True Truth and Why it Matters: —“What are Three Enemies of Truth?” Part 6b


truth

THE THIRD ENEMY OF TRUTH:  OUR MISUNDERSTANDING BETWEEN FAITH AND REASON

Truth has many enemies as we’ve been discovering.  The misunderstanding between faith and reason is a particular one we covered in our last section.  We discussed the three philosophical positions of; strong rationalism, fideism, and critical rationalism.  Only critical rationalism avoided the extremes of disproportionately exalting reason (strong rationalism) or having too low a view of reason (fideism) when considering religious truth claims.  As a result, we concluded that strong rationalism offered a more attractive balanced approach to this enterprise, and is thus preferable.

In this section and final article to the series, True Truth and Why it Matters, we’ll continue our quest for clarity regarding faith and reason by getting our definitions of faith and reason from scripture and by revealing that these two aspects of thought and life are not adversaries but rather allies.  For full article click here

Advertisements

9 thoughts on “True Truth and Why it Matters: —“What are Three Enemies of Truth?” Part 6b

  1. if this is an epistemology, then all one need do is note that god-talk is more than metaphysics and then neither true nor false; only more or less meaningful than other metaphysical ideas.

    truth in epistemology is no more than a belief we feel justified in saying is representational of some state of affairs; ie describes something better than any other sentence we could use.

    faith is psychology, not epistemology i’m afraid.

    cheers.

    Like

    1. Steve,
      Thanks for your comment. I have some questions so that I’m clear on what and what you are not saying. First, have did you read any of the pieces I wrote? Second, what are you referring to when you wrote, “is NO more than metaphysics”. Third, by metaphysics what do you mean? Fourth, what’s “god-talk”? Fifth, what do you mean by faith?

      Liked by 1 person

      1. i read the one.

        i was correcting myself, that god-talk is no more than mataphysics. by metaphysics, i mean propositions, ideas and such that have no truth-value (frege) because how they lack any real associativity to reality. there are better descriptions, but that will do for here.

        one example is from russell’s “on denoting”: coherent statements about “the present king of france”.

        the example here is “god-talk”; what we assert about god; ontology, teleology, etc..

        ayer presents the problem well in “language, truth, and logic” and george smith in “atheism: the case against god” as does father herbert mccabe in “god matters” and norm geisler in “systematic theology volume 1”. if god is ineffable, the only key claim we have in defining “god”, then we have no concept of god and the God we conceive of is an anthropomorphism; attempts to finish the sentence “God is” are then literally insignificant, and we even have terrible troubles trying to define “is” as well … leaving us with even more problems with the one word left, “God”.

        faith that god exists, in modern terms, is psychology. epistemology is the study realted to knowledge … not certainties or desired things wished or hoped for being true.

        better?

        Like

      2. Steve,
        Thanks for your comment. I have some questions so that I’m clear on what and what you are not saying. First, have did you read any of the pieces I wrote? Second, what are you referring to when you wrote, “is NO more than metaphysics”. Third, by metaphysics what do you mean? Fourth, what’s “god-talk”? Fifth, what do you mean by faith? 9/15/2015
        to be clear, prior to the enlightenment, faith was the praxis of belief, not taking some theology as true or false.
        First, it seems you have not taken into account what the primary source documents of the Christian Church—the New Testament—nor Church History reveal about the meaning of faith, belief, or truth as compared to what is false.
        Second, a cursory reading of the Old Testament or the New Testament reveal that to the authors of Scripture truth mattered for it’s ultimate author God, is the God of truth.
        Third, in Jesus Christ the Bible explains that he is the embodiment of what is true, what is real and what is good.
        Fourth, his apostles (eyewitnesses) understood the difference between what is “myth”—that which is not historically real in space time history—from that which is “actual”—historically real in space time history. The event of the resurrection of Jesus from the dead is a great case in point. Paul in 1 Corinthians 15 dedicates an entire chapter to this events’ historicity and necessity for sinners to be rescued from God’s wrath. He also knew that if the resurrection did not occur in space-time-history (I.e., it is true because it happened, it corresponds to an actual state of affairs, and can thus be trusted) then those who believe it is true (I.e., that it actually occurred) are to be pitied above all others. The reason is because these adherents believe or trust in something that is false, a lie, a farse.
        But the worse of it for Paul is that God’s wrath is still on humanity, “we are still in our sins”. The reason for our plight he argues is because the event of the resurrection is not real—it did not happen in space-time-history. He concludes that chapter by affirming in fact Christ’s resurrection is the grounds for death forever and finally being vanquishing.
        Fifth, church history is filled with accounts of people willingly laying down their lives for the cause of Christ starting from the apostles in the 1st century to our own 21st century. These were and continue to be martyred for believing that what their theology taught/teaches (I.e., their study of God revealed through the Law, The Prophets, The Writings, and Finally in Jesus’ Incarnation—God’s last word) is true, not false.
        Steven Hoyt
        4 days agocalare.org
        i read the one. Which one?
        i was correcting myself, that god-talk is no more than mataphysics.
        by metaphysics, i mean propositions, ideas and such that have no truth-value (frege) because how they lack any real associativity to reality. Now, if Frege is a correct there are better descriptions, but hat will do for here. Steve, what’s “truth-value?”, who decides which propositions have truth value, what criteria is used, how did Frege argue his position and does the proposition you just communicated have anything to do with reality, does it possess any “truth-value” since we are doing “god-talk”? If so how do you know? What’s the presupposition(s)?

        one example is from russell’s “on denoting”: coherent statements about “the present king of france”.
        the example here is “god-talk”; what we assert about god; ontology, teleology, etc..
        I do assert, you assert, Russell asserts, etc., but we also need to argue. I gave arguments. A major problem with “god-talk” is equivocation. This naïve notion that the term God for a theist means the same thing as for a Monist, a Polytheist, or even an Atheist is just not true. It’s also dishonest because to lump the God of Scripture (Who is revealed as: Infinite, One, Self-existent, Personal and Holy) with Polytheism (Who are finite, many, derivative, capricious, and often licentious) or even with Atheism’s notion (Where matter is eternal, impersonal, and denies that any God exists) misrepresents these differing positions. Actually, what’s being employed is the monistic view of reality that denies any real distinctions with the term God. This by the way, is a theological position Steve, not a mere philosophic muse.

        ayer presents the problem well in “language, truth, and logic” and george smith in “atheism: the case against god” as does father herbert mccabe in “god matters” and norm geisler in “systematic theology volume 1”. if god is ineffable, the only key claim we have in defining “god”, then we have no concept of god and the God we conceive of is an anthropomorphism; attempts to finish the sentence “God is” are then literally insignificant, and we even have terrible troubles trying to define “is” as well … leaving us with even more problems with the one word left, “God”.

        faith that god exists, in modern terms, is psychology. epistemology is the study realted to knowledge … not certainties or desired things wished or hoped for being true. How do you know that that statement is true? What metaphysic (i.e., view of reality and existence) informed your epistemology? Are you telling me that for me to claim I know something I can’t be certain? Are you certain that epistemology is related to the study of knowledge? I am certain.
        I have a serious question for you and one that is very personal to me: “Do you appreciate being misrepresented with what you say and what your words mean?” Probably not, in fact I’d wager you don’t appreciate it since we are communicating through this medium. To mildly put it, I frown on it, but bluntly speaking, I abhor it because the truth matters to me. Moderns egregiously misrepresent what the Bible means regarding truth, faith, belief, etc., they have not come to terms with appropriate texts, and therefore are not really in a position to disagree (See Adler’s “How To Read a Book”). Instead it’s mere opinion, not epistemology and that’s unfortunate. If they deal with texts and want to argue for why their position is true and should be trusted, then we can get somewhere.
        Faith that god exists may be psychology, but what about those who have faith that God (again which God?) does not exist? If that’s not psychology, then what is it? Do these only have knowledge because they don’t believe in God?
        At the end of the day Steve, you and I are much the same. We both come from an ultimate reference point from which we try to explain the meaning and purpose of existence, our part in it, and where (if anywhere) all this is going. This means that we trust in someone’s word to point the way for us. The question remains whose word will we finally trust? At the end of the day, I choose to trust Jesus of Nazareth’s above all other words because I trust that He is ultimate—that’s what the New Testament declares and reveals.

        better? If we are going to further communicate in this way, I’d prefer to deal with your disagreements about how I have argued because that will be more instructive. That is, give me your arguments for the position(s) you hold as I have tried to do in the series: “True Truth and Why it Matters”
        Again Steve,
        Thanks for your contribution to the discussion,
        Sergio R. Tangari

        Like

      3. we know paul wrote about 7 of the pauline works. we don’t know who wrote the gospels paul was a witnesses, sure. to his own visions; no more remarkable a feat than joseph smith. so you saying “eyewitness” is a little vexing.

        and it is from taking all things into account that i gave a summary of what’s to find there.

        finally, god doesn’t write books.

        cheers.

        Like

      4. oh, and paul saying that it must have happened or else … “bad stuff”?

        that’s called an appeal to negative consequences. an error in thinking, and errors in thinking likely lead to believing things that aren’t true, just wished to be.

        Like

      5. and the only ultimate reference point is ourselves. i don’t trust blindly. like anyone, i believe what is most believable and what is most believable are assertions that are the most justified. things like evidence, good reasoning, parsimony and the like justify things objectively, and so while faith is a relativity, my trust entails none, for i believe things for reasons outside of myself, objectively.

        Like

We'd love to hear your thoughts!

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s