Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
Welcome to The New Coffee Room. We hope you enjoy your visit.


You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.


Join our community!


If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
  • Pages:
  • 1
  • 3
knowledge and mutual exclusion
Topic Started: Apr 10 2007, 12:37 AM (1,208 Views)
Dewey
Member Avatar
HOLY CARP!!!
Quote:
 
From your answers it's a pretty short logical jump to see that my original post is a valid description of how you feel about followers of other religions who's traditions contradict Christianity. They simply do not and could not possibly believe as strongly as you do. They think they believe as strongly as possible (to the extent of 100% knowledge) but they are necessarily wrong. Only you and others who believe in the traditions of your religion are capable of having such knowledge.

So you acknowledge that some humans are capable of being wrong about something they have 100% knowledge of, but you also believe that you are not such a human. You "know truth when you see it" and they only think they do.



Close, but an important clarification. I disagree with this comment:

Quote:
 
They simply do not and could not possibly believe as strongly as you do.


I disagree strongly with this. I don't think that a person who believes something very different than I do, "couldn't possible believe as strongly as I do." Not at all. In fact, I suspect that many people of different opinion believe just as strongly in their beliefs as I do in mine.

This doesn't bother me, or cause "intellectual dissonance" in me, in the slightest, since the truth of any belief - mine, or anyone else's - is something that is completely independent of whether I do, or not, believe it. Truth is not determined by popular vote.

As to the rest of your comments, I do have no problem whatsoever with holding that certain things that I believe are right, and that people who believe otherwise are wrong. Everyone does this, every day, in matters great and small. Despite many areas of possible commonality or overlap, there are always going to be some things where some people are going to believe "A" and others are going to believe "A' ". That's just a part of human life on the planet. Where some might see that as a problem, I see it merely as a reality.

Quote:
 
Only you and others who believe in the traditions of your religion are capable of having such knowledge.


To me, it isn't a matter of having knowledge, it's a matter of receiving "grace" - that is, the entirely unearned gift of new life given by God. God offers this grace to people of all origins and backgrounds, irrespective of what religious tradition they may have originally found themselves in.

If a person believes that there is an ultimate truth authored by God - let's call this truth "X" - then by definition, it rules out "Y" and "Z" as being that ultimate truth. The issue itself demands, at some point, a requirement of exclusivity. "X" simply is "X," and is not "Not X." This isn't something that can be escaped.

Quote:
 
So you acknowledge that some humans are capable of being wrong about something they have 100% knowledge of, but you also believe that you are not such a human. You "know truth when you see it" and they only think they do.


I've never believed otherwise. Neither, for that matter, does any other person ever born on the planet. A former instructor of mine used to say, "Everyone chooses his own heresy to believe." I think that's very true, and reframing the thought in a way somewhat more applicable here, I'd say that Everyone is a member of his own custom religion, membership 1, custom tailored to whatever he believes is the ultimate, undisputed truth - that which he "knows" - and, in such membership, he disagrees with everyone else. Any group - religious, social, political, or otherwise - is not a gathering of like-minded people as much as it is a group of people who have determined that they are willing to put up with the level of wrong things believed by the others in the group.

That there are people with absolute knowledge that they're right about some issue, and that people who disagree with them are not right, isn't a problem. The problem is in deciding how to get along with each other, that reality being the case.
"By nature, i prefer brevity." - John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, p. 685.

"Never waste your time trying to explain yourself to people who are committed to misunderstanding you." - Anonymous

"Oh sure, every once in a while a turd floated by, but other than that it was just fine." - Joe A., 2011

I'll answer your other comments later, but my primary priority for the rest of the evening is to get drunk." - Klaus, 12/31/14
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Horace
Member Avatar
HOLY CARP!!!
Dewey
Apr 14 2007, 03:26 AM
Close, but an important clarification. I disagree with this comment:

Quote:
 
They simply do not and could not possibly believe as strongly as you do.


I disagree strongly with this. I don't think that a person who believes something very different than I do, "couldn't possible believe as strongly as I do." Not at all. In fact, I suspect that many people of different opinion believe just as strongly in their beliefs as I do in mine.


But they couldn't believe as strongly as you do because built into your belief is the 100% irrefutable knowledge that they're wrong. You can't both legitimately feel that. At least one of you doesn't actually have 100% irrefutable knowledge - you only think you do. What you claim to be able to do is distinguish between those two states - thinking you have 100% knowledge of truth and actually having it - and you claim that the other person cannot. How can that not be considered a difference in degree of belief?

If your ability to be certain of the truth is because you've been touched by the truth then clearly your belief is greater than theirs because they haven't been touched by that same truth - only, at best, a slightly flawed version of it which has led them (if every so slightly) astray. You believe in your religion's traditions more strongly than Jews believe in theirs or than Muslims believe in theirs. That's a logical necessity.

And it's not humble.

Quote:
 
Quote:
 
So you acknowledge that some humans are capable of being wrong about something they have 100% knowledge of, but you also believe that you are not such a human. You "know truth when you see it" and they only think they do.


I've never believed otherwise. Neither, for that matter, does any other person ever born on the planet. A former instructor of mine used to say, "Everyone chooses his own heresy to believe."


There's a big difference between have an educated "best guess" about one's beliefs and "knowing with 100% certainty" about beliefs that hundreds of millions of other people believe aren't true (with 100% certainty). Realizing that it is clearly very much a part of the human condition to have a "feeling" of 100% certainty about something that isn't true, should cause us to reconsider when we achieve that mental state, don't you think?

And I really doubt Jesus would mind, if he is real.

Maybe it's a test.
As a good person, I implore you to do as I, a good person, do. Be good. Do NOT be bad. If you see bad, end bad. End it in yourself, and end it in others. By any means necessary, the good must conquer the bad. Good people know this. Do you know this? Are you good?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
TomK
HOLY CARP!!!
Horace
Apr 14 2007, 05:32 PM
Maybe it's a test.

It's not a test.

Jesus died for us all. Not only the ones that "know better."

That is real heresy. To believe in a "true Jesus" is Gnostic. To "know better" is Gnostic. Marcion and the Manichaens and the Cathars are still infesting the Church to this day.

We see them everywhere.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Horace
Member Avatar
HOLY CARP!!!
TomK
Apr 14 2007, 01:43 PM
Horace
Apr 14 2007, 05:32 PM
Maybe it's a test.

It's not a test.

Jesus died for us all. Not only the ones that "know better."

That is real heresy. To believe in a "true Jesus" is Gnostic. To "know better" is Gnostic. Marcion and the Manichaens and the Cathars are still infesting the Church.

We see them every day.

seems to me that faith is much more difficult to live by than knowledge. If we all saw a bearded man in the sky watching our every move, and behind him all our dead relatives basking in eternal joy, and that bearded man told us what we needed to do to someday join them, I think we'd all follow that pretty closely. At least the sane amongst us.

But to not know that, but rather to have mortal, fallible faith, and to still sacrifice and fashion one's life after it, that's seems a lot more difficult.

And maybe if everybody's faith was tempered by some recognition that it's necessarily the product of their mortal fallible minds, it might go a long way towards keeping people from acting on that faith in insane destructive evil ways.
As a good person, I implore you to do as I, a good person, do. Be good. Do NOT be bad. If you see bad, end bad. End it in yourself, and end it in others. By any means necessary, the good must conquer the bad. Good people know this. Do you know this? Are you good?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Dewey
Member Avatar
HOLY CARP!!!
Quote:
 
But they couldn't believe as strongly as you do because built into your belief is the 100% irrefutable knowledge that they're wrong. You can't both legitimately feel that.


They most certainly can believe as strongly as I do, and I'm sure that many of them do. Read your original comment, with which I disagreed, again:

Quote:
 
They simply do not and could not possibly believe as strongly as you do.


Nowhere in that quote, nor inherently a requirement of belief that strong, is knowledge, of the 100% strain or otherwise.

Quote:
 
How can that not be considered a difference in degree of belief?


It's very possibly not a difference in degree of belief at all, while it is quite possibly a difference in accuracy of belief.

Quote:
 
If your ability to be certain of the truth is because you've been touched by the truth then clearly your belief is greater than theirs because they haven't been touched by that same truth ...


Actually, I would suggest that if this were the case, then, as I said above, the accuracy of my belief would be greater. As we all know, the accuracy of a belief may have nothing whatsoever to do with the intensity with which it is held.

Quote:
 
You believe in your religion's traditions more strongly than Jews believe in theirs or than Muslims believe in theirs. That's a logical necessity.


Not only is that not a logical necessity, it's also not particularly true in many cases.

Quote:
 
And it's not humble.


Not everything in life is, or need be, humble.

In this instance, however, I think it's more accurate to say that it's a misapplication of the concept of humility. We're talking about belief regarding a matter of truth. To say that I believe "A" is an accurate understanding of a truth, despite the fact that someone else believes "A' " is the truth is an example of a lack of "humility" is no more proper use of the concept of humility than to say that I lack humility by believing that two plus two equals four, and not twenty-seven.

Quote:
 
Realizing that it is clearly very much a part of the human condition to be wrong about something you have 100% certainty of, should cause us to reconsider when we achieve that mental state, don't you think?


That's exactly correct; that's why we should enter into such levels of belief rarely, in very limited fashion, and with great caution. However, if there actually is such a truth in the cosmos, it does, in fact, exist in the face of many who believe in ways contrary to that truth. So again, the fact of disagreement relative to the nature of the truth doesn't negate the possibility of the existence of the truth, or that one such belief is the truth and others aren't.

Quote:
 
Maybe it's a test.


I agree with you; I think it is a test - several inter-related tests, actually. (while I believe that similar tests could be illustrated from the viewpoint of various faiths, what follows is from a Christian viewpoint.) First, I believe its a test whether believers will follow Christ's teachings regarding the balance between spreading the gospel, loving one's neighbor, and not feeling responsible for the "conversion" of others to the faith. Second, I think it's a test to Christians to see the overlap and commonality of various faiths as a testimony to the existence of the one God. Third, I think it's a test to compare against the traditions and interpretations of the faith that have accumulated (some good, some not so good) over the years. I believe that Christians must adhere to a theology that makes sense to us today, in light of the knowledge and understanding that we have today, that humans did not have in times past. This is not calling for overturning the whole of the faith by any stretch, but it does recognize that a.) advancing knowledge continues to offer us new insights into how we interpret matters of faith; and b.) considering the religious thought from other faith traditions is a valid way to enhance understanding of one's own faith.

As an example of this, I have a friend who is a Chassidic Jewish rabbi. We were once discussing the matter of the differences between our (personal) faiths, and I told him that I was convinced that when the Messiah comes - whether for the first time or as a repeat gig - and when we "know as we are known," as the Scriptures say - that we will find that we have both gotten more of our understanding of God wrong than we actually got right. While I am assured that I'm right about Jesus, it may turn out that he's more right about some other aspect of the nature of God. But again, in terms of whether we're right or wrong about this or that issue, we'll find out that there is far, far more about God than we could ever have imagined or understood, so to compare what we actually got right in our understanding to what we got wrong will be like examing a single grain of sand in the middle of the Sahara.

Which is just another way of saying that no one - none of us - is getting out of this world, and into the next, alive by our own wits, intelligence, piety, or the correctness of our theology or actions. No matter what our thoughts about the nature of God, ultimately, our only hope is in the grace of God pulling our sorry rear ends into eternal life solely as a gift, and independent of our having "gotten it right."
"By nature, i prefer brevity." - John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, p. 685.

"Never waste your time trying to explain yourself to people who are committed to misunderstanding you." - Anonymous

"Oh sure, every once in a while a turd floated by, but other than that it was just fine." - Joe A., 2011

I'll answer your other comments later, but my primary priority for the rest of the evening is to get drunk." - Klaus, 12/31/14
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Horace
Member Avatar
HOLY CARP!!!
Quote:
 
Quote:
 
But they couldn't believe as strongly as you do because built into your belief is the 100% irrefutable knowledge that they're wrong. You can't both legitimately feel that.


They most certainly can believe as strongly as I do, and I'm sure that many of them do.


If their mental state is the same as yours regarding their "knowledge" then you have no basis to think that you have the ability to distinguish truth where they don't, and there doubt must creep in. You can't know something and at the same time know that someone else knows the opposite.

Quote:
 
As we all know, the accuracy of a belief may have nothing whatsoever to do with the intensity with which it is held.


Intense belief is fundamentally different from knowledge. Two people can't have knowledge of competing things - only flawed human belief which at least one of them is under the mistaken impression is knowledge.

Only in the case where one is given more information than the other can one "know" the other doesn't "know". And in that case, the one who knows, has stronger belief than the other. That's a necessity, and that's the scenario you've described. The truth has touched you. The truth hasn't touched others, necessarily, because if it had they'd know the same thing you know.

Quote:
 
In this instance, however, I think it's more accurate to say that it's a misapplication of the concept of humility. We're talking about belief regarding a matter of truth. To say that I believe "A" is an accurate understanding of a truth, despite the fact that someone else believes "A' " is the truth is an example of a lack of "humility" is no more proper use of the concept of humility than to say that I lack humility by believing that two plus two equals four, and not twenty-seven.


Do hundreds of millions of people think that two plus two equals 27? Humility is in reference to other people and it is perfectly applicable here - you know you have an ability that hundreds of millions of other people don't have - the ability to ascertain the truth of certain fundamental spiritual matters (such as the divinity of Jesus) with absolute certainty. That's not humble.
As a good person, I implore you to do as I, a good person, do. Be good. Do NOT be bad. If you see bad, end bad. End it in yourself, and end it in others. By any means necessary, the good must conquer the bad. Good people know this. Do you know this? Are you good?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Dewey
Member Avatar
HOLY CARP!!!
Quote:
 
You can't know something and at the same time know that someone else knows the opposite.


I don't. I know something, and I believe that others believe something else. I'm making a distinction between the two words, which you were using interchangeably earlier on.

Quote:
 
Intense belief is fundamentally different from knowledge. Two people can't have knowledge of competing things


That's correct. But that isn't what you said in the quote I referenced. In that quote, you were talking about belief, not knowledge.

Quote:
 
Only in the case where one is given more information than the other can one "know" the other doesn't "know". And in that case, the one who knows, has stronger belief than the other. That's a necessity ...


No it isn't, as I've said earlier; intensity of belief may be completely independent of the actual correctness of the belief; and you're discussing strength of belief, not accuracy of belief. Someone can be every bit as strong in their belief (even if they are mistaken) as someone else, even if only one of them believes something that is actually correct.

Quote:
 
Do hundreds of millions of people think that two plus two equals 27?


Whether they do or not isn't relevant to the point; which is that it is not an illustration of a lack of humility to believe that "A" is true, and that therefore, "A' " is not. You can fill in "A" and "A' " with whatever likely or unlikely contradictory statements you wish.

In another sense, though, maybe it is relevant, in this regard: truth, whether it is something that I believe, or what someone else believes, is completely independent of how many people believe it - or, for that matter, if no one believes it. It is entirely possible that something may be true, and only one person believes that it's true. I suppose we could both think of many times in history when this has occurred. In those instances, the truth of the thing this person knew was no less true because no one else believed it, and his belief, or even his knowledge, of its truth cannot be considered to be lacking in humility - or at the very least, if you feel that it's appropriate to apply the concept of humilty in this sense, it is certainly not a bad thing to lack humility in this circumstance.

I don't think it's an appropriate application of the term of humility. It isn't a lack of humility to know a truth. It isn't a lack of humility to believe one thing over another (in fact, I'd suggest this is merely the definition of discernment or decision-making). I believe that humility comes into the equation only after one has such a knowledge, or such a belief, and how one subsequently comports himself and his beliefs, in regard to those who hold other, mutually exclusive beliefs. Put another way, I don't think it is lacking in humility to say, "You're wrong about X;" I think it is lacking in humility to say, "I'm going to think less of you, or treat you less respectfully, because you're wrong about X."

Quote:
 
Humility is in reference to other people ...


Yes, that's what I just said. Humility isn't defined as having mutually exclusive beliefs, but in how you relate to others in light of those exclusive beliefs.

If a.) your definition of humility is correct, and

b.) if - I'm surmising here - you feel that humility is always more desireable than a lack of humility,

then holding any knowledge, or any belief, illustrates a lack of humility, and would best be avoided.

Quote:
 
That's not humble.


Again, see above. To that, I guess I'd only add that:

a.) I've never claimed to be universally humble; and that

b.) I don't even believe that to be a desirable goal.
"By nature, i prefer brevity." - John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, p. 685.

"Never waste your time trying to explain yourself to people who are committed to misunderstanding you." - Anonymous

"Oh sure, every once in a while a turd floated by, but other than that it was just fine." - Joe A., 2011

I'll answer your other comments later, but my primary priority for the rest of the evening is to get drunk." - Klaus, 12/31/14
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Horace
Member Avatar
HOLY CARP!!!
Quote:
 
Quote:
 
You can't know something and at the same time know that someone else knows the opposite.


I don't. I know something, and I believe that others believe something else. I'm making a distinction between the two words, which you were using interchangeably earlier on.


My point is, that you can't allow for even the possibility that others "know" a competing thing. That's the original point of my thread - nobody in the jewish faith or in Islam or any other religion with contradictory traditions has ever achieved knowledge of their faith such as you have.

I'm not claiming anything about this is inconsistent. I just think it bears acknowledging that it's built into your mindset that you've attained a level knowledge that followers of other religions with contradictory traditions could never possibly achieve. That's not built into the mindsets of those who admit to human fallibility in their beliefs. Certain knowledge is interesting that way.

People connect humility with faith very regularly. I don't think I'm wrong to consider how they may relate to one another in practical terms, especially considering that "humble" is not the first thing that pops to mind when one compares religious people to non religious people.

Certain knowledge doesn't seem really common amongst religious people. Does it mean that one has passed the test of faith, or only avoided taking it altogether? Did God intend for humans to be capable of certain knowledge of His existence? Would He allow for the possibility? Why?

Just some parting thoughts. Thanks for the discussion Dewey. :)
As a good person, I implore you to do as I, a good person, do. Be good. Do NOT be bad. If you see bad, end bad. End it in yourself, and end it in others. By any means necessary, the good must conquer the bad. Good people know this. Do you know this? Are you good?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Dewey
Member Avatar
HOLY CARP!!!
Well, I hope those aren't "parting thoughts." ^_^

Quote:
 
My point is, that you can't allow for even the possibility that others "know" a competing thing.


That's correct. I haven't said that two people can "know" two contradictory things. I've said that while both of them can *believe* with equal, unshakeable certainty, only one of them actually *knows* it (i.e., the one who believes what ultimately turns out to be true). They will both equally think that they "know," but in the end, only one will have, in fact, "known," and one will have simply "believed."

Quote:
 
I just think it bears acknowledging that it's built into your mindset that you've attained a level knowledge that followers of other religions with contradictory traditions could never possibly achieve.


Yes, I do hold that belief, as do other faith traditions that hold contradictory views. For that matter, it's the same way that anyone who holds one belief over another regards any contradictory viewpoint. This is one of those "by definition" givens of assessing, analyzing, and ultimately choosing one veiwpoint over another. It isn't a unique phenomenon of consideration of religious beliefs.

I don't consider the mutually exclusive aspects of my faith to be "arrogant" toward those of other faiths; nor do I consider it arrogant of them to think that my beliefs are wrong - even for them to say they *know* that my beliefs are wrong. In fact, I understand and expect them to feel that way. I just consider it a reality, part of the territory, a necessity of the journey, if you will. The journey requires assessment, and rejection, of many concepts and beliefs. While it would be nice and tidy if everyone ultimately reached the same conclusion in the journey, it isn't very realistic to expect it in a system that includes free will. I actually have much more appreciation for those who have considered the issues of faith, and reached different conclusions than I have (even mutually exclusive conclusions), than I do for someone who will not engage in the journey at all, thinking it isn't worth the effort; or who, in an attempt to avoid any sort of delineating, accepting, and rejecting, simply makes the intellectual equivalent of throwing up one's hands and saying "oh the hell with it!" and decrees all beliefs to be equally valid, or equally invalid.

Quote:
 
People connect humility with faith very regularly.


Humility in dealing with others, certainly. "Humility" defined as denial of the core beliefs of the faith, not so much. Jesus himself exhibited non-humility fairly regularly, and taught pretty clearly about which things one should, and should not, be "humble" about.

Quote:
 
Certain knowledge doesn't seem really common amongst religious people. Does it mean that one has passed the test of faith, or only avoided taking it altogether?


Certain knowledge, at least in my particular case, is actually extremely limited - much more so than you may be thinking in this thread. I can certainly tell you that the things of which I am certain regarding my faith are far less than what many other Christians might claim to be certain about. What I'm certain about - what I *know* - would just about half-fill a thimble - but it's a pretty important half-thimble. Based on that small amount of certainty, I can extrapolate secondary tenets of faith, which, in terms of certainty, will range from "very very certain" to "pretty certain" to "not certain at all, but I think it's probably like this" to "I have absolutely no idea" - and even ranging to "that's not even anything for me to worry about", which I actually hold to be the case with much of the issue of "who is saved and who isn't?" and related topics.

And what has filled that half-thimble is not any great measure of faith or piety on my part, but rather, a gift of revelation given to me in spite of myself. Faith is a gift, not an achievement, not a passing of any test. Faith is impossible without the "first act" of God.

That's why personally, I don't get too worked up over the debates about secondary things. For that matter, I don't even too often get worked up over debating the "first things," either. I figure if I spend the bulk of my time trying to live in the manner in which my God instructs me to - that are true to those "first things" - then even if I hold viewpoints that are mutually exclusive to others, I'll be too busy living that life to be able to argue about those differences. Hopefully, I'll live my life such the worst that those people who disagree with me can say is, "Oh, he's crazy, and it really ticks me off that he thinks my beliefs are all wrong - but still, what a caring and compassionate guy he is." If I live my life in a way that they'd say that, and they still hate me, well, I'll let others worry about that. ^_^
"By nature, i prefer brevity." - John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, p. 685.

"Never waste your time trying to explain yourself to people who are committed to misunderstanding you." - Anonymous

"Oh sure, every once in a while a turd floated by, but other than that it was just fine." - Joe A., 2011

I'll answer your other comments later, but my primary priority for the rest of the evening is to get drunk." - Klaus, 12/31/14
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Horace
Member Avatar
HOLY CARP!!!
Quote:
 
Well, I hope those aren't "parting thoughts." 


Maybe one more. :) (I hope this has been good for a little sermon material for you.) :)

Quote:
 
Quote:
 
My point is, that you can't allow for even the possibility that others "know" a competing thing.


That's correct. I haven't said that two people can "know" two contradictory things. I've said that while both of them can *believe* with equal, unshakeable certainty, only one of them actually *knows* it (i.e., the one who believes what ultimately turns out to be true). They will both equally think that they "know," but in the end, only one will have, in fact, "known," and one will have simply "believed."


Hm, there's an important distinction here. We can keep recursing through whether one "knows" that what they "know" is true or whether one knows that what they know about what they know is true etc but fundamentally when you make the claim to know with certainty, you claim that your mental state could never be achieved by anybody else in reference to a competing concept. You make a claim to infallibility with reference to that concept. That sort of thing is not so part and parcel of every person's psyche as you seem to be claiming.

Whether it's arrogant or not to believe that one is infallible in certain thoughts which contradict hundreds of millions of other people, is I suppose a matter of opinion. I understand that if Divine Truth touches you then it imparts a degree of infallibility to you. I hope you can appreciate how those of us who haven't been so touched and who see people with "infallible knowledge" of competing concepts, might find reason to find it all pretty hard to swallow.
As a good person, I implore you to do as I, a good person, do. Be good. Do NOT be bad. If you see bad, end bad. End it in yourself, and end it in others. By any means necessary, the good must conquer the bad. Good people know this. Do you know this? Are you good?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Dewey
Member Avatar
HOLY CARP!!!
Quote:
 
(I hope this has been good for a little sermon material for you.)


Oh, TNCR has provided illustrations or glimpses that have shown up in several sermons, and my CLP classmates have heard about us, and our converstations here, many times over the last two years. Even despite the face-to-face, this place is still an amazingly valuable forum of care, thought and idea-sharing. ^_^


Quote:
 
...but fundamentally when you make the claim to know with certainty, you claim that your mental state could never be achieved by anybody else in reference to a competing concept.


You might feel this way, but I don't. I not only grant that it's possible, but I claim that it actually happens all the time - that people can have the exact same level of certainty of belief in something which is not true, as someone who believes the true thing. I think that this is entirely possible within the human creature. In fact, I'll go even one step further: I believe it's possible for someone to be even *more* certain in their belief of something that ultimately will turn out to be false, than another person who may believe the truth, but who holds some degree of doubt or uncertainty about it.

Quote:
 
You make a claim to infallibility with reference to that concept.


Actually, in my beliefs I claim the existence of an Infallibility, not that I am infallible. I'm standing on a beach, and I've drawn up a sandpail full of water. I know that what I've drawn up in the pail is water, and that it's salty. Of that, I am certain. That, I know. But that doesn't mean that I infallibly know everything there is to know about the ocean.

Quote:
 
Whether it's arrogant or not to believe that one is infallible in certain thoughts which contradict hundreds of millions of other people, is I suppose a matter of opinion.


If numbers determine arrogance, the converse argument - that my belief is also *the same as* hundreds of millions of people would be the definition of not being arrogant. The numbers comparison is irrelevant when discussing truth, as it is when discussing fact. The truth, or the fact, is true, and remains true, regardless of how many, or even if any, believe that truth.

Quote:
 
I understand that if Divine Truth touches you then it imparts a degree of infallibility to you.


No, it doesn't do that at all. It actually does the exact opposite of this!

It teaches you that you are, in fact, so fallible that, in the largest and most significant sense, you'll never measure up on your own, you'll never get it "right enough" relying on your self.

It gives you faith, not infallibility - faith to stand with conviction - certainty - on the infallibility of the One that you can, at best, only know in part, but at least to the extent of that part, you can know intimately and personally; and that because of that, you can have that confidence in the other things that are beyond your complete understanding.

Quote:
 
I hope you can appreciate how those of us who haven't been so touched and who see people with "infallible knowledge" of competing concepts, might find reason to find it all pretty hard to swallow.


Well, a couple of thoughts here. Setting aside our semantic, and real, differences over the terminology you're using, I'll say this. I ceratinly understand the difficulty that you have when looking at the issue of two or more people each claiming that their understanding of a truth is the correct one, against the understandings of others which are at best, at least partially contradictory. If not hard to swallow, it's at least a great difficulty to consider. And I can definitely appreciate the feeling, since for a number of years, I shared the exact same sentiment myself.

But we still have to consider it, nonetheless. We really can't take a pass on the matter. Even taking a pass is itself, a decision regarding the issue.

I believe that all of us have a restlessness working within us, prompting us to wonder about these "big issues" of our existence. Regardless of whether that restlessness ultimately results in our belief in a specific faith, or another, or none - in fact, even the confused or disgusted "hard to swallow" attitude that can easily and understandably arise when considering the matter, is part of that same restlessness. I believe that the restlessness that we feel is God speaking within us, calling to us, seeking us, to find that truth. If there is a God of this universe - I obviously believe there is, but for the sake of this point, I'll say "if" - and this God wants us to do, or learn, somehing, it's only logical that at least some times, this learning or action, isn't going to be easy. Sometimes, it could be a very difficult lesson or thing, and something which might initially sound coutnerintuitive to us where we are at the beginning of the learning. I'm sure that we can both cite many examples in our lives where we were learning something new, and this was the case. Similarly, we can both probably cite times that we learned, or learned to do, things that we intially didn't want to learn, or even didn't like to learn - but which ultimately worked to our benefit, and we were better for having learned it.

That's at least partly the way I see the issue of having to sort out multiple claims of ultimate truth.

I can't rule out something as being ultimately true just because someone else believes it not to be true. The other person doesn't hold himself to that criterion, and frankly, I don't expect, or even want, him to. To do so would be much more an exercise in inapporopriate civility than it would be a search for the greatest truths of the universe.
"By nature, i prefer brevity." - John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, p. 685.

"Never waste your time trying to explain yourself to people who are committed to misunderstanding you." - Anonymous

"Oh sure, every once in a while a turd floated by, but other than that it was just fine." - Joe A., 2011

I'll answer your other comments later, but my primary priority for the rest of the evening is to get drunk." - Klaus, 12/31/14
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Horace
Member Avatar
HOLY CARP!!!

Quote:
 
Quote:
 
...but fundamentally when you make the claim to know with certainty, you claim that your mental state could never be achieved by anybody else in reference to a competing concept.


You might feel this way, but I don't. I not only grant that it's possible, but I claim that it actually happens all the time - that people can have the exact same level of certainty of belief in something which is not true, as someone who believes the true thing. I think that this is entirely possible within the human creature.


It's not that I feel that way, it's that it's a necessity for the term "know with certainty with no doubt whatsoever" to have its literal meaning. If someone flips a coin and holds it against the back of his hand and asks two people to call it, maybe both of those people will feel certainty with no doubt whatsoever, one certain of heads and one of tails. Just because one of them happens to be right doesn't mean he had certainty while the other didn't. Neither of them had what they thought they had _unless_ there was something qualitatively different in the belief of the one who was right - such as having ESP or a line to God and Ultimate Truth. But if they both acknowledged that the other was certain of their belief for reasons not different in quality or quantity, then they are both necessarily wrong about the doubtlessness of both their and the other's certainty.

It's a fine point and certainly not going to be convincing to anybody, I understand. If a logical contradiction takes more than a sentence or two to explain, it's not really useful for the purposes of rhetorical debate. But it is, if nothing else, interesting to me that you're unwilling to grant that your certainty is not necessarily any different qualitatively or quantitatively than any other follower of any other faith. That to me shows you do have the humility I was hoping you did. Doubt via the observation that you're human and other humans who are as certain as you, are capable of being wrong. That's not "doubt" to you but it is to me, and that's all I was looking for.
As a good person, I implore you to do as I, a good person, do. Be good. Do NOT be bad. If you see bad, end bad. End it in yourself, and end it in others. By any means necessary, the good must conquer the bad. Good people know this. Do you know this? Are you good?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Dewey
Member Avatar
HOLY CARP!!!
Quote:
 
It's not that I feel that way, it's that it's a necessity for the term "know with certainty with no doubt whatsoever" to have its literal meaning.


Know, it isn't. ^_^

Quote:
 
Just because one of them happens to be right doesn't mean he had certainty while the other didn't.


That's my point.

Quote:
 
Neither of them had what they thought they had _unless_ there was something qualitatively different in the belief of the one who was right


No. Whether either of them had what they thought they had, has nothing to do with the _nature_ of their belief whatsoever. The truth of which of them (or if either of them) is correct is true independent of the belief. Rather, it has everything to do with something being qualitatively different with the _accuracy_ (correctness, truthfulness) each one's particular belief. History repeatedly shows that there need not be any correlation between the accuracy of a belief, and the certainty of the believer (I'm using the term here in a far broader sense than simply religious).

Quote:
 
If a logical contradiction takes more than a sentence or two to explain, it's not really useful for the purposes of rhetorical debate.


If that's what we're engaged in, let's stop now. Rhetoric is concerned merely with coming up with an elegant and/or persuasive argument, ultimately for the only purpose of winning the argument in the opinion of some third party, and is not necessarily an actual pursuit of actual truth. I'm far more interested in truth itself; merely arguing for argument's sake, or out of a love for the form or effect of the argument itself, is a waste of time, in my opinion.

Quote:
 
But it is, if nothing else, interesting to me that you're unwilling to grant that your certainty is not necessarily any different qualitatively or quantitatively than any other follower of any other faith.


That sentence was so impenetrable that I could have written it. ^_^ I'm not sure I followed it correctly, so let me re-frame my position in the same terms used in your sentence.

I don't find anything qualitatively or quantitatively different about the nature/certainty of my belief, compared to the certainty of someone equally committed within another faith tradition.

But the story doesn't end there, and here's where I think we're going to veer apart.

Quote:
 
That to me shows you do have the humility I was hoping you did.


I feel bad; after all that, I'm afraid I probably don't have that humility you're hoping I have.

While I hold that someone of another (or no) faith tradition can be equally certain in his or her belief as I am in mine - and that potentially, there's nothing inherently different, qualitatively or quantitatively in that belief - I do hold that there may be a very significant difference in the _accuracy_ , or the ultimate truthfulness, of our beliefs.

I don't equate the "quality" of one's belief with its "truthfulness." I believe they're actually distinct things; belief is something that can be examined/considered completely independent of its truthfulness.

So, while I can believe that this belief, which we both may exhibit, can be equally certain - equal qualitatively and quantitatively - I can still say that there is a difference in one of them, in that one of them is ultimately "true," and one of them is "not true," at least to the extent of the mutual exclusivity of the beliefs espoused.

Don't get me wrong: I actually have great gobs of humility regarding many aspects of faith in God, and I actually respect, and feel that there is much that can be learned from faith traditions other than my own. It's part of my own faith tradition that all that is good, and truthful, emanates from the one true Author and Definer of "goodness" and "truthfulness," so there's nothing "bad" or "untruthful" about that particular thing, regardless of where it is found.

But, at the end of the day, I do have my specific "redline" beliefs (as do those of other faiths) of which I am certain, and which I will hold regardless of whether others agree with them, or like it, or feel it exclusive, or lacking in humility, for me to hold. We all have those redlines, religious or otherwise, where we must, and do, set aside what I feel would actually be misplaced humility.

But then again, I've never claimed to be completely humble in every aspect of my being, or my faith. I simply do not think that universal humility is appropriate. Neither does anyone else, despite whether they're willing to examine themselves and their beliefs, and admit it, or not.
"By nature, i prefer brevity." - John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, p. 685.

"Never waste your time trying to explain yourself to people who are committed to misunderstanding you." - Anonymous

"Oh sure, every once in a while a turd floated by, but other than that it was just fine." - Joe A., 2011

I'll answer your other comments later, but my primary priority for the rest of the evening is to get drunk." - Klaus, 12/31/14
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Horace
Member Avatar
HOLY CARP!!!
Thanks for the discussion Dewey. :) I'm incapable of communicating my thoughts and/or understanding yours. Sorry about that.
As a good person, I implore you to do as I, a good person, do. Be good. Do NOT be bad. If you see bad, end bad. End it in yourself, and end it in others. By any means necessary, the good must conquer the bad. Good people know this. Do you know this? Are you good?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Dewey
Member Avatar
HOLY CARP!!!
Nothing to be sorry about, Horace. ^_^
"By nature, i prefer brevity." - John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, p. 685.

"Never waste your time trying to explain yourself to people who are committed to misunderstanding you." - Anonymous

"Oh sure, every once in a while a turd floated by, but other than that it was just fine." - Joe A., 2011

I'll answer your other comments later, but my primary priority for the rest of the evening is to get drunk." - Klaus, 12/31/14
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
« Previous Topic · The New Coffee Room · Next Topic »
Add Reply
  • Pages:
  • 1
  • 3