 |
Open Theism Discussion Board > Public Forums > Questions about Christianity > (No Subject)
| Forum Quick Jump
|
| 
Tiggers
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 219
| Posted 10/16/2002 8:03 AM (GMT -6) |   | Hey All, 
Ok, got a question for ya, i.e., how should one go about finding truth, or better yet, are there certain control beliefs you find to be most beneficial in going into a long journey of discovering what is ultimate truth? I’m not sure I’m conveying what I mean. Ok, let me try again…
1. Forgetting Christianity for a spell, what presuppositions are best taken into a quest for truth?
Warmly in Christ,
Tiggers
“The notion that God uses evils as a means to such higher goods is, … incompatible with the doctrine that he is omnipotent, and therefore does not need to use deplorable means to achieve his ends” (J.L. Mackie). | | Back to Top | | |
 |
Tiggers
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 219
| Posted 10/18/2002 6:13 AM (GMT -6) | |
   
OH WELL...No Interest, but maybe next time, and until then, God Bless!
Warmly in Christ,
Tiggers
PS
I do love reading this board, there’s just so many frigg’n intellectuals, I’m always being challenged, too  !!!
“The notion that God uses evils as a means to such higher goods is, … incompatible with the doctrine that he is omnipotent, and therefore does not need to use deplorable means to achieve his ends” (J.L. Mackie). | | Back to Top | | |
|
Iconoclast
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 1227
| Posted 10/18/2002 11:20 AM (GMT -6) | | I recommend reading Charles Sanders Peirce who is the father of pragmatist philosophy. A good book is a collection of Essays by him called "Chance, Love and Logic".
Peirce approaches the question of truth from a pragmatist point of view. In other words, what is the meaning of "truth"? What does it mean to hold a "belief"? The pragmatist answer is that what something IS can only be understood by what it DOES.
Jesus expresses pragmatist philosophy when He asks, "Can a bad tree bear good fruit? Or can a good tree bear bad fruit? Thus you can know a tree by its fruit." (paraphrased)
In other words you can only know what something IS by what it DOES.
The implications of this, it turns out, are rather far-reaching when it comes to the question of how one should go about finding truth.
Peirce suggests that there are four basic ways to go about "fixing one's belief" (in other words, determining what you believe to be true). These four ways are found in his essay, "The Fixation of Belief" they are:
1. Sheer stubborness. I will believe what I believe and refuse to look at any other data.
2. Authority. I will believe what I believe because an authority told me so.
3. A-priori. I will construct my beliefs based on a-priori assumptions and logical reasoning.
4. Scientific Method. I will assume my current beliefs are true and act congruently with them, while at the same time being totally open to the feedback that my actions result in to see if that feedback supports the notion that my beliefs are really true. If I find out that the data does not support my belief then I will change my belief in accordance with that data and then seek to act congruently with my new belief.
The only way to detect and correct errors about what is actually true is #4. I would also suggest that this is the meaning of "whatever does not proceed from faith is sin." If we do not act congruently with what we believe then we will never be able to determine whether the belief is true or not. This is in my view the key implication of pragmatist philosophy.
thanks,
Iconoclast
"The benefit overran the merit the first day, and has overrun the merit ever since. The merit itself, so-called, I reckon part of the receiving." - Ralph Waldo Emerson
Edited by - Iconoclast on 10/18/2002 4:24:27 PM
Edited by - Iconoclast on 10/18/2002 5:09:47 PM | | Back to Top | | |
|
Starkman
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 1747
| Posted 10/18/2002 12:05 PM (GMT -6) | | Definitely out of my league!
However, I'd like to make note that #4 starts (as do, perhaps all of them) with a presuppostion. What I mean is that it's as if there's a pre-programming that's taken place in the mind of man going out the gate. (Indeed from a creationist point of view, this would be right up one's alley.)
Anyway, even an approach which says, "I will assume my current beliefs are true and act congruently with them, while at the same time being totally open to the feedback that my actions result . . ." is to have already made note that one is not only both able to have concluded this, but is more than this in that it testifies to awareness to truth both existing and able to be found; the approach is the best-suited programming to find the truth.
In other words, that one can even discuss the existance of truth, much less postulate theories to discover truth, is interesting from Peirce's deductions: he notes both that which is acceptable and non-acceptable to discover truth. Kind of like morals; we just know some things ought to be (are right) and some things ought not to be (are wrong.) Pre-programming.
It just interests me that this is how we are made up, created by the Almighty. Created to find truth, programmed to discover it in a manner suitable for investigation, and yet never at a loss of excitement to find what God already knows.
I know you all are bored so badly with this that you're crying "Please, God, just cut his fingers off, that's all. Just his fingers." So, I'm outta here now!
For ways to discover what and where truth is,
Starkman
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Tiggers
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 219
| Posted 10/21/2002 11:28 AM (GMT -6) | | Hey Iconoclast,
Excellent response, truly! This is the stuff I was looking for! I’m happy you and Starkman responded, thanks  !
Icon asserts,
“I recommend reading Charles Sanders Peirce who is the father of pragmatist philosophy. A good book is a collection of Essays by him called ‘Chance, Love and Logic’.”
Tiggers reply,
Sounds good to me, hey, I just picked up "Epistemology: Becoming Intellectually Virtuous" (e.g. How Do we know what we know) by W. Jay Wood. Have you read this book, was it a waste of time? It’s from the Contours of Christian Philosophy collection, edited by C. Stephen Evans.
Icon/Peirce asserts,
"1. Sheer stubbornness. I will believe what I believe and refuse to look at any other data.
2. Authority. I will believe what I believe because an authority told me so.
3. A-priori. I will construct my beliefs based on a-priori assumptions and logical reasoning.
4. Scientific Method. I will assume my current beliefs are true and act congruently with them, while at the same time being totally open to the feedback that my actions result in to see if that feedback supports the notion that my beliefs are really true. If I find out that the data does not support my belief then I will change my belief in accordance with that data and then seek to act congruently with my new belief.
The only way to detect and correct errors about what is actually true is #4. I would also suggest that this is the meaning of "whatever does not proceed from faith is sin." If we do not act congruently with what we believe then we will never be able to determine whether the belief is true or not. This is in my view the key implication of pragmatist philosophy."
Tiggers reply,
Ok, I think we can eliminate 1 & 2 safely, but regarding 3 & 4 I still need a little work. Now first, lets begin with (4) “Scientific Method”
Question: First…Why assume the pragmatist position? e.g., Circumstances change, i.e., a theory, or as you assert, “assumption” might function splendidly in one context, but horribly in another context. That is, if you change the circumstances the assumption might work if it previously didn’t. Second…when I think of Scientific Method, a popping presupposition occurs to me, that is, one of naturalism e.g., take the question of miracles. From what I understand, the scientific method is created only to find that which is naturally true, it is devoid of the supernatural, thus, one using the scientific method to find truth in miracles will find a great void because a naturalistic control belief or guiding presup will only leave one with a natural conclusion (another example of this would be the Jesus Seminar and their control beliefs going into the quest for the historical Jesus…see Cynic Sage or Son of God, by Boyd). With regards to (3) why not allow for an a-priori approach?
Icon, great stuff again, and holler back  !
Hey Starkman,
Thanks for responding.
You say, “Definitely out of my league!”
Tiggers reply,
I highly doubt that, I’ve read much of your writing on this board and know you to be a profound thinker, truly!
Starkman asserts,
However, I'd like to make note that #4 starts (as do, perhaps all of them) with a presuppostion. What I mean is that it's as if there's a pre-programming that's taken place in the mind of man going out the gate. (Indeed from a creationist point of view, this would be right up one's alley.)
Tiggers reply,
I will concede with your assertion regarding possible pre-presups to #4, but what are the presups or preprogramming that your trying to convey to me, and I’m not sure I follow how the preprogramming is right up the creationist alley (not to dive into the creationist debate again).
Starkman asserts,
“It just interests me that this is how we are made up, created by the Almighty. Created to find truth, programmed to discover it in a manner suitable for investigation, and yet never at a loss of excitement to find what God already knows.”
Tiggers reply,
Very well put Starkman!
Hey, out there in Cyber World, do you have any other suggestions? I’m still extremely interested in this topic and would love to gain from your wealth of knowledge…PLEASE  !!!!!!!
Warmly in Christ,
Tiggers
“The notion that God uses evils as a means to such higher goods is, … incompatible with the doctrine that he is omnipotent, and therefore does not need to use deplorable means to achieve his ends” (J.L. Mackie). | | Back to Top | | |
|
Alan Rhoda
Registered Member
Date Joined May 2002
Total Posts : 680
| Posted 10/22/2002 12:47 PM (GMT -6) | | Hey Tiggers,
For what it's worth, I'll add my two cents to what Icon & Starkman said. (BTW: If I give you a penny for your thoughts and you give me your two cents worth, have I made a profit? )
Before we discuss how to go about looking for truth, we need to establish some points about the nature of truth.
1. Truth is real: Consider the proposition "There is no such thing as truth". It cannot be rationally affirmed because to affirm it is to assert as true that there is no truth, which is a contradiction. Therefore, the very fact that we can raise entertain the thought of whether truth exists is sufficient to show that it does.
2. Truth is exclusive: Consider the following claims:
a. All views have equal merit--none is more true than any other.
b. Not all views have equal merit--some are true and some are false.
(a) and (b) are contradictory. It should be clear after a moment's reflection that if (a) is true then (b) must be true as well, but that would require affirming a contradiction. So (a) is rationally unaffirmable. Conversely, suppose one challenges (b) and says that it is false, well, then one is saying that the denial of (b) is more true than (b), which is to affirm (b). So (b) is rationally undeniable. Therefore, (b) must be true, which means that some things are true and some things are false.
3. Truth is objective: Ask yourself, have I ever been mistaken? If so, then you must acknowledge a distinction between what you believe to be true and what is true. Now consider the claim "The world is shaped like a donut". If everyone believed that to be true would that make it so? Of course not. What determine whether the claim is true or false is whether or not the claim corresponds to the way the world is. In other words, true ideas and those that agree with reality.
4. Truth is important. Think of your entire set of beliefs as your mental map of reality, if you will, your worldview. Now have you ever gotten bad directions from someone and tried to navigate based on those directions? If so then you have probably gotten lost. What made the directions bad was either that they did not correspond to reality or they were unclear (i.e., it was difficult to determine how they corresponded to reality). Having a bad map is just like having false beliefs about the world. When you try to navigate life in accordance with your mental map, you will wind up going somewhere you did not intend to go. Having true beliefs is like having an accurate map of the world--it allows you to reliable navigate through life. On the assumption that we all want to avoid nasty surprises all life's way, the more accurate our map, our worldview, is, the better. Truth, therefore, is important.
Now, having established the above theses concerning truth, we can raise the question: How do we learn or discover truth? What tests can we apply to check our beliefs and determine their truth or falsity so that we can revise them if necessary. It seems to me that we have 4 basic ways to test our beliefs:
Conceptual tests:
Consistency: Does the belief / viewpoint contradict itself?
Plausibility: How likely is the belief / viewpoint in relation to those other beliefs in which we have high confidence?
Empirical tests:
Correspondence: Does the belief / viewpoint fit our experience of the world? If we make predictions based on the assumption that the belief is true and then check those predictions, are the predictions confirmed?
Testimony: It the belief / viewpoint attested by a reliable authority?
These tests work together. For example, if we want to check the reliability of an authority we can check whether what it claims fits reality as we experience it (correspondence), whether the claims are internally consistent, and whether they are plausible given other things that we think we know.
The quest for truth is often difficult and, as Peirce points out, will often require a communal effort.
Anyway, that's all I got to say for now.
Vaya con Dios!
Alan | | Back to Top | | |
|
Starkman
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 1747
| Posted 10/22/2002 7:40 PM (GMT -6) | | Tiggers,
With regard to my post, you noted the following: "I will concede with your assertion regarding possible pre-presups to #4, but what are the presups or preprogramming that your trying to convey to me, and I’m not sure I follow how the preprogramming is right up the creationist alley (not to dive into the creationist debate again). "
I was trying to dredge up in my memory some of Francis Schaeffer's work on epistemology. Hek, I can't remember much of it, though! What does, however, stick with me, is what he noted about how we think: we think in terms of A equals A, and A cannot equal non-A. It is, in other words, how we are . . . made . . . programmed. This is right up the alley of a creationist's perspective (rather than from an atheist's perspective.) It doesn't commentary on the type of God (morally), perhaps, that created us, or even much about God Himself (perhaps it would some, however, within the fields of science and philosophy.), but our approach to discerning truth starts with A equals A and not non-A. We not only know this logically, but it's really the only way we can function as human beings. Oh, I don't mean someone can't try and claim differently, but their lives will ALWAYS contradict their "A can be non-A" logic. Only the Christian can live uncontradictively within that which is truth, within the framework of how truth is found: one discerns the world is open for investigation, that truth can be found, that truth is truth and it isn't non-truth.
I know how I think, how I know, how I know I know. I note also how I cannot but think rationally (and with what we call common sense to walk with my thinking), or I won't make sense! There's simply no other way to think.
A look again a #4:
"4. Scientific Method. I will assume my current beliefs are true and act congruently with them, while at the same time being totally open to the feedback that my actions result in to see if that feedback supports the notion that my beliefs are really true. If I find out that the data does not support my belief then I will change my belief in accordance with that data and then seek to act congruently with my new belief."
Not only is this the proper address, but a God-given programmed address; it is (in common sense and in logic) accurate because it is how we are created to find truth, to search out truth. Tools have been given us; mental tools, physical tools, and both testify (from a creationist's perspective) what is the obvious: seek and you shall find; knock and it shall be opened; ask and it shall be given. It's the way things are. It's how the Creator programmed us to function in the capicity to find truth.
I know this doesn't contribute towards addressing how we are to go about finding truth, but I think it is part of the foundation that ALREADY exists to even discuss the notion that we can find truth. That's my point.
Well, it's very late, and the truth is . . . I have GOT to get to bed!
For . . . what else? Truth!
Starkman
Edited by - Starkman on 10/23/2002 12:43:21 AM | | Back to Top | | |
|
MrIndifference
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 144
| Posted 11/7/2002 10:26 PM (GMT -6) | | Here is something that I started writing a while back. It is unfinished and probably full of holes, so don't bash it too bad.
quote:
The Responsibility to Truth
When I think of truth, I see the need to seek it out on an individual level, but equally important is what I call the “Responsibility to Truth”. First and foremost, we as humans must have the initiative to seek truth out. As a general rule of thumb, truth is always hidden and requires to be sought out.
Let’s use an example to help uncover what I mean when I refer to “Responsibility to Truth”.
At one point in time, I worked in one of the local High Schools as a Custodian. In one of the English rooms, a teacher had hung a banner, on which were the words “Shakespeare Taught Here”. I had seen this banner every day for at least two months straight. Then one day I started thinking about those words.
What do they mean; these words, “Shakespeare Taught Here”. Of course you are probably thinking, “What kind of stupid question is that.” The obvious answer is that his works/writings are taught in the class. But what about those who have never heard of Shakespeare like people from some third world country or from a totally different time period, how would they interpret this statement?
Who is Shakespeare… or what? Is it a person, a form of martial arts or maybe some new science? Even if we know that he was a writer, we don’t know whether his writings are taught there, the history of his life, or maybe he once taught a “Creative Writing ” class at that particular educational institution. Of course we can be almost 100% sure that “Shakespeare Taught Here” is referring to the teaching of his works, but is the others necessarily wrong? Can these all be plausible interpretations?
What I am hinting at is that interpretation is first and foremost based on our knowledge base. As humans, we are rather limited to what we know. We take the various information that we have at our disposal and piece it together the best we are able. Of course, we are almost always missing pieces of information that could drastically change the outcome of our theories.
The search for truth is a learning process. As we gain information, we are obligated to evaluate and re-evaluate the things that we believe are truth. In the search for truth, comes responsibility to the truth.
The fact that the information that we have may at times be lacking is not saying that we are being untruthful. On the other hand, the way that we process that information is up to us. Lusts, wants, desired, power struggles, addictions, human nature, the way we were brought up, fears, etc. are all filters that we must deal with in the struggle to find truth. They can all, in one-way or another, skew the way that we see truth. One of our responsibilities to truth is to yearn to see it as clearly as possible. Part of being a Christian is the “destruction of the flesh”, our sin nature. This flesh is encapsulated in these filters. As we start learning humility, what it truly means to love, how to view and live life without letting our self-centered attitudes interfere, etc., we are able to see more clearly what truth really is.
Once we start seeing more clearly the truth behind the knowledge that we are gaining, we must ask ourselves certain questions: How does this knowledge apply to the real world? Is it applicable to anything besides just being able to say that one has knowledge of that particular truth? Does it give any insight or even contradict ones worldviews?
If you think about it, truth should be all-inclusive. Science, philosophy, theology, and the likes should not contradict each other. At times we are required to admit that we are not able to fill all the holes, so sometimes we must admit that we don’t have all the answers and keep searching. When we find contradictions, we must not be afraid to reevaluate our beliefs and possibly even change our worldview as new information is brought to light.
Courage is another one of the intellectual virtues. Once we start seeing truth and the way it plays out, we must learn how to apply the truths in a way that matters and not be afraid to stand up and defend those beliefs no matter how unpopular they might be. This is never an easy task. If we ignore this virtue, then the exercise of searching for truth is reduced to simple “Intellectual Masturbation”.
MrI. :| | | Back to Top | | |
| Forum Information | Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 5:38 PM (GMT -6)
There are a total of 97,718 posts in 6,040 threads.
In the last 3 days there were 0 new threads and 0 reply posts. View Active Threads
|
Forum powered by dotNetBB v2.42EC SP3
dotNetBB © 2000-2026 |
|
|