Monday, January 29, 2007
OK, I have been giving this some thought and have arrived at this point. It is not a matter of what is believable, but rather what is true. A system of belief may not always be comfortably within the realm of believability even though it is within the bounds of possibility. If my criterion for belief is what I consider probable then I may miss something important. I need a way of determining if a system of belief is true.
I realize that I will not always be able to determine a statement or system of belief is true absolutely, but I should be able to tilt the scales to one side or the other. Borrowing from the legal arena if I can not prove a matter I should be able to reach a point beyond reasonable doubt one way or the other.
I am going to suggest three considerations for evaluating religious and/or philosophical positions. I like the way Ravi Zacharias states them. The tests are “(1) Logical consistency, (2) empirical adequacy, and (3) experiential relevance.”
Can Man Live without God, page 123.
Logic won’t do it alone as the rules of logic can only demonstrate error. We need a means of testing any truth claims and they should have a real application to my life. I will start the evaluation with logic because if a system is not logical I need not go through the trouble of testing.
I realize that I will not always be able to determine a statement or system of belief is true absolutely, but I should be able to tilt the scales to one side or the other. Borrowing from the legal arena if I can not prove a matter I should be able to reach a point beyond reasonable doubt one way or the other.
I am going to suggest three considerations for evaluating religious and/or philosophical positions. I like the way Ravi Zacharias states them. The tests are “(1) Logical consistency, (2) empirical adequacy, and (3) experiential relevance.”
Can Man Live without God, page 123.
Logic won’t do it alone as the rules of logic can only demonstrate error. We need a means of testing any truth claims and they should have a real application to my life. I will start the evaluation with logic because if a system is not logical I need not go through the trouble of testing.
Wednesday, January 17, 2007
It is time to get back into the game; I have used my thumb as an excuse too long. Personal discovery here: it is easy to forget the wonders of an opposable thumb until you find it unavailable of use. I had a close encounter with my band saw. No permanent harm other than my ego.
I have made an accounting of my personal discovery path leading to faith in Jesus Christ. So what, in a culture that believes each to his own why should this have any bearing on what you believe? A couple of posts back Dustin asked about the testimony for other religious beliefs being true. Is personal testimony enough to persuade without supporting evidence? I find myself siding with Mical on other religious beliefs as I find errors and contradictions in most. Others systems posit beliefs that are counter to Biblical Christianity which forces me to make a judgment call as to which is correct.
This is where I want to go next. Is the Biblical record trustworthy and is it believable. As Dustin also pointed out referencing David Hume’s view on proof; one should consider how independently unlikely an event is as part of one’s willingness to believe it. I believe that is worthy of discussion.
I have made an accounting of my personal discovery path leading to faith in Jesus Christ. So what, in a culture that believes each to his own why should this have any bearing on what you believe? A couple of posts back Dustin asked about the testimony for other religious beliefs being true. Is personal testimony enough to persuade without supporting evidence? I find myself siding with Mical on other religious beliefs as I find errors and contradictions in most. Others systems posit beliefs that are counter to Biblical Christianity which forces me to make a judgment call as to which is correct.
This is where I want to go next. Is the Biblical record trustworthy and is it believable. As Dustin also pointed out referencing David Hume’s view on proof; one should consider how independently unlikely an event is as part of one’s willingness to believe it. I believe that is worthy of discussion.
