Not All Claims Are Equal
The fruit I cultivated from a day off, approximately a week ago, is this:
I dissected A Claim of Truth, generally speaking. I got a little silly with this project. Its a bit dry, a bit academic, and overly analytical for sure. But if understood, I think it could be a useful tool for explaining how I decide what to believe in, what I think is probable, and what I decide to act on...because they're not always the same.
So, Claims of Truth can be better qualified and understood by exploring all of their inherent traits. I fleshed out 6 of these traits. They are:
1) Specific Response
2) Response Immediacy
3) Response Dependence
4) The Stakes
5) Response Extent
6) Consequences of Action vs. Consequences of Inaction
I'm sure one could come up with more ways to dissect a claim, but I'll set that possibility aside for now and deal with this list as I've created it.
First, as a guide, take a few examples of Truth Claims.
a) That is Sirrus the Dog Star, one of the brightest in the sky.
b) There is a bear behind you about to bite your head off.
c) God exists and reveals himself to man through the Bible, written by divine revelation.
If you care to, I'll let you think about this, and see how each of the claims will have different traits.
But to see how claims should not be treated equally, we can see that some have implicit responses while others do not. After someone points out the Dog Star overhead, I don't think they expect much from you, only perhaps an "oh, that's neat" or "pretty!". If one declares that a bear is about to bite your head off, the implied response is undoubtedly to get the hell out of the way. If a preacher claims that God exists and the Bible is His revelation to man, then the implicit response might be to devote one's life to God and his church as is commanded in the Bible.
So determining if there is an implicit response to a claim and spelling it out if it exists is 1) Specific Response. How quickly one must respond to the truth is 2) Response Immediacy. The degree to which the Truth Claim depends upon the truth of other claims in order to illicit a response is called 3) Response Dependency. Ask yourself if the claim "God exists" demands a specific response by itself, or if it is depends upon which denomination of the God is being referred to (Buddhist, Jewish, Islam, Mormon, New Age, etc) 4) The Stakes qualifies the consequences of succeeding or failing in your response to the claim. Because the stakes connected to religious claims (eternal glory or eternal torment) are so dire, millions have been compelled to believe absent much more justification. The size of a response in total time, space, and energy is the 5) Response Extent. The Response Extent of religious claims are so immense (a lifetime of devotion and more) that I approach the claim much more differently than I would any other kind. Finally, given that one accepts a claim as true, and given that one identifies the consequences of failing or succeeding at the implicit response, one must still weigh the costs of action vs. inaction. This is 6) Consequences of Action vs. Consequences of Inaction. Say a person develops a slow growing but terminal cancer very late in life. Without radiation, the person is sure to die within 2 years. So, the stakes are pretty big-it is the person's life. But that's not the end of the story. The person may weigh the stakes against the consequences of taking chemo; namely, constant sickness and enough time spent in a sterile, souless hospital for who knows how long, and still the treatment's success is not guaranteed. That might not be the way a senior citizen would like to live out his last days. As we can see, even if a truth claim is indeed true, the implied response might be refused after weighing all factors. --Yeah, this last one's a little convoluted, but, eh...
Ok. Hopefully I'll take the time to give names to types of claims based upon their makeup of these six traits. And I'd like to describe religious claims in greater detail so that when all of their traits are seen, it will be easier to appreciate agnostic & athiest positions on the subject. But you don't need me to put those claims to the test. Now you should have some analytical tools to help get started on your own.
I dissected A Claim of Truth, generally speaking. I got a little silly with this project. Its a bit dry, a bit academic, and overly analytical for sure. But if understood, I think it could be a useful tool for explaining how I decide what to believe in, what I think is probable, and what I decide to act on...because they're not always the same.
So, Claims of Truth can be better qualified and understood by exploring all of their inherent traits. I fleshed out 6 of these traits. They are:
1) Specific Response
2) Response Immediacy
3) Response Dependence
4) The Stakes
5) Response Extent
6) Consequences of Action vs. Consequences of Inaction
I'm sure one could come up with more ways to dissect a claim, but I'll set that possibility aside for now and deal with this list as I've created it.
First, as a guide, take a few examples of Truth Claims.
a) That is Sirrus the Dog Star, one of the brightest in the sky.
b) There is a bear behind you about to bite your head off.
c) God exists and reveals himself to man through the Bible, written by divine revelation.
If you care to, I'll let you think about this, and see how each of the claims will have different traits.
But to see how claims should not be treated equally, we can see that some have implicit responses while others do not. After someone points out the Dog Star overhead, I don't think they expect much from you, only perhaps an "oh, that's neat" or "pretty!". If one declares that a bear is about to bite your head off, the implied response is undoubtedly to get the hell out of the way. If a preacher claims that God exists and the Bible is His revelation to man, then the implicit response might be to devote one's life to God and his church as is commanded in the Bible.
So determining if there is an implicit response to a claim and spelling it out if it exists is 1) Specific Response. How quickly one must respond to the truth is 2) Response Immediacy. The degree to which the Truth Claim depends upon the truth of other claims in order to illicit a response is called 3) Response Dependency. Ask yourself if the claim "God exists" demands a specific response by itself, or if it is depends upon which denomination of the God is being referred to (Buddhist, Jewish, Islam, Mormon, New Age, etc) 4) The Stakes qualifies the consequences of succeeding or failing in your response to the claim. Because the stakes connected to religious claims (eternal glory or eternal torment) are so dire, millions have been compelled to believe absent much more justification. The size of a response in total time, space, and energy is the 5) Response Extent. The Response Extent of religious claims are so immense (a lifetime of devotion and more) that I approach the claim much more differently than I would any other kind. Finally, given that one accepts a claim as true, and given that one identifies the consequences of failing or succeeding at the implicit response, one must still weigh the costs of action vs. inaction. This is 6) Consequences of Action vs. Consequences of Inaction. Say a person develops a slow growing but terminal cancer very late in life. Without radiation, the person is sure to die within 2 years. So, the stakes are pretty big-it is the person's life. But that's not the end of the story. The person may weigh the stakes against the consequences of taking chemo; namely, constant sickness and enough time spent in a sterile, souless hospital for who knows how long, and still the treatment's success is not guaranteed. That might not be the way a senior citizen would like to live out his last days. As we can see, even if a truth claim is indeed true, the implied response might be refused after weighing all factors. --Yeah, this last one's a little convoluted, but, eh...
Ok. Hopefully I'll take the time to give names to types of claims based upon their makeup of these six traits. And I'd like to describe religious claims in greater detail so that when all of their traits are seen, it will be easier to appreciate agnostic & athiest positions on the subject. But you don't need me to put those claims to the test. Now you should have some analytical tools to help get started on your own.
posted by Josh at
9:43 PM
2 Comments
