I am trying to figure out what is the meaning of “objective” in this sentence. In what sense is an objective proposition given when I read in some novel that there are vampires and werewolves in the world? I mean even if we suppose you are adopting a premise that the Bible gives statements within it some objectivity, I still don’t even know what the word even means in that context.
I know what it means in the context of science. In that case it is given by these written procedures anyone can follow to get the same result no matter what their desires or belief may be. It means we can have a reasonable expectation that other people should accept the proposition.
How is your belief, that God either cannot or doesn’t want to create anything with enough substance and reality to stand on its own, how is that objective? I don’t believe the Bible even says that let alone that the Bible can give an objective status to a proposition like that.
On the contrary, it is demonstrable that testimony is not the source of any such thing. All it gives is the personal experiences and opinions of the people giving those testimonies. Such testimonies were given for the ability of radium to cure diseases and lengthen life. Testimonies are worthless when it comes to determining the facts.
objective - not influenced by personal feelings or opinions in considering and representing facts.
factual - concerned with what is actually the case rather than interpretations of or reactions to it.
The word φέρων is only used twice in the Bible and in the other case (John 19:39) is translated as “bringing” - Nicodemus brought a mixture of myrrh and aloes. So this looks much more like a trust in your interpretation and opinion of that text, in addition to your opinion that there is any more truth in this book than the ones about vampires and werewolves. Thus there is in fact nothing factual about this proposition. It is only your opinion that God cannot or doesn’t want to make anything with enough substance and reality to stand on its own – and a very strange opinion I think.
A reading of the text more consistent with the rest of the Bible and Christian belief in God as a competent creator of things which are real instead of just a dreamer (like the kid down the block) would be that Hebrews 1:3 just means that God guides and takes care of what He has made so that it accomplishes the purpose for which He made it and not that the universe is just a dream or that God cannot or would not make it properly in first place. Even when things are made properly, it doesn’t mean they require no maintenance (usually because of interactions with an environment), and considering the range of meaning in the Greek word φέρων, maintenance is a reasonable understanding of Hebrews 1:3.
I put trust in the Bible for the truth also but I know very well that there is nothing objective about this – it is entirely a matter of faith. There can be no reasonable expectation that other people will accept this as true just because it is in this book any more than they can expect me to accept something as true just because it is in the Quran or in Bhagavad Gita.
Don’t become a lawyer. Guess why perjury is a felony. (In addition to spin, news outlets do actually give testimony to facts , but you have to be a wise consumer.)
As a Christian, I believe that there is an adversary who is adept at counterfeits, and that there is good evidence that points to the God of the Bible.
That is why we are to be witnesses in word and deed.
The simple answer is that we can’t prove God exists. All we can do is come to conclusions based on the evidence around us. But even that is not enough as two people can have the same evidence but derive very different conclusions.
Sadly, too many Christians take their argument from a ‘God-of-the-gaps’ position. Whatever can’t be explained scientifically, must be evidence that God did something to ‘fill the gap’. This does more damage than good to the witness of Christ as faith becomes dependent on proof. At some point, science or something else comes along and fills the gap so their pillar of support to their faith is undermined.
I wouldn’t even try to prove that God exists. We can only talk from our experience and point people towards Christ’s love for us. I have known many people who have been happy to discuss/argue about the existence of God, etc. but who don’t want to talk about Jesus. He is the real challenge to each person’s ingrained belief that ‘I am the the centre of my world’. Regarding introducing Jesus to people who want proof, Lee Strobel wrote a very interesting book called ‘The Case for Christ’ - A Journalist’s Personal Investigation of the Evidence for Jesus’.
Yes. That’s why I said “…there is good evidence that points to the God of the Bible”, not proof. There is reason to believe that God does not want to have his existence proven scientifically – we have discussed that elsewhere.
That is a flaw in the ID movement, trying to prove the existence of a Designer who doesn’t want his existence to be proven. I believe in lowercase intelligent design, that evolution was designed and providentially guided, but not that that is demonstrable scientifically.
Science doesn’t have any proof either. All that science has is objective evidence. It provides a reasonable expectation that others agree. Religion does not. In religion we only have our personal experiences and our faith. It is about who we are – who we choose to be. The mistake that some make is in thinking this makes religion less important. But that is buying into a delusion that we can live our lives as objective observers only, which is obviously wrong. Life requires subjective participation.
Klax
(The only thing that matters is faith expressed in love.)
158
What Mitchell said. And what is the fact that I watch the BBC news got to do with a singular concept of truth not independent from individual subjectivity (bias caused by one’s perception, emotions, or imagination): the very opposite of objectivity?
Klax
(The only thing that matters is faith expressed in love.)
159
What part does choice have in enculturation? In conditioning of genetically determined behaviour capability?
Klax
(The only thing that matters is faith expressed in love.)
160
If God does not exist, then we would not, is a false premiss no matter that logically correct syllogisms can be adduced from it. The Logical validity of an argument is a function of its internal consistency, not the truth value of its premisses. The mere assertion of a premiss has no truth value.
Mitchel—there are books about werewolves and vampires?
Just kidding (mostly).
Testimony does have some value. When I was hit by a car, police/fire at the scene relied on the testimony of some of those around me. Of course, they had evidence – me plus a big dent in the side of the car. But they accepted the interpretation of those who had been there. That testimony was used to determine the nature of the event and why I was standing by a dented car with blood running down one arm.
So we have a mix of objective plus subjective data from which to put together a portrait of an event.
In the case of the biblical text we have an ancient society that was expecting – because of its own religious presuppositions – that a Jewish man would one day come who would be both Messiah and God. We also have a variety of sources – secular, religious, people whose worldview did not innately include a messianic arrival – who noted, in print, that a man about whom various claims were made, did in fact live, die a particularly gruesome death while his followers shrank away in fear, and then suddenly they changed their minds about him and were making certain assertions. We also know – from other sources – that the common picture of a Messiah was not one that included crucifixion…or resurrection (except in some general sense at the end of time.)
So at very least, the question arises as to why they began to assert that such a set of circumstances or events had occurred to someone – and why many people began to believe about this man things that their entire worldview fought against.
Remember — no one ever produced a body at a time when that could have been done.
The books that we now call the gospels were produced pretty early on, by people using already extant sources — plus eyewitness testimony and oral accounts, the latter of which was more widely accepted as reliable . Yep, some of these works are personal testimony, other aspects of them claim to have been based on the accounts or testimonies of others. They accepted these testimonies — as a means of determining facts and because they came from the mouths of people who had access to – or had been around — to observe the events described. Additionally, there are more than just one account of this set of events – something that, at the time, actually mattered to people…
They are assertions. You need evidence to back up this statement:
“To get the right information needed, out of the totality of information, the “something” had to have omniscience.”
Causation produces correlation. In science, you test hypotheses from many different directions, and if you find correlation between several different and independent methodologies then you have a good conclusion. I would fully agree that one single correlation is not sufficient, but that is rarely the case in science.
I said they were worthless when it comes to determining the facts (and this was in a context of a particular definition of “factual”). To be perfectly clear they do not provide any objective truth, i.e. no reasonable expectation that people should accept the truth of claims made. AND religion (as well as politics and sales schemes) is a big part of the reason why no such expectation is reasonable. For any number of religions with contradictory claims you will find crowds of people ready to give their testimonies. AND with politics and sales schemes this includes testimonies of things which are demonstrably false – testimonies that things will cure you even when they will in fact kill you.
But the point is not that testimonies are worthless. The point is that testimonies are not enough. If I was a juror in a court of law and ALL the prosecution could give was the testimony of so called witnesses (without one shred of corroboration from anything) then I would certainly conclude there is reasonable doubt that the person committed the crime. BUT there are types of corroborating evidence which are also not enough by themselves but which can be made enough with such witness testimonies added to them. So I would not say that testimonies have no value.
And there are a lot of other areas where I not only see the value of testimony but actually use them as a means to make a decision such as consumer evaluations. I was doing so just recently when looking for a dentist. To be sure I read them with a grain of salt, because I know how untrustworthy are. But they are not worthless. They often give you reason to try something yourself when you have nothing else to guide you.
But you don’t accept everything anyone testifies to you about as factual, do you? There must be something more to recommend one testimonial over another. And really, does anyone ever file as “settled fact” anything they hear testified to? I don’t. It is always provisional, though depending on the source, I either expect to find corroboration or I don’t.
Yes, although depending on the source, it need not be so provisional. Some things you trust absolutely. For instance, you trust the testimony of your eyes pretty much implicitly and absolutely, although they can be tricked (as in optical illusions). You are also trusting in the testimony of history, the history of the testimony of your eyes.
Not really. And that would not make it a source of objective truth anyway.
I do not depend on them. When they are not supported by what I already know then I check up on them.
It is true that testimony is important. How else are we to know even the results of scientific inquiry we haven’t done ourselves unless it is by the testimony of others. But there is big difference between religion and science because I know that science is backed up by written procedures anyone can follow to get the same results no matter what they want or believe. And I can check up on them and I have done so on this forum even when I had the testimony of a scientific expert in the field.
Like I said. Testimony is not worthless. It is just not enough for a reasonable expectation for other people to agree. But in conjunction with corroborating evidence (which by itself may not be enough), testimony can be enough. Such as…
Checking their credentials or evidence of their reliability in regards to the specific nature of the claim.
Other scientists checking that they do in fact get the same results.
Data from other types of inquiry agreeing with those claims.
Exactly!
The fact is that testimony does not give people a reasonable expectation that others accept something as true. This is more than obvious because every person who claims the testimonies of their religion is true are simultaneously rejecting the testimonies of other people for a contrary religion.
rejected. That is not testimony. I do not accept your use of metaphors to twist things around to that degree.
But in fact, it has been demonstrated that what “your eyes tell you” is also not a source of objective truth. Psychologist have shown that your eyes actually don’t tell you anything, it is your own brain passing the signals from the eyes through an interpretive filter of your own beliefs which tells you what you see. Again that is personal experience and there is nothing objective about it.
Does this mean we do not rely on it. Of course not. Our own subjective experience is our immediate contact with reality. If we see a unicorn for ourselves then we are going to believe unicorns exist. Absolutely. But that does not make it objective truth. Your experience does not provide one shred of reasonable expectation that others should accept the truth of your claim that unicorns exist.
, but you have to be a wise consumer.)