Freethought & Rationalism Archive

theophilus · 06-03-2003, 03:46 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Mageth
How WOULD you know it was revelation?

I thought I asked you that.

And just how do you KNOW that?

I keep asking you that question, and you keep responding with the same question...it's you who claimed to "know that revelation is the prerequisiite for all knowledge." How do you know that?

My question was rhetorical. Since the nature of revelation is super-natural, how would one know that it was revelation. Surely you don't suggest that there are empirical tests for what is, by its very nature, supra-sensory (one does not "see" revelation - one may see an event that has revelatory content, but the content is non-empirial).

I "know" it is revelation because it is self-attesting (how could it be otherwise?).

Well, that's puerile, but not meaningful. The context is, of course, revelation.

You say revelation, I say myth. A book written by men that includes man-invented (not revealed) myths. You show me the source of your revelation, how you know it's a revelation as you claim, and I'll show you the countless other world mythologies that make similar claims to revelation and contain similar metaphorical motifs (god-creation, virgin birth, man-god deity, death, resurrection, etc.) that I'm sure you would also agree are myths. [/B]

The existence of multiple claimants to revelation does not mean they are all false. The test is whether they make sense of, are consistent with and give meaning, purpose and direction to, human experience.
The Bible validates our perceptions, unlike eastern texts, and provides an explanation for such immaterial qualities as logic, morality and scientific principles.
That is why it is the prerequisite for all knowledge. Human experience, as a function of materiality, is inexplicable.

theophilus · 06-03-2003, 03:55 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Mageth
If you want to respond to my posts, deal with the issues. Emoting is not argument - give me a break.

Sorry, dude, but if you can compare Darwin to Archie, I can compare God to Archie. If you can declare the Bible as revelation, I can declare it as fiction.

Well, here you're stuck with a dilema. In order to know it was fiction, you'd have to possess all the qualities of the God whose existence you deny. You'd have to have all knowledge of all time, space and eternity.
Besides, your claim is clearly false. Most of the scriptural narative has been "independently" confirmed. Historians were once convinced that the bible was false because it talked about the Hittite empire for which there was no historical evidence. Guess what - someone found the remains of a vast Hittite empire and the Bible wasn't so wrong after all.

And as for the question about animals defending their young, that is intended to make a point, and not just for emotive purposes. Our compassion for children is based on a natural, evolved trait which benefits the species. You don't need a magical explanation.

My question was intended to make a point.
You're begging the question. Why should we care about benefitting the species? Instincts for self-preservation would work counter to such self-sacrifice.

theophilus · 06-03-2003, 04:00 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Wyz_sub10
It's not about dismissing the medium. It's about the lack of corroboration. If evidence existed to justify the claim of a 6,000 year old earth, a mass exodus from Egypt, or a global flood, then I would be more receptive.

I may still not believe in a divine god, but at least I'd believe in the supporting events attributed to god.

(My Christian days were filled with me reading every pro-Christian historical book or archaeology book I could get my hands on).

As for as secular books go, just because a book is secular, doesn't mean I think it's realiable. As I said - not all books are of equal validity. The line is not drawn between "spritual" and "secular".

As I've explained elsewhere, revelation cannot be subject to the same test as sensory knowledge.

As to external corroberation, the evidence is overwhelming that the Bible is historically reliable. The fact that archeologists have not yet found evidence for specific events does not mean the Bible is incorrect, ala the Hittite kingdom.

Evidence must be interpreted, it does not explain itself. There is ample evidence for a universal flood, both geologically and anthropologically. The fact that you choose not to interpret it as such does not deny its existence.

Mageth · 06-03-2003, 04:01 PM

My question was rhetorical. Since the nature of revelation is super-natural, how would one know that it was revelation. Surely you don't suggest that there are empirical tests for what is, by its very nature, supra-sensory (one does not "see" revelation - one may see an event that has revelatory content, but the content is non-empirial).

I "know" it is revelation because it is self-attesting (how could it be otherwise?).

How do you know revelation is self-attesting? You're following that infinite regression of revelation, it seems...

The existence of multiple claimants to revelation does not mean they are all false. The test is whether they make sense of, are consistent with and give meaning, purpose and direction to, human experience.

The point is, I know man invents myths. The empirical evidence clearly indicates that large portions of the Bible are mythical - e.g. most if not all of Genesis. I do not know that there is any god to give us revelation. So the probability weighs heavily in favor of mythical sources for the Bible, just like all the other texts you consider myths.

The Bible validates our perceptions, unlike eastern texts, and provides an explanation for such immaterial qualities as logic, morality and scientific principles.

So do other religious texts, including Eastern religious texts. And apparently, to you, the bible validates your perceptions because your perception is validated by the bible. Circular nonsense.

That is why it is the prerequisite for all knowledge. Human experience, as a function of materiality, is inexplicable.

Hardly. And we've done better, made more progress, in the last couple of hundred years without resorting to myths to try to explain human experience, although such myths may have some use as metaphors for aspects of human experience.

theophilus · 06-03-2003, 04:16 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Wyz_sub10
No. Our sense of morality can be explained through evolution, social and societal development. I do not need any concept of god to be repulsed by that action. I can feel for the family, I can imagine what my reaction would be if it were my daughter or son, etc.

Your repulsion is not morality. Morality is about right and wrong, good and bad, ideas which cannot be explained materialisitcally. I am repulsed by seeing a cow butchered, that does not make it worng. What you posit is mere instinct or personal preference. You cannot fault someone who doesn't share your views, i.e., you can't criticize someone else who isn't bothered by killing a child.

I don't even want to get into god's alleged concern for such matters. But can tell you my concern comes from very identifiable factors, and nothing need be attributed to his image.

Well, your begging the question. You still haven't accounted for our moral sense on a materialistic basis.

I just did, but I'll elaborate.

There are a few things - evolution selects those who are more caring and participatory in society.

This is false. Evolution is not a force; it is a process; it does nothing.

People who revel in murder and hate cannot form a sustainable society, which is the basis of man's development.

Begging the question. Why should anyone care about forming sustainable society or "man's development (which, by the way, is an immaterial concept)?

Our brains are coded to find such actions detestable.

You're arguing in a circle. Detestable is a morally loaded term. You haven't shown how morality exists as a function of matter.

At a conscious level, as noted, I can feel concern because, perhaps, I can understand the loss on a personal level. I can detest rape because I can relate the sickening possiblity of it happening to my wife, or sisters. I can condemn murder because I can fear for my life or the lives of those around me.

Again, that is not morality. It is not wrong to kill because you might not like it or it might make you fear for your own life. That is completely self-serving.

There is nothing in the bible that sustains a concern for acts of violence.

Nothing? How about, Thou Shalt Not Kill?

There is so much god-endorsed violence in the bible, it's not funny.

No, it's not funny, but you've yet to explain why that should concern you unless there is an objective, immaterial standard by which our actions are to be judged.

winstonjen · 06-03-2003, 04:18 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by theophilus
Nothing? How about, Thou Shalt Not Kill?

Which is shown by the bible itself to be a hypocritical example of 'do as I say, not as I do.'

theophilus · 06-03-2003, 04:33 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Mageth
My question was rhetorical. Since the nature of revelation is super-natural, how would one know that it was revelation. Surely you don't suggest that there are empirical tests for what is, by its very nature, supra-sensory (one does not "see" revelation - one may see an event that has revelatory content, but the content is non-empirial).

I "know" it is revelation because it is self-attesting (how could it be otherwise?).

How do you know revelation is self-attesting? You're following that infinite regression of revelation, it seems...

Well, this goes to the whole question of HOW we know anything, i.e., epistemology, and whether any knowledge is possible. All attempts at a non-theistic basis (empiricism and rationalism) have failed. So, what do you posit as your basis for knowledge; the standard by which you would judge revelation? And just how do you KNOW that it is true?

The existence of multiple claimants to revelation does not mean they are all false. The test is whether they make sense of, are consistent with and give meaning, purpose and direction to, human experience.

The point is, I know man invents myths. The empirical evidence clearly indicates that large portions of the Bible are mythical - e.g. most if not all of Genesis.[/b]

This is simply false.

I do not know that there is any god to give us revelation. So the probability weighs heavily in favor of mythical sources for the Bible, just like all the other texts you consider myths.

Well, that's exactly the point. You don't know, apart from revelation, that there is a God. Your statements about probability are meaningless. There is no probability for or against revelaiton.

The Bible validates our perceptions, unlike eastern texts, and provides an explanation for such immaterial qualities as logic, morality and scientific principles.

So do other religious texts, including Eastern religious texts.[/b]

This is simply false. Eastern religions posit the unreliabilty of sense perceptions (the world is an illusion), the purpose of life is to escape experience, they deny the foundation for math and science, "all is one," all distinctions are an illusion.

And apparently, to you, the bible validates your perceptions because your perception is validated by the bible. Circular nonsense.

No, it is a transcendental statement; a precondition for making meaningful statements about human experience.

That is why it is the prerequisite for all knowledge. Human experience, as a function of materiality, is inexplicable.

Hardly. And we've done better, made more progress, in the last couple of hundred years without resorting to myths to try to explain human experience, although such myths may have some use as metaphors for aspects of human experience. [/B]

Well, you really didn't respond. How is human experience involving immaterial components like logic, morality and science explianed on a materialistic basis.
Besides, your statement is clearly dubious. "Better" is a relative term with a moral conotation. Better by what standard and why better?
Clearly, the twentieth century with his trail of atheist/humanist inspired blood and carnage does not support your argument.

Mageth · 06-03-2003, 04:40 PM

Nothing? How about, Thou Shalt Not Kill?

That's Exodus 20:13, right?

Look in the following chapter for some sterling examples of Biblical "objective" morality:

21:2 If thou buy an Hebrew servant, six years he shall serve: and in the seventh he shall go out free for nothing.
21:3 If he came in by himself, he shall go out by himself: if he were married, then his wife shall go out with him.
21:4 If his master have given him a wife, and she have born him sons or daughters; the wife and her children shall be her master's, and he shall go out by himself.

21:7 And if a man sell his daughter to be a maidservant, she shall not go out as the menservants do.

21:14 And he that smiteth his father, or his mother, shall be surely put to death.

21:17 And he that curseth his father, or his mother, shall surely be put to death.

[so much for the objective "thou shalt not kill"]

21:20 And if a man smite his servant, or his maid, with a rod, and he die under his hand; he shall be surely punished.
21:21 Notwithstanding, if he continue a day or two, he shall not be punished: for he [is] his money.

Normal · 06-03-2003, 04:58 PM

theophilus:

Your logic does not account for the fact that morality existed before the Bible, which means the Bible is not a nessicary basis for morality.

mnkbdky · 06-03-2003, 05:10 PM

Just FYI,

Theophilus: The Bible validates our perceptions, unlike eastern texts, and provides an explanation for such immaterial qualities as logic, morality and scientific principles.

Mageth: So do other religious texts, including Eastern religious texts.[/b]

Theophilus: This is simply false. Eastern religions posit the unreliability of sense perceptions (the world is an illusion), the purpose of life is to escape experience, they deny the foundation for math and science, "all is one," all distinctions are an illusion.

Theophilus--friend/lover of God, you are mistaken. It is a mistake to make such broad generalization about Eastern religions in the first place.

Firstly, Judaism, Xianity and Islam are all "Eastern" religions.

Secondly, some Buddhist sects and some Hindu philosophies teach that one should trust there senses. Not all "Eastern" religions teach that life is illusory, only some. Hinduism and Buddhism are very broad categories.

For instance Sankara's advaita Vedanta teaches that "all is one" or the doctrine of non-duality. Duality was illusional.

However, Ramanuja taught that the world was real. Ramanuja did teach that all was God; however, what constituted God was matter and selves. His theory is known as modified non-dualism.

Then there was Madhva. Madhva was a dualist. He believed the world and selves were real, separate from God and have existed eternally alongside with God. However, the world and the selves rely on God for their existence. Life for him is not illusory. It is real and our purpose is to love God and be saved from our sin.

Generalizations are always bad! I have had to learn that the hard way.

Thanks,

--mnkbkdy

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

06-03-2003, 04:01 PM	#144
Mageth Contributor Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: Deep in the heart of mother-lovin' Texas Posts: 29,689	My question was rhetorical. Since the nature of revelation is super-natural, how would one know that it was revelation. Surely you don't suggest that there are empirical tests for what is, by its very nature, supra-sensory (one does not "see" revelation - one may see an event that has revelatory content, but the content is non-empirial). I "know" it is revelation because it is self-attesting (how could it be otherwise?). How do you know revelation is self-attesting? You're following that infinite regression of revelation, it seems... The existence of multiple claimants to revelation does not mean they are all false. The test is whether they make sense of, are consistent with and give meaning, purpose and direction to, human experience. The point is, I know man invents myths. The empirical evidence clearly indicates that large portions of the Bible are mythical - e.g. most if not all of Genesis. I do not know that there is any god to give us revelation. So the probability weighs heavily in favor of mythical sources for the Bible, just like all the other texts you consider myths. The Bible validates our perceptions, unlike eastern texts, and provides an explanation for such immaterial qualities as logic, morality and scientific principles. So do other religious texts, including Eastern religious texts. And apparently, to you, the bible validates your perceptions because your perception is validated by the bible. Circular nonsense. That is why it is the prerequisite for all knowledge. Human experience, as a function of materiality, is inexplicable. Hardly. And we've done better, made more progress, in the last couple of hundred years without resorting to myths to try to explain human experience, although such myths may have some use as metaphors for aspects of human experience.

06-03-2003, 04:40 PM	#148
Mageth Contributor Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: Deep in the heart of mother-lovin' Texas Posts: 29,689	Nothing? How about, Thou Shalt Not Kill? That's Exodus 20:13, right? Look in the following chapter for some sterling examples of Biblical "objective" morality: 21:2 If thou buy an Hebrew servant, six years he shall serve: and in the seventh he shall go out free for nothing. 21:3 If he came in by himself, he shall go out by himself: if he were married, then his wife shall go out with him. 21:4 If his master have given him a wife, and she have born him sons or daughters; the wife and her children shall be her master's, and he shall go out by himself. 21:7 And if a man sell his daughter to be a maidservant, she shall not go out as the menservants do. 21:14 And he that smiteth his father, or his mother, shall be surely put to death. 21:17 And he that curseth his father, or his mother, shall surely be put to death. [so much for the objective "thou shalt not kill"] 21:20 And if a man smite his servant, or his maid, with a rod, and he die under his hand; he shall be surely punished. 21:21 Notwithstanding, if he continue a day or two, he shall not be punished: for he [is] his money.

06-03-2003, 04:58 PM	#149
Normal Senior Member Join Date: May 2003 Location: Canada Posts: 639	theophilus: Your logic does not account for the fact that morality existed before the Bible, which means the Bible is not a nessicary basis for morality.

06-03-2003, 05:10 PM	#150
mnkbdky Regular Member Join Date: Apr 2003 Location: Chicago Posts: 201	Just FYI, Theophilus: The Bible validates our perceptions, unlike eastern texts, and provides an explanation for such immaterial qualities as logic, morality and scientific principles. Mageth: So do other religious texts, including Eastern religious texts.[/b] Theophilus: This is simply false. Eastern religions posit the unreliability of sense perceptions (the world is an illusion), the purpose of life is to escape experience, they deny the foundation for math and science, "all is one," all distinctions are an illusion. Theophilus--friend/lover of God, you are mistaken. It is a mistake to make such broad generalization about Eastern religions in the first place. Firstly, Judaism, Xianity and Islam are all "Eastern" religions. Secondly, some Buddhist sects and some Hindu philosophies teach that one should trust there senses. Not all "Eastern" religions teach that life is illusory, only some. Hinduism and Buddhism are very broad categories. For instance Sankara's advaita Vedanta teaches that "all is one" or the doctrine of non-duality. Duality was illusional. However, Ramanuja taught that the world was real. Ramanuja did teach that all was God; however, what constituted God was matter and selves. His theory is known as modified non-dualism. Then there was Madhva. Madhva was a dualist. He believed the world and selves were real, separate from God and have existed eternally alongside with God. However, the world and the selves rely on God for their existence. Life for him is not illusory. It is real and our purpose is to love God and be saved from our sin. Generalizations are always bad! I have had to learn that the hard way. Thanks, --mnkbkdy

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.