- RomanJoe
- Member
Offline 
- Registered: 5/01/2017
- Posts: 486
Re: Is your belief in Christianity contingent on historical evidence?
SapereAude wrote:
I want to say to you, about myself, that I am a child of this age, a child of unfaith and scepticism, and probably (indeed I know it) shall remain so to the end of my life. How dreadfully has it tormented me (and torments me even now) this longing for faith, which is all the stronger for the proofs I have against it. And yet God gives me sometimes moments of perfect peace; in such moments I love and believe that I am loved; in such moments I have formulated my creed, wherein all is clear and holy to me. This creed is extremely simple; here it is: I believe that there is nothing lovelier, deeper, more sympathetic, more rational, more manly, and more perfect than the Saviour; I say to myself with jealous love that not only is there no one else like Him, but that there could be no one. I would even say more: If anyone could prove to me that Christ is outside the truth, and if the truth really did exclude Christ, I should prefer to stay with Christ and not with truth.
Fyodor Dostoyevsky
Beautifully said. I will think about this for awhile.
- 119
- Member
Offline
- Registered: 10/27/2017
- Posts: 97
Re: Is your belief in Christianity contingent on historical evidence?
If anyone could prove to me that Christ is outside the truth, and if the truth really did exclude Christ, I should prefer to stay with Christ and not with truth.
FD is one of my favorite writers (The Possessed is his best, IMHO), but this is maudlin. If Christianity is false we need to examine its predecessor, the truth of which Christianity presupposes. Persisting in its observance is idolatry, regardless of any sentimental attachments. Pascal, Kierkegaard, FD, and others seem to set up a bogus disjunctive syllogism: either Christianity OR nihilism. This amounts to little more than a tantrum. "It's not fair/possible that the religion of my ancestors is false!"
Since I'm griping about FD, if I see the conversation between Ivan & Alyosha quoted one more freakin' time on the POE I'm going to add to said problem. One, it's unbelievable. My brother and I spent thousands of hours debating the best guitarist, quarterback, beer, John Ford movie*, etc. Debating the POE with your bro? Please. Two, "Where were you when I laid the earth's foundation?" is The Official Response. "None of your business!" isn't the answer we want, but it's the answer.
*Knopfler, Favre, PBR, The Searchers
- SapereAude
- Member
Offline
- Registered: 3/23/2018
- Posts: 17
Re: Is your belief in Christianity contingent on historical evidence?
Pascal, Kierkegaard, FD, and others seem to set up a bogus disjunctive syllogism: either Christianity OR nihilism. This amounts to little more than a tantrum. "It's not fair/possible that the religion of my ancestors is false!"
I'm not a Christian, but hold them to be right on the issue. I'm an irrationalist like them. The most articulated defence of irrationalism I've found in Lev Shestov's works (shestov.phonoarchive.org), especially in Kierkegaard and the Existential Philosophy. After all, even Aquinas dropped ST as mere straw after confrontation with actual religious experience. Since there is no Newton's Flaming Laser Sword in the questions of faith, there is no truth either. Only your faith matters. We should firmly remember Kierkegaard's words: "God signifies that everything is possible, and that everything is possible signifies God." That's a direct attack on rationalism, on Classical theism, on "God of the philosophers and the scholars."
Every proposition of geometry is absolutely necessary, and in this way one talked about an object lying entirely outside the sphere of our understanding as if one understood quite well what one meant by this concept. The unconditioned necessity of judgments, however, is not an absolute necessity of things.
- 119
- Member
Offline
- Registered: 10/27/2017
- Posts: 97
Re: Is your belief in Christianity contingent on historical evidence?
Only your faith matters.
I don't have any. None. The Cosmological arguments take me to a non-contingent unity as the bottom line of reality. We can deduce that it's false to say it lacks intellect and will. This precludes atheism, polytheism, dualism, and Laws-of-Nature-did-it. There's no faith involved in this analysis. These are deductively tight arguments. When we examine history we switch to abductive reasoning. The national Revelation at Sinai is best explained as a direct communication from the mysterious Source in the cosmo arguments. This isn't a mathematical proof, but it establishes the reasonableness of the belief. That's the best you can hope for in life. Passionately wanting it to be true won't raise the probability of its truth. You can be a Noahide without breaking a philosophical sweat, without any "faith" whatsoever.
To believe that a national Revelation has been "fulfilled," annulled, or replaced, I'd need one of two things. 1) Substantially greater evidence (a world revelation?) or 2) An explicit statement in the original Revelation that this will occur. Christianity fails both. Here's a quick rundown of problems with 2:
And I will establish My covenant between Me and between you and between your seed after you THROUGHOUT their generations as an EVERLASTING COVENANT. (Genesis 17:7)
And [Passover] shall be for you as a memorial, and you shall celebrate it as a festival for the L-rd; THROUGHOUT your generations, you shall celebrate it as an EVERLASTING STATUTE. (Exodus 12:14)
Thus shall the children of Israel observe the Sabbath, to make the Sabbath THROUGHOUT their generations as an EVERLASTING COVENANT. Between Me and the children of Israel, it is FOREVER a sign that [in] six days The L-rd created the heaven and the earth, and on the seventh day He ceased and rested. (Exodus 31:16-17)
(It's on Saturday, btw, and it's "Between Me and the children of Israel ... FOREVER.")
[This is] an ETERNAL STATUTE for ALL your generations, in all your dwelling places: You shall not eat any blood or fat. (Lev. 3:17)
[Yom Kippur] is a Sabbath of rest for you, and you shall afflict yourselves. It is an ETERNAL STATUTE. (Lev. 16:31)
Do not add to the word which I command you, nor diminish from it, to observe the commandments of the L-rd your G-d which I command you. (Deuteronomy 4:2, 13:1)
There is only one reference in the Torah to the son of G-d. Exodus 4:22 says it's Israel. There's one reference to G-d being a man. Numbers 23:19 says He isn't. There's an entire chapter devoted to miracle-workers. Deut. 13 says they're a test if they try to lead you from the G-d of your forefathers, who wasn't a trinity (Deut. 6:4). Out of 613 Commandments, not one says anything about accepting (much less worshipping) the Messiah. When he comes it will be obvious. All the threats are for deviating from the Torah. Parashat Ki Tisa tells us why the Jews remain G-d's chosen people. It's not a function of their moral perfection; it's about the Honor of HaShem.
The rational conclusion is to reject Christianity, despite any sentimental attachments. I'm not sure I want to live in a universe where Beethoven's Missa Solemnis and Faure's Requiem aren't reflective of the true religion, where all my ancestors were dead wrong about something of ultimate importance, but my subjective states can't change this.
Last edited by 119 (4/01/2018 12:23 am)
- SapereAude
- Member
Offline
- Registered: 3/23/2018
- Posts: 17
Re: Is your belief in Christianity contingent on historical evidence?
I don't have any. None.
It doesn't seem to be the case. The whole edifice of the CT, the Cosmological Argument included, rests on the amazing assumption that our logic and our notions are applicable well beyond the realm of our empirical experience. Kant denies that and I fully agree with him. That's quite understandable—the leading figures of CT lived in pre-modern times and they had no experience which would have questioned their logic and basic notions. We do have. Have you ever heard of the Planck Era? "This was way before quarks, leptons, Higgs bosons, and inflation. Neither Quantum Theory (QT) nor General Relativity (GR) have anything to say about what is happening at these sizes, times, energy densities and temperatures, except that they are not applicable." And that was within the history of our current Universe! Our best theories stop working there! Now you try to stretch the applicability of classical logic and our mundane notions way beyond even that period up to God Himself. May I ask, on what ground? A lot of very smart people have denied the very possibility of such a framework. There is nothing to argue about since no falsification, no verification of such a framework are available. So, I have to reiterate, fideism seems to be inevitable in this question. If you want to accept that framework—so be it! And this act of faith is unassailable—one may only take it or drop it. You are using such wording as "abductive reasoning, reasonableness, the best you can hope" but these do not amount to certainty, let alone necessity. I'm sorry, but I see your comment as a profession of the faith in the specific logico-notional framework and in the specific interpretation of the description of events, the very happening of which is not quite agreed upon.
Last edited by SapereAude (4/01/2018 5:39 am)
Every proposition of geometry is absolutely necessary, and in this way one talked about an object lying entirely outside the sphere of our understanding as if one understood quite well what one meant by this concept. The unconditioned necessity of judgments, however, is not an absolute necessity of things.
- 119
- Member
Offline
- Registered: 10/27/2017
- Posts: 97
Re: Is your belief in Christianity contingent on historical evidence?
How is the Planck Era within the realm of our "empirical experience"? (My empirical experience doesn't include the 1960s.) Science assumes that composites require an explanation. I'm taking this and running with it. I don't see how physics has anything to say here. Where does "classical logic" stop working and how do we know?
There is nothing to argue about since no falsification, no verification of such a framework are available.
What, if anything, would constitute a falsification of Kant's transcendental idealism? "A lot of very smart people have denied the very possibility of such a framework." Nietzsche wasn't exactly a fan, among others.
And this act of faith is unassailable—one may only take it or drop it.
It's assailable. Challenge the Kuzari argument. Defend the documentary hypothesis. Prove the Israelites were never slaves in Egypt. Quote Isaiah 53. Boom! Assailment has commenced. I spend much of my time trying to assail it. Would that it was a simple matter of choosing to believe X and sticking with it!
You are using such wording as "abductive reasoning, reasonableness, the best you can hope" but these do not amount to certainty, let alone necessity.
Most of the beliefs we hold fall into the gray zone between certainty and blind faith, including religious ones. You have to concede that monotheism is more rational than polytheism or Last Thursdayism. The latter two can be destroyed with metaphysical arguments. It's not an unassailable act of faith.
- Hypatia
- Member
Offline
- Registered: 3/24/2018
- Posts: 69
Re: Is your belief in Christianity contingent on historical evidence?
I don't have any. None.
It doesn't seem to be the case. The whole edifice of the CT, the Cosmological Argument included, rests on the amazing assumption that our logic and our notions are applicable well beyond the realm of our empirical experience. Kant denies that and I fully agree with him.
I'm somewhat Kantian as well, but I don't think it commits us to fideism. I find several of the cosmological arguments rationally compelling (and arguments from consciousness even more so), and while our cognitive abilities could be completely wrong about this, I don't see how that's a thesis worth pursuing seriously. For physics to work at all, our logic has to be applicable beyond the empirical level, and given that science has not dissolved into an incoherent mess just yet, I don't think that the fact that it's difficult is a compelling reason to believe that cognition doesn't ultimately match up to reality. To say otherwise is a Cartesian Demon scenario to me, and there's no neutral position that doesn't run into the same problem. Is it fideism to pick what makes the most sense, even when "sense" may ultimately have no meaning at all? I don't think so.
I identify primarily as an existentialist, so I'm pretty comfortable with the interplay between faith and doubt, knowledge and uncertainty (well, maybe not comfortable, but it goes with the territory). The idea that if absolute certainty is impossible, all that's left is fideism and pure irrationalism is strange to me.
- SapereAude
- Member
Offline
- Registered: 3/23/2018
- Posts: 17
Re: Is your belief in Christianity contingent on historical evidence?
How is the Planck Era within the realm of our "empirical experience"? (My empirical experience doesn't include the 1960s.)
So, you are questioning all our theories about the past? I'm OK with it, but isn't that a bit self-refuting though? I meant by 'empirical' that such theories must a) cohere with our other theories (about the present) and admit falsification\verification in principle (scientific facts) or b) yield a sufficient amount of evidence to hold them true (historical facts, but these are always doubtful, hence my thesis "There is no History, there are histories about History". If a theory neither admits a), nor yields b), I would call it 'faith' not 'knowledge'.
I don't see how physics has anything to say here.
"The things of our experience are composite. This composition of parts requires a concurrent cause."... and so forth—all these are statements of physics (if they are meant to be substantive), i.e. they require some physical theory behind them based on some logic and notions, otherwise they are just logical inferences without any connection with reality (see Kant's words on that in my signature). Science stops short of the Planck Era, admitting inability of their tools to cope with the problem, but the CT bravely goes ahead without any justification of such a move.
Where does "classical logic" stop working and how do we know? What, if anything, would constitute a falsification of Kant's transcendental idealism?
I admit that this is an act of pure faith on my side—I do believe (together with Kant) that all our logical and notional tools are only applicable within the realm of our experience, not a step further. The world, let alone God, lies infinitely beyond the scope of our reasoning.
Challenge... Defend... Prove...
Come on, that's just impossible. We can prove something (in proper sense of the word) only within specially constructed logico-notional system (mathematics for example) and even that endeavor is being constantly challenged (failures of Hilbert's, Frege's, Russel's programes).
Most of the beliefs we hold fall into the gray zone between certainty and blind faith, including religious ones. You have to concede that monotheism is more rational than polytheism or Last Thursdayism.
The former I fully support—the bulk of our 'knowledge' is just a bunch of believes of some sort. As regards the latter, I can't subscribe—God spits on our rationality and there is nothing impossible for Him, so any crazy ideas about Him may come true (along with the most rational ones).
Every proposition of geometry is absolutely necessary, and in this way one talked about an object lying entirely outside the sphere of our understanding as if one understood quite well what one meant by this concept. The unconditioned necessity of judgments, however, is not an absolute necessity of things.
- SapereAude
- Member
Offline
- Registered: 3/23/2018
- Posts: 17
Re: Is your belief in Christianity contingent on historical evidence?
I'm somewhat Kantian as well....I find several of the cosmological arguments rationally compelling....For physics to work at all, our logic has to be applicable beyond the empirical level.... I don't think that the fact that it's difficult is a compelling reason to believe that cognition doesn't ultimately match up to reality.
Excuse me, but these are NOT Kantian propositions at all. You maintain what Kant vehemently denies: any proofs of God's existence (the CA included), applicability of our notions to the world as it is in itself, our ability to cognize reality of the Noumenon not just empirical reality of appearances.
Every proposition of geometry is absolutely necessary, and in this way one talked about an object lying entirely outside the sphere of our understanding as if one understood quite well what one meant by this concept. The unconditioned necessity of judgments, however, is not an absolute necessity of things.
- Hypatia
- Member
Offline
- Registered: 3/24/2018
- Posts: 69
Re: Is your belief in Christianity contingent on historical evidence?
I'm somewhat Kantian as well....I find several of the cosmological arguments rationally compelling....For physics to work at all, our logic has to be applicable beyond the empirical level.... I don't think that the fact that it's difficult is a compelling reason to believe that cognition doesn't ultimately match up to reality.
Excuse me, but these are NOT Kantian propositions at all. You maintain what Kant vehemently denies: any proofs of God's existence (the CA included), applicability of our notions to the world as it is in itself, our ability to cognize reality of the Noumenon not just empirical reality of appearances.
Perhaps it wasn't entirely clear, but I don't actually maintain these things. They could be false, but I simply see no reason to operate under the assumption that they are without genuine evidence. That assumption would itself be applying one of our notions about the world (the idea that we cannot cognize reality) to the world as it actually is. We can and should get to doubt, but vehement denial seems to be automatically off limits. As I said, there is no neutral position.
I can find a cosmological argument rationally compelling while simultaneously holding that my reasons for accepting it may amount to nothing more than the cognitive structuring of my mind. Our minds are what they are. We can recognize their contingent nature but we can't step outside of them, so I would consider a qualified rationalist position to be better than a fullblown irrationalist one.