Question for people of any religion...

No matter if you’re Buddhist or Hindu, Taoist or Christian, Muslim or Wiccan or “other”, the fact that you’re religious means that you believe in some sort of ideal. It seems like because there are so many conflicts that seem centered around religion that there must be some conflicts amongst the varying ideals which make them distinct.
Whatever your religion might be, I ask you…
What is it about the other beliefs, in your view and according to your interpretation of your own religious ideals that the others need to change? Or what’s wrong with them assuming that yours are indeed correct?
Responding seriously to this thread would take strong faith, some conviction and a bit of balls. I think this might be the best place to have this sort of conversation.

What’s wrong with what you interpret other religion’s ideals to be assuming that your interpretation of your own is indeed correct?

Well alot of hindus, indeed do see that other people are right, they dont belive they have a monopoly on the truth. Thats how i see it too

That’s why this thread will take balls and an abundance of faith to respond to. I’m looking for the people who do think they have a monopoly on the truth so that I can sort out the evidence for myself and pick a religion. I really hope that some people come through. I can’t remain a godless hooligan forever, and I can’t make choices without complete information.

I like your ava, it’s really funny and cute. :smiley: :laughing:

Smears, is it better to be good, to have good, or to know about good?

Is it better to be power, to have power, or to know about power?

Is it better to be truth, to have truth, or to know about truth?

If a religion is had and known, it is not exactly being;
Instead it is merely a skin for the eyes.

Everything is real, thus true, so nobody can have it.

As far as the conflicts, I think that Harris, Dawkins, Dennett, Hitchens, et al, have addressed this quite well. The conflict arises from religious intolerance, extremism and the sense that there can be only one way that’s right. It’s something that is built into most theistic doctrines if you’re of the mindset to seek it. The more extremist societies (or sub-cultures) find it; the more tolerant ones can live and let live. I hold the view that religious hegemony must be resisted by whatever means possible.

Being a member of the more tolerant type of society, I don’t approach it with the sense that ‘others need to change’ or ‘what’s wrong with them’. I don’t have a problem that other doctrines exist or that people choose to believe them (or cherry pick from them is more like it). As long as they leave me alone to do my thing. Which, I’ll grant you, can be a problem sometimes when it comes to the evangelical-type god believers. Fortunately, I don’t live in an environment where that’s an issue. Anyway, different strokes for different folks; aren’t we drawn to paths according to our particular psychologies? For me, Buddhism has one feature that distinguishes it from the rest: there’s no belief in a creator or any eternal being or entity. No god, goddess, God, Brahmin, Sun King, Pantheon, Higher Power, none of it. It’s fundamentally about learning how to dispel the illusion of an independent, inherent self and to see things as they are, dependently originated. The reason for doing that is that it allows one to handle the suffering side of life and feel more contentment, less anguish from living in a world that’s filled with it. Nothing magical or mystical, although some Buddhist sects skirt the boundaries there, IMO. But I don’t think they need to change. Because if I buy into them needing to follow other than what they see as the best path, then I’d have to acknowledge their right to expect me to.

:smiley: Very good Dan!

I do hope that the other contributors to this discussion forgive me for passing over their statements choosing instead to focus my attention on the original question posed by Mr. Smears.

It would be worthwhile to make a few observations at the outset about the scope of Mr. Smears’ question, in particular, his usage of the term religion. I can only assume that Smears is using the term in the colloquial sense, denoting the common lines of thought referred to as “religions.” In light of the stated question however, it seems feasible to extend the meaning of this question to all lines of thought, and truth in general.

Why does one person believe something over and above another, and does any one person have a claim on “truth?”

I will answer Smears’ question as a Christian should, realizing that this will fly against the heretofore established grain in this thread.

Only the Christian worldview provides the necessary preconditions of intelligibility. The BEST proof for the existence of the Christian God, is that without him, you cannot prove anything.

Bertrand Russell in his book “Problems of philosophy (1rst ed.) says this:

“Is there any knowledge in the world which is so certain that no reasonable man can doubt it? This question, which at first sight might not seem difficult, is really one of the most difficult that can be asked. When we have realized the obstacles in the way of a straightforward and confident answer we shall be well launched on the study of philosophy, for philosophy is merely the attempt to answer such ultimate questions. And what is the most ultimate question in philosophy? Is there any knowledge in the world which is so certain that no reasonable man can doubt it? “

Trying to answer this question, has lead to different theories of knowledge, each of which is adopted by some form of “religion” or other.

Moritz Schlick, one of the founders of the Vienna Circle, (the analytic movement) wrote the following in an articled titled “Foundation of Knowledge”:

“All important attempts at establishing a theory of knowledge grow out of the problem concerning the certainty of human knowledge. And this problem in turn originates in the wish for absolute certainty. The insight that the statements of daily life in science can at best be only probable has again and again stimulated philosophers since ancient times to search for an unshakeable, indubitable foundation, a firm basis on which the uncertain structure of our knowledge could rest.”

What I’m claiming here Mr. Smears, is that Christianity provides the only epistemic certainty possible. There can be no certainty regarding anything without the presuppositions of the Christian. Men like Russell and Schlick are still looking for epistemic certainty, but they cannot find it, because they refuse to appeal to the sovereign, triune, transcendent God of the Bible.

All man made religions and philosophies ultimately try answering the question of uncertainty in similar ways. So, if we look at and critique the various epistemologies of competing religions, and find them lacking, then we can show by default that the only one left standing, (Christianity) is true. It certainly is an indirect proof.

How does an epistemology come up lacking? All non Christian theories of knowledge are either completely arbitrary, or they contradict themselves in some way, thereby invalidating themselves as a valid foundation.

No matter if you’re one of the various brands of Atheist, or Buddhist, or Muslim, Hindu, or a worshiper of the Flying Spaghetti Monster, all draw from the same pool of epistemic worldviews. The Christian need only learn how these theories of knowledge invalidate themselves to attain confidence in approaching ANY non-Christian.

This is by no means meant to be exact, but I could classify such worldviews into at least four different categories. I’ll call them, Relativism, Foundationalism, Pragmatism, and Transcendentalism.

So, to conclude:

Smears, I have answered your question by making the claim that ONLY the Christian worldview can provide epistemic certainty, while all other religions, philosophies, or worldviews (which can be classed in a broad sense under the four titles I supplied above) do not.

I can make the additional claim, that the only way people function in this life at all, is because they utilize presuppositions provided by the Christian worldview. They “borrow” from our worldview.

As Christians, we prove this, by showing how every contending worldview, (which fall under one of the above four) are either arbitrary or inconsistent. (For sake of brevity, I will not provide an internal critique of each listed theory of knowledge.)

I realize that I have made claims that I have not supported here, but at the very least, I have provided you with a method by which a Christian should utilize in order to answer your question!

I look forward to any further discussion of this issue! I love discussing my faith!

Yea, it was a taoeringly high logic. :sunglasses:

I would love to hear how you think that is possible…

How do you determine which presuppositions belong to which world view? How do you know that it is not the christian who is “borrowing” his presuppositions?

How do you prove that something is arbitrary? what presuppositions do you bring when you do this? The ones belonging to the world view being tested or your own?

Mr. Mad Man,

These are actually some really GREAT questions, and I’m glad you’ve given me the chance to expound upon my argument in this way!

In response to my quote, “the Christian worldview can provide epistemic certainty.” you say this:

I would love to hear how you think that is possible…

I hope that the profundity of what the Christian worldview is offering is now apparent to you, (if it wasn’t before!) I am absolutely saying that Christianity provides epistemic certainty!

Remember, when discussing epistemology, statements such as, “how do you THINK it’s possible” should be replaced with, “how do you KNOW it’s possible.”

Without first presupposing the Christian worldview, then it is impossible to construct a worldview which can provide for the rational preconditions of human intelligibility. In other words, if Christianity were NOT true, then you wouldn’t be able to KNOW it wasn’t true, nor could you know ANYTHING.

It’s similar to asking, "How do you KNOW that the law of non contradiction is true?’ Because… if it weren’t true… then you contradict yourself, since if you accept inconsistency, you really DON’T accept it. You cannot reject the law of non contradiction!

(Please keep in mind here, that I’m only using the law of non contradiction as an example of method. I’m not saying that the nature of God is ontologically similar to that of the law of non contradiction. )

You go on to ask this:

How do you determine which presuppositions belong to which world view? How do you know that it is not the Christian who is “borrowing” his presuppositions?

For one, I am a Christian, and I know what my worldview is. It is necessary at this point to confront the non-believer in conversation, to discover what exactly his or her presuppositions are. As I said above, they will all end up falling into a general class of views.

If the unbeliever can provide a precondition that I as a Christian presuppose in my worldview which I cannot ACCOUNT for in my worldview, but instead, must borrow from HIS worldview to stay consistent, then this entire argument would fall apart. This is impossible though, since, I’m sure we all agree that the Christian God is real ( :laughing: )

How do you prove that something is arbitrary? what presuppositions do you bring when you do this? The ones belonging to the world view being tested or your own?

Proverbs 26, verses 4 and 5 lay out the answer to this question nicely.

"Do not answer a fool according to his folly, or you will be like him yourself. Answer a fool according to his folly, or he will be wise in his own eyes."

Now, far from being a “contradiction” as some anti-Christians would have you believe, this is actually very sound logic.

It is really important to assume, for the sake of argument, that the non believers position is true, in order to do an internal critique of it and show him how it leads to absurdity! So as the writer says, we must, “answer the fool according to his folly.”

This comes into play when we are showing someone the arbitrariness of their own position. According to his or her own worldview, they would have no good reason to hold to a certain position.

I will state a real common example, but, I must ask that you see it as an example, and not a fully argued position. It will merely act as an example, and I will not here try to defend this.

Take for example an Atheist who says “It’s wrong to Kill.”

I would say, ok, why?

To which, the more learned Atheist may appeal to some form of Utilitarianism, or a social contract theory of some sorts. They may even do as George H. Smith does in “Atheism the Case Against God,” and try to arbitrarily choose some standard that they could objectively apply to all things in order to create a moral theory.

The more honest Atheist, would just go ahead and tell you, “I don’t know why it’s wrong, I just think it is.”

The point is, no matter what they say, their moral position on “killing” will be arbitrarily decided by the individual. This leads to contradictions with their own worldview, and from there it can be easily demonstrated how that person does not live consistently with that stated position.

I hope I’ve helped you understand my position a little better, and I look forward to further discussions!

shotgun,

This is almost a waste of time but…

You present knowing as some sort of absolute, which is common among religious ‘thinkers’. You might be surprised to find that there are a few of us who believe that all “knowing” is both provisional and conditional. In short, you’re apriori assumption of absolute knowing is denied.

Smears,

As you can see from the above, this is the answer to your original question. What most religions would change in other religions is… EVERYTHING. True believers of whatever stripe have two suppositions in place: First, that absolute certainty is not only possible, but that their particular color expresses in fine detail that certainty. Either you’re in, or you’re out. Saved, or damned. Second, true believers live in a closed system. There is nothing outside their particular box. They “know” about everything from birth to death and beyond, and anyone who would dispute or question the contents of their little box are automatically assigned condemnation as ‘fools’ (thank you, Mr. shotgun) or infidels in need of quick release to hell.

The current level of religion-based violence is being called extremism, but it isn’t. It is simply taking religion to it’s logical end point. So if you find yourself in the need of religion, pick your poison… :unamused:

Mr. Tentative,

It is hardly becoming of a good philosopher to consider any such discourse as a waste of time, and for one such as yourself to imply that such is the case, leads me to believe that you have not put as much effort or thought into this as would be required to render the discussion worthwhile to you.

I would normally not respond to such a post as yours. Not because I would consider such a response a waste of time, but rather, due to the truth of my Christian worldview indicating your own fallen nature and inability to respond positively to the truth of Christ.

(See John 6:44. In addition, if you would like further scriptural support for the total depravity of man, please email me, and I’ll be happy to discuss the relevant scriptures with you!)

I do feel a response to you is warranted however, so that the thoughts I have articulated in my above posts can be further clarified.

You say this:

You present knowing as some sort of absolute, which is common among religious ‘thinkers’.

As was the case with Mr. Smears, I can here only assume that you must be referring to “religious” in the colloquial sense, and are excluding yourself from this class. However, if you are excluding yourself from this class, then you by necessity must be including yourself in the class of those who do not present knowing as some sort of absolute.

If you are a member of those who do not present knowing as some sort of absolute, then you cannot present the truth of the quoted statement as applying in any real objective way to anyone else, since by your own implicit position, you couldn’t know if it were true or or not.

You’ve adopted a self refuting position, as can be even more readily understood from your next statement:

You might be surprised to find that there are a few of us who believe that all “knowing” is both provisional and conditional.

Do you KNOW that knowing is both provisional and conditional, or is this statement provisional and conditional as well? The question could also be asked under what provisional circumstance is knowledge subject to, since you wouldn’t be able to know the provision without the knowledge to know it by! Under what conditions is your above quote not knowledgeable or applicable to the truth?

Those leaning more toward pragmatism or relativism, and are inclined to accept contradictions such as the ones Mr. Tentative points out, must realize that by accepting inconsistency, they really are NOT accepting inconsistency. If one wishes to be inconsistent, then he must also be inconsistent in his inconsistency!

In short, you’re apriori assumption of absolute knowing is denied.
Yes sir, I am used to arbitrary denials of my position.

True believers of whatever stripe have two suppositions in place: First, that absolute certainty is not only possible, but that their particular color expresses in fine detail that certainty.

As stated above, I can only assume that Mr. Tentative rejects this position for himself, and as such would be denying that his statement could have any objective meaning at all. It seems that Mr. Tentative is certain of this truth, and he also appears to be expressing in fine detail his certainty of this position. Ironic aint it?

Second, true believers live in a closed system. There is nothing outside their particular box.

As I’ve indicated in my above response to Mr. Smears, Christianities “box” is the only “box” which provides epistemic certainty, and all other “boxes” must at some point reach into the Christians “box” and borrow philosophical capital in order to be consistent.

They “know” about everything from birth to death and beyond, and anyone who would dispute or question the contents of their little box are automatically assigned condemnation as ‘fools’ (thank you, Mr. shotgun) or infidels in need of quick release to hell.

Mr. Tentative, this really is unbecoming of someone inclined to civil discourse. I’m sure you’re educated enough in Christian theology to realize how you have mischaracterized the Christian position here in such an ungenerous way.

I’ll let the other misrepresentations slip by for now, and instead focus on one of your more blatant examples which is the most relevant to our current discussion.

The Christian does not “know about everything,” as you indicated. However, it is possible in the Christian worldview to know SOME things.

An example of arbitrariness would be claiming that truth is provisional and conditional. If such were actually true, then how could you indeed KNOW it were true? (Actually it is a self refuting position that cannot be true without the acceptance of contradiction.)

No sir, the Christian does not know all things, but since our worldview is true, then it IS possible to know some things, something that no other worldview can claim with any consistency.

So if you find yourself in the need of religion, pick your poison…

Christ says that only those whom he draws to himself shall know him. Any other position you arbitrarily decide upon will be logically inconsistent and arbitrary.

Thanks for your post, and I look forward to any further discussion!
Love in the Lamb,

shotgun,

I would like to say I’m amused by such a statement, but I’ve heard it so many times it is just boring. Without the slightest hesitation, you judge and condemn my “fallen nature” Really? By your words? The bible which is just one of a number of religious tomes that declare their preemmanence? All other religions, all other points of view, are wrong because they fail to fit your vision of truth, right? Pffft.

While I find much wisdom in the bible and a number of other religious works, there is nothing that suggests that the bible has any particular lock on truth. There are many other sources of thought that leave mankind in an ‘undepraved’ state of being.

Another favored game, but fallacious. One may be consistent within the limits of experiential knowing. What is not known outweighs what is known by a large margin. But not knowing is just not knowing and that is a consistent world view. The fact that it doesn’t include certainty is your problem, not mine.

More game playing. Yes, one can say within the limits of knowing, that it is certain that there is nothing but uncertainty. But you won’t accept that because it implies an ambiguous open-ended system of thought instead of the closed system certainty you adhere to.

And the same claim could be made of christianity ‘borrowing’ from other world views. There are a few points of view that precede christianity, some reaching back several thousand years before christianity. Whom borrowed from whom?

And you know this by what other means than quotes from your bible? You say that christians do not know everything, but you certainly know so much that you can by fiat declare every other world view wrong.

An unsupported opinion, but let it go.

Smears,

I apologize for derailing your thread. Hopefully, you can see what religion, and not just christianity, but what all religions bring to the table. Again, my apologies.

shotgun

Allow me to begin by apologizing for the agressiveness… though I share some of the views and opinons posted I dont believe the lack of respect shown is warented given your verbal conduct thus far.

You’re welcome :slight_smile:

I know… I’m curious as to how.

Fair enough…

What is/are the rational precondition(s) for intelligibility, that only Christianity provides?

The laws of logic are held as self-evident… There is no mothod (as for as I know) for arriving at self-evident truths, your above example serves to prove that. The method you describe in your example of proving the law of non-contradiction is by assuming the law of non-contradiction… this is circular and not logically valid. The law is either held axiomatically or not at all.

If this is an example of “method” then I can only take it to mean that you wish to say that the christian worldview is self-evident… is that the case?

:laughing: I like you… you’re funny

but on a more serious note this leaves me further confused… would not the precondition follow logically from the presupposition? preconditions are deductions and deduction means you reduce the premis… you do not need to add to it… for example if i were to presuppose that dogs exist a nessisary pre-condition to that would be “life exist”… but isn’t that included in my original presupposition? How then could you possibly have a presupposition that did not include it’s own preconditions?

  1. If A then B
  2. A
  3. so B

considering now that the presupposition(A) has a precondition(B), therefor an ACCOUNT of B is no more than arriving at the first premis “if A then B”… If i can arrive at the first premis and PRE-suppose the second premis… then B is accounted for in my worldview by the truth of A. Unless you mean something very different when you use the word “account”.

could have fooled me… :stuck_out_tongue:

This I understand.

I understand the method you propose… and I agree with it’s validity.

Though I seriously doubt many atheist would claim that killing was wrong in an objective/universal sense.

Thank you for taking the time to explain your position and for dealing with my questions.

Just seek the truth and love of God, and you’ll do fine.

Mr. Mad Man,

I appreciate your apology on behalf of Mr. Tentative, although as you can imagine, I as a Christian apologist am quite used to such reactions. It is often fashionable to deny out of a pretense of humility the universal correctness of a particular outlook, all the while implicitly affirming the truth of that very outlook, (as can be seen in Tentative’s writings so far.)

I do hope that the stated views you have claimed to share are not the ones articulated by Mr. Tentative that are so obviously contradictory, such as:

Yes, one can say within the limits of knowing, that it is certain that there is nothing but uncertainty.

I also hope that Mr. Tentative will forgive me for dismissing his post in favor of responding to your (Mr. Mad Mans) more interesting response, which (unlike Tentative’s post) actually addresses my argument, and attempts to critique it based on seemingly logical foundations. Such objections are what interest me most, and I again must reiterate my appreciation to you for providing me with the opportunity to further clarify and discuss my own position.

I feel it necessary to start my response to you with a quote from a secular epistemologist. He’s the author of the recently released book on Bullsh***, and professor emeritus of philosophy at Princeton University, Mr. Harry Gordon Frankfurt.

“The claim that a basis for doubt is inconceivable is justified whenever a denial of the claim would violate the conditions or presuppositions of rational inquiry.”

You see, in order to show that a given claim is justified, we must show how any denial of that claim would lead to absurdity! Such is the case with the law of non-contradiction. It is not circularly fallacious as you claim, but rather as Fankfurt says, a denial of the law of non contradiction, would violate the conditions of rational inquiry.

While the law of non contradiction certainly must be axiomatically true, its assumption is not fallacious, since any denial of its truth leads to absurdity.

This is applicable to my argument in the claim that any denial of the Christian worldview leads to a violation of the preconditions of rational inquiry. Just as a denial of the law of contradiction leads to absurdity, so the denial of the Christian worldview leads to absurdity. Before I further support this, it will be beneficial to point out some mistakes in your reconstruction of a presuppositional argument.

Another term for a precondition, could be a “transcendental.” In clarifying my usage of a transcendental argument for the existence of God, I will stick to your given example of the dog, (because I like dogs!)

A transcendental argument will adhere to the following form, (I realize that you listed this, but in the interest of clarification, I feel the need to re-state it analytically in a more proper way.)

For X to be the case, Y MUST be the case. (Y would then be a precondition of X)
X is the case, therefore Y is the case!

The precondition is Y. In your example, you name the dog to be the presupposition, but this is wrong. The dog is the given, (the X). The presupposition here would be however you decide to account for Y. Maybe you presuppose the Flying Spaghetti Monster, or maybe Allah, or Tom Cruise?

So, Dogs (X) are the case, therefore life (Y) MUST be the case.

The question now is, what worldview provides for, (accounts for) Y without arbitrarily asserting Y, or contradicting itself by asserting Y.

Only by presupposing the Christian worldview can you consistently account for the preconditions of intelligibility. There are many worldviews which would just arbitrarily accept these preconditions, but the question is can you ACCOUNT for them? This fact allows me to have fun by infuriating Atheists with comments like, “You have more blind faith than any Christian ever has had!”

The dog example is great for pointing out the method of a transcendental argument, but when looking at life experience, and utilizing this argument for God, we must ask ourselves, what are the preconditions of our everyday experiences? We experience such things like the laws of logic, ethical principals, and the utilization of science to try and further understand our surroundings.

These things are the X. So I ask, what are the preconditions of logic, science, ethics, etc? What worldview can account for these preconditions?

The answer is to be found, covered in dust, on the nightstand of most Christian households. The ONLY word able to acheive such a task. The revelation of our Creator.

I look forward to further debate!

Madman,

You speak of a lack of respect and of course, I have to ask, who’s lack of “respect”? That of a person who declares by fiat that they and their fellow christians have the only possible truth? Or the reaction of someone (like myself) that would dare challenge such a statement? Dismissal of all world views but that of christianity is, to many, disrespectful in the fullest sense of the word.

shotgun,

And you certainly should be used to such reactions. Your condescending I’m right and everyone else is wrong approach is guaranteed to create such a reaction. But like you, I’m used to such condescending attitudes from true believers who think that they are the only ones who have the way, the truth, and the light.

Just so we don’t have a misunderstanding, you have no “universal correctness of a particular outlook” except in your own mind. And if you really think that what I have written is an “implicit affirming of that very outlook,” read it again. To make it as clear as I possibly can, I deny the the assumptions of your version of what is christianity.

Oh, and if you’d like to make comments about anything I post, make them directly to me. If you’d like to talk around me, do it in PM.

I think you are forgetting that reality can (and often has been) conceived as a hermeneutic process whereby a symbolic understanding can be reached (what you would call intelligibility) without it necessarily being grounded, as it is in the Christian case.

To me, it seems like you are arguing that there is something inherent in a red octagon that says “stop”.

It is worth noting within this that I am not denying reality (aside from a few radical skeptics and certain strains of Buddhism, I don’t think anyone is doing that), but rather pointing out that how we interact with and understand reality is purely semiotic.

Hi Mad Man and Tentative,

this is satire, shotgun isn’t real - he must be someone we know who is having a lot of fun with his Mr. Jeeves impression …

Shalom