Criteria For Establishing Truth, or Adequate Justification for Believability
(from notebook, July 7 2006)
I'm seeking evidence that supports a belief in god and religion. Like most people, I feel strongly that my own position on the subject-an agnostic one-is plainly correct. I'm so nearly convinced of this that I don't doubt I could close the door on the subjects of God and Faith today and feel content living as I choose to live until the day I die. I feel strongly that the non-religous life is clearly superior to that of a believer. Furthermore, I tend to think that a life of faith is so unreasonable, I'd dare call it outrageous or absurd.
Others, noting that I possess such an attitude, might ask, "Josh, what evidence is required to convince you that there is a god who created this world and currently occupies himself in our affairs?"
I hold that the best evidence is that which is plainly apparant to my senses. And the more senses experiencing the direct evidence of the existence of god, the better.
Beyond this, the best evidence is scientific-be it empirical data or sound logical arguments.
The next best evidence barely qualifies as "evidence". It is a judgement of reasonableness, which includes the use of common sense. For example, why would a person believe in the north pole when he/she has never actually been there and experienced it first hand? How can mere claims convince us that the north pole really exists?
In this example, mere claims are not all that support the proposition that a north pole exists. We have photos, stories, and scientific studies that all attest to the poles existence. By now, the pole is spoken of as if its presence were a plain and simple fact. You find no one arguing for a belief in the North Pole. No one is claiming while lacking direct evidence of its existence. And it is somewhat reasonable to observe that no agenda is furthered by claiming that a North Pole exists.
Yet, speaking of something as though it were plainly true does not make it so. What then is the difference between a lie that sounds like a plain statement of truth and a plain statement that is indeed a fact? No doubt believers throughout their lives have participated in meetings in which God and Jesus are spoken of as though their existence is the simplest and clearest of facts. While this plain speech does not make something true, its effects are both powerful and subtle, producing conviction that's an enormous barrier to reason.
In order to extract the core difference between that which is unworthy of belief and that which is qualified to be believed (truth), lets create an analogy.
You have heart disease; and if nothing is done about it, you will die within the month. An aquaintance refers you to someone who claims to have found a cure for ailing hearts. You meet this person at his office to discuss the subject. This person states that he is a biologist who, for years, has studied a unique species of jelly fish that live only in remote tributaries of the Amazon River. According to this "expert", these jelly fish produce a toxin which will completely heal a diseased heart. Allegedly, the toxin breaks down and assists in the rebuilding of heart tissue. This cure can be had only after you make a trip to Brazil to meet the Jelly Fish handler and fork over $400,000 in cash; which, incidentally, amounts to the value of your home, two cars, as well as your retirement and children's college funds.
The other option available to you is a heart transplant; which, according to your doctor, is a very risky procedure, and one that only promises a few more quality living years if successful. Your doctor claims that only one donor heart could be found and that a trip to the Phillippines would be required immediately in order to obtain it and undergo the operation. After the operation, you would be forced to remain in intensive care in the Phillippines for nearly a month.
You simply cannot take both trips. Your time is limited. Being a redneck from the deep woods of northern Alabama, you have never heard of heart tranplants and you've never known anyone personally who has had one performed. Who can you believe? Your doctor or the jelly fish expert?
What are the criteria for truth? What justifies belief? Can a test be constructed? We'll see....
I'm seeking evidence that supports a belief in god and religion. Like most people, I feel strongly that my own position on the subject-an agnostic one-is plainly correct. I'm so nearly convinced of this that I don't doubt I could close the door on the subjects of God and Faith today and feel content living as I choose to live until the day I die. I feel strongly that the non-religous life is clearly superior to that of a believer. Furthermore, I tend to think that a life of faith is so unreasonable, I'd dare call it outrageous or absurd.
Others, noting that I possess such an attitude, might ask, "Josh, what evidence is required to convince you that there is a god who created this world and currently occupies himself in our affairs?"
I hold that the best evidence is that which is plainly apparant to my senses. And the more senses experiencing the direct evidence of the existence of god, the better.
Beyond this, the best evidence is scientific-be it empirical data or sound logical arguments.
The next best evidence barely qualifies as "evidence". It is a judgement of reasonableness, which includes the use of common sense. For example, why would a person believe in the north pole when he/she has never actually been there and experienced it first hand? How can mere claims convince us that the north pole really exists?
In this example, mere claims are not all that support the proposition that a north pole exists. We have photos, stories, and scientific studies that all attest to the poles existence. By now, the pole is spoken of as if its presence were a plain and simple fact. You find no one arguing for a belief in the North Pole. No one is claiming while lacking direct evidence of its existence. And it is somewhat reasonable to observe that no agenda is furthered by claiming that a North Pole exists.
Yet, speaking of something as though it were plainly true does not make it so. What then is the difference between a lie that sounds like a plain statement of truth and a plain statement that is indeed a fact? No doubt believers throughout their lives have participated in meetings in which God and Jesus are spoken of as though their existence is the simplest and clearest of facts. While this plain speech does not make something true, its effects are both powerful and subtle, producing conviction that's an enormous barrier to reason.
In order to extract the core difference between that which is unworthy of belief and that which is qualified to be believed (truth), lets create an analogy.
You have heart disease; and if nothing is done about it, you will die within the month. An aquaintance refers you to someone who claims to have found a cure for ailing hearts. You meet this person at his office to discuss the subject. This person states that he is a biologist who, for years, has studied a unique species of jelly fish that live only in remote tributaries of the Amazon River. According to this "expert", these jelly fish produce a toxin which will completely heal a diseased heart. Allegedly, the toxin breaks down and assists in the rebuilding of heart tissue. This cure can be had only after you make a trip to Brazil to meet the Jelly Fish handler and fork over $400,000 in cash; which, incidentally, amounts to the value of your home, two cars, as well as your retirement and children's college funds.
The other option available to you is a heart transplant; which, according to your doctor, is a very risky procedure, and one that only promises a few more quality living years if successful. Your doctor claims that only one donor heart could be found and that a trip to the Phillippines would be required immediately in order to obtain it and undergo the operation. After the operation, you would be forced to remain in intensive care in the Phillippines for nearly a month.
You simply cannot take both trips. Your time is limited. Being a redneck from the deep woods of northern Alabama, you have never heard of heart tranplants and you've never known anyone personally who has had one performed. Who can you believe? Your doctor or the jelly fish expert?
What are the criteria for truth? What justifies belief? Can a test be constructed? We'll see....
posted by Josh at
2:46 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home