The truth is true whether or not you believe it.
For example, whether or not you believe that gravity exists is irrelevant when you decide to jump out of an airplane. If you "feel" like gravity doesn't exist... it is not going to change the truth in that moment. You are going to hit the ground either way.
So I'd say, it's pretty important to figure out what truth is, wouldn't you?
4 comments:
There's a huge difference between falsifiable concepts (like gravity) and unfalsifiable concepts like gods. For a statement to be questioned using observation, it needs to be at least theoretically possible that it can come in conflict with observation. (Otherwise, observation has no bearing on the statement being questioned.) In short, it's fallacious to describe the supernatural, or that which is not subject to the laws of nature, in the context of the empirical, or that which is.
This is not even to get into the premises behind your statement "So I'd say, it's pretty important to figure out what truth is, wouldn't you?"
Let's assume for a moment, but only for a moment, that there is "truth" and still further that one can figure out "the truth". What does this process look like? All is interpreted through the lens of an individual human's fallible perception, to the point where the judge and the advocate are the same, to borrow a turn of phrase from Alan Watts. If you do not already have this truth, how would you even begin to possibly be able to discern it? And if you already have it, why do you need to figure it out?
Suggesting both that there is truth and that we need to figure it out is a confusing mess of a proposition where the conclusion contradicts the premise. Truth does not need figuring out, nor, if it is truly "truth", would your perception have any impact upon it.
I have not studied as much philosophy as you have, so it has taken me a while to research and respond to your comment.
It seems you are correct in saying that the existence of God is an unfalsifiable concept, meaning that the existence of God cannot be contradicted by an outcome of a physical experiment (like gravity can).
However, you seem to also be implying that the empirical cannot point toward the supernatural. In the analogy I was making, the truth of gravity is true whether or not you believe it, because it is in accord with the fact that you will fall if you jump out of a building, correct?
This is the same for God. If the existence of God, as defined in the Bible, is true (in accord with fact and reality) and His claims are true... the consequences of believing or not believing in Him will occur whether or not you believe them.
Just because God is unfalsifiable doesn't mean my analogy breaks down in the point I was trying to make, I don't think. But even if it does, and I am missing something, you seem to summarize the point I was trying to make in your last sentence, "nor if it was truly "truth," would your perception have any impact on it." Right. If the truth is really true, your perception would have no impact on it. That's the main point I was trying to get to in this post.
I'll come back to your second objection once I've had more time to think about it.
"This is the same for God. If the existence of God, as defined in the Bible, is true (in accord with fact and reality) and His claims are true... the consequences of believing or not believing in Him will occur whether or not you believe them."
Sure... but I really don't think you want to say this. In doing so you're pretty much acknowledging that you wouldn't be able to tell one way or another. *IF* God is real and the claims are true, then it would have consequences, yes. But how would you demonstrate that truth? The burden of proof rests with those who make a claim...
Similarly, in saying the above, you must acknowledge that the very same can be said of a belief in any manner of deity or other unfalsifiable being. Why is YOUR god real and why does that have consequences, while all the others aren't and don't?
I'll elaborate. You hint that empirical evidence *can* point toward the supernatural. How? If something is empirical then it can only point to something empirical. Supernatural interpretations of the empirical are unfalsifiable and all possible unfalsifiable claims are equally valid. You make room for one god, you make room for all possible fantastic explanations... aliens, pink unicorns, Zeus, Yahweh, or whatever explanation you care to make up. There is no more proof for your God than any other supernatural entity.
You might disagree, of course. And there are a few lines of argument people have taken to say that there's proof of God. The most common one is that God is real because The Bible says so. But if you take that approach you've pretty much relegated yourself to the absurd realm of circular reasoning: God is real because the Bible, The Bible is true because God, etc.
And what other bases are there for believing in God? Wishful thinking? Pascal's wager? Arguments from ignorance? Unfortunately if you take those lines of argument, it's even worse. Once again, logic leads inevitably to an admission of the arbitrary and subjective nature of a belief in anything supernatural.
I've always been amused when sun-worshippers are made fun of in popular culture as primitive and backward. At least the sun exists. No one has ever been able to show me empirical evidence of god. The Bible is a story, it doesn't count any more than the creation myths of any other culture. And if God is in the gaps then he's been shrinking quite a bit lately...
----
If all this comes down to who gets to go to heaven and who goes to hell, then what's the point anyway? If I am to be condemned to hell for all of this, so be it. But being versed in logic and science and refusing to have faith in a deity based on a story that is only as relevant to me as any other fable does not seem worth eternal punishment. And any god who would damn me for using my brain is not a god worthy of my belief.
"If the existence of God, as defined in the Bible, is true (in accord with fact and reality) and His claims are true... the consequences of believing or not believing in Him will occur whether or not you believe them."
That's exactly what I wanted to say, actually. And in saying such, I am acknowledging that there is a truth one way or another. And yes, I would agree with you that this could be stated in regards to any manner of claimed deity.
As far as the Bible goes, I believe that the truth claims of the Bible are more historically, scientifically, and philosophically in line with reality than any other claimed deity. I also believe that they more give a more realistic and comprehensive worldview than any other that I've heard.
Though you suggest that the burden of proof lies with those who make a claim, I would submit to you that we are all "making claims" everyday, and the burden of proof lies on each of us as we match reality with the truth claims made. Therefore, it is not my responsibility to prove God to you. It is your responsibility, and mine, to seek truth.
I have found truth in the Bible. Scripture lines up with reality. And yes, there is some faith included as well. But it would take more faith for me to believe that there is no god, that morality formed itself through evolution, that our values evolved, and many other questions that we don't have answers to outside of the comprehensive worldview that Christianity provides.
An intro article on this can be found here:
http://www.everystudent.com/features/isthere.html
Post a Comment