppositions and proceeds to argue from there. Both you and I did this. What may seem like a common ground to you is a huge compromise to me. In the bible you never see one starting with an agreement for the existence of God, instead God is simply assumed

You’re correct, sometimes I do get carried away. It’s just that most of the time people aren’t too interested in what you have to say since they’ve already decided from the onset that Christianity is false, and the typical “Christian” responses are meet with laughter

But at any rate, to simplify things, there was really only one main point I arguing. I was trying to not only to show, but also to get you to admit that it is possible for Christianity to be true and all other religions to be false. From my earlier post, which were far less “philosophical” in nature, to the latter, that has been my main objective. I wasn’t even trying to establish that Christianity was true, only that it was possible that it was, since if one was able to admit this then many, if not most, of the objectives offered in this thread would disappear.

And in an effort to help the process along, I was trying to show that your view of things was inconsistent. Namely, your view that a proposition must be verified in order to be considered true. For if it was true that a proposition must be verified, then one would also need to verify that every proposition must be verified (which is impossible since the very process of verification depends on certain principles, induction and causation, that are impossible to verify!) and whatever means one used to verify that every proposition must be verified, would itself need to be verified…and once it was verified whatever means was used to verify that would also need to be verified…and so on into an infinite regress of verifications, which is absurd.

And lastly, we started getting a little into the epistemology of your worldview (“how have you gained knowledge of this ‘objective reality’”) my intention here would have been to show that you could actually know nothing were it no for the God of the bible who allows you to know something.

At any rate, I know most never really deal with this subject, and I applaud you for getting as far as you did. Most only wish to share their opinions of things, but when pressed further they suddenly become uninterested in “philosophy” not realizing that their original opinions were a philosophy. Everyone has a worldview—a religion—and most are very inconsistent and self-contradictory because the person never really takes the time to thinks things through. They're more concerned with what they ‘feel’. Which is a shame because this is a very important subject matter. Anyway, I encourage you to read through what I’ve written again (and before you recommend the same thing to me, know that I have read through yours (to include some posts in other threads) several times.)

Good luck at your university; never stop learning and challenging yourself.

God Bless!