Apr 02 2008
What is truth?
This is my first video using my new MacBook Pro. I’m still learning Apple software but it is much nicer.
58 responses so far
-
others confessions
- Francoise on Catholic Church orders woman to stop spreading messages she says come from the Virgin Mary
- ben on What is educational about this?
- Phil Hoover on Catholic Church orders woman to stop spreading messages she says come from the Virgin Mary
- Kevin Bussey on What is educational about this?
- sayeretmatkal on Poll shows monthly churchgoers swing toward Obama
- Ben on What is educational about this?
- Kevin Bussey on What is educational about this?
-
recent confessions
- Catholic Church orders woman to stop spreading messages she says come from the Virgin Mary
- What is educational about this?
- Growing Religion is those claiming no religious affiliation
- Poll shows monthly churchgoers swing toward Obama
- Pope laments decline of scripture
- Catalyst Conference Day 2
- Court says Mormonism is not Protestant
recent messagesCurrent books:
-
It: How Churches and Leaders Can Get It and Keep It by Craig Groeschel
Planned books:
None
-
-
Links
past confessions
Categories
Kevin, I’ve seen A3 try to get this across to you a few times now but it he doesn’t appear to be having much luck… I’m going to give it a go.
In this video clip, what you present when you say that “Jesus was either what he said he was (the Lord) or that he was a liar” is what’s called a false dichotomy. This means that you’ve not given the right amount of choices.
I’ll explain how:
If a friend tells you that their father claims to be a fireman there are a number of options available to us; 1. your friend’s father really is a fireman, 2. your friend’s father was lying to him and is not, 3. your friend is lying to you, 4. your friend misheard and hasn’t deliberately lied to you but his father isn’t a fireman, 5. the father was mistaken, 6. and so on.
When you say that Jesus can only be one of these two options you are ignoring other possible options, namely; That whoever wrote the Bible intentionally lied to you or that they (through a series of mistakes) accidentally mislead you.
The reason this might not seem immediately apparent to you is because your statement is worded in such a way that makes an assumption that Jesus said what you claim he said. This is like automatically assuming that your friend’s father told your friend what your friend claims without allowing for the additional options of deceit/misinterpretation on the part of your friend.
Now, you might not see these as very valid options but options they are. And part of the problem is that there are some Christians (meaning ‘people who follow Christ’s teachings’) who think that this might well be the case.
I’m not arguing whether Jesus was or wasn’t anything, just trying to point out the logical fallacy of these kinds of statements.
Do you understand what I’m getting at here?
The video wasn’t working, but I’m quite familiar with C.S. Lewis’ liar, lunatic or Lord argument.
Of course if people reject the New Testament writings as being reliable then the argument won’t have meaning for them.
But for people who use the “He was just a great teacher” argument, then Lewis’ reasoning was extremely sound. Their conclusion that He was a great teacher came from the NT, yet those same writings make it clear that He claimed to be God and that He wasn’t crazy.
http://4simpsons.wordpress.com/2007/09/13/liar-lunatic-or-lord/
“You must make your choice. Either this man was, and is, the Son of God, or else a madman or something worse. You can shut him up for a fool, you can spit at him and kill him as a demon or you can fall at his feet and call him Lord and God, but let us not come with any patronising nonsense about his being a great human teacher. He has not left that open to us. He did not intend to. … “
Neil’s last blog post..Temples
Neil,
I’m glad you recognize this fact, because it is the reason that the “liar-lunatic-Lord” argument fails. If we treat the New Testament writings as we would treat any other ancient writings, and subject them to the same scrutiny, then as Damian points out above, there are other options which are more tenable than the given 3.
On the other hand, if we begin by accepting the New Testament writings as reliable, then we already presume what the “liar-lunatic-Lord” argument sets out to prove: that Jesus is Lord and not a liar nor a lunatic. But why should we presume that the New Testament writings are true in the first place? I hope you can see now why the “liar-lunatic-Lord” argument is not the reason.
Regarding Kevin’s original post, I’d prefer to actually hear what he has to say before responding
Damian,
Fair enough. Jesus has revealed Himself to me and I accepted His invitation to join Him. I can’t make you believe He is real so I’m not going to. This was really written to those who claim to have a relationship with God but say He is their savior but, who am I to say there is no other way to heaven. Well, you can’t believe that way. If you accept Jesus you have to accept all that He said. This isn’t a smorgasbord.
Kevin Bussey’s last blog post..What is truth?
Kevin,
I think you are making 2 separate points. The second point you make is what Damian responded to, and what Neil had guessed - that the only choices are that Jesus either lied, was delusional, or was the Son of God. Even though my comments were to Neil’s post (because the video wasn’t up yet when I responded), I hope you’ll respond to that comment too.
So let me address your first point which we haven’t talked about yet. You say that if you claimed that 1 + 1 = 3 for you, but I say that for me, 1 + 1 = 2, then there is no way to say who is really right (I think that was your point - please clarify if I have it wrong). You use this as an analogy to say that if Jesus is God for you, but He is not God for me, then there’s really no way to tell who is right and who is wrong.
The analogy fails because in the case of arithmetic, 1 + 1 is 2 by definition. In other words, it is not subject to opinion. I don’t think this will matter for the discussion but I’m just pointing it out in case it comes up later.
But to your main point: I think you are saying that for you Jesus is God and, for others, Jesus might not be God. And since Jesus is God for you, then the Bible is true for you. That would imply that can only accept that Jesus is God as a premise, and therefore it is not something that one can conclude based on any evidence. Is that what you mean? If it is not, could you clarify?
Kevin,
Most of the world’s Christians believe that Jesus told the truth in everything He said. Only a small minority believes that the Bible is inerrant and is an infallible record of what He said. I haven’t seen any credible evidence that the Bible is infallible. But rather, I’ve seen plenty of evidence that the Bible is not infallible (it has internal contradictions, it shows influence of other mythologies, it shows evidence of scribal corruption, it was canonized under dubious circumstances, and it contains historical inconsistencies).
What is the evidence that suggests that the Bible is infallible?
2 Timothy 3:16
All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness,
Of course you don’t believe that so I can’t make you believe it. It all comes down to faith. I realize that and accept that fact.
Who says 1 + 1 is a fact? Maybe not all mathematicians believe that. Who are we to say they are wrong?
Kevin Bussey’s last blog post..What is truth?
Kevin,
But 2 Timothy 3:16 is part of the Bible, and if we haven’t yet established that the Bible is infallible, what evidence that suggests that the verse is true?
A3,
I agree with you. I’ll never be able to convince you. I have faith that it is infallible. I have no reason to think otherwise because of what God has shown me through His word and how he has made Himself real to me.
Kevin Bussey’s last blog post..What is truth?
Kevin, AAA is playing his usual word games. Don’t take the bait. He trots out the typical atheist dogma, such as “it shows influence of other mythologies,” when they are easily disproved - http://4simpsons.wordpress.com/2008/01/30/copycats/ .
Being a Christian depends on faith, but it isn’t a blind faith. The “logic” atheists use has been refuted for a couple thousand years and we know for a fact that they are in rebellion and denial (Romans 1:18-20). I know they won’t agree with that, but that isn’t the point. As Christians we know the Truth (Jesus) and the truth (facts) about such things, so it isn’t much of a mystery as to why they ignore the obvious existence of God.
If atheists don’t believe, that is fine with me. I’m not on paid commission, I’m on the Great Commission.
“I’m glad you recognize this fact, because it is the reason that the “liar-lunatic-Lord” argument fails.”
You missed my point. The argument doesn’t fail when used to point out the bad reasoning of the “He was just a good teacher” line. It does fail when attempting to persuade atheists, but that wasn’t the argument Lewis made.
“it shows evidence of scribal corruption,”
We know it has some minor copyist errors. That helps prove our point that we know what the originals said. That isn’t a knock at the Bible. Otherwise, an atheist could inject a copying error to “prove” the Bible had errors. The manuscript evidence and textual criticism show that the system works. Praise God for that!
“was canonized under dubious circumstances”
Another graduate of the Da Vinci Code school of theology. The process may have seemed messy at parts, but the criteria weren’t that complicated.
“it has internal contradictions”
Just go buy a book or check some sites that address Bible difficulties - e.g., http://www.tektonics.org/index2.html Really, these have been asked and answered for a couple thousand years.
Neil’s last blog post..Temples
Neil,
I agree with all you said. But no one can ever convince a person to believe in God. That is His job to do. If someone doesn’t want to believe the Bible that doesn’t change the fact it is true. There are crazy people who believe that men did not actually walk on the moon even with overwhelming evidence that men did.
The Holy Spirit is the one who will convict, I can’t.
Kevin Bussey’s last blog post..What is truth?
Agreed.
Neil’s last blog post..Temples
Kevin,
I’m glad to hear that you can see the reasoning behind my comment. In the future if you want to use the liar/lord argument it would be good if you could preface it with “Assuming the Bible is infallible…” so that no one can accuse you of misleading people with a false argument.
—
Neil,
I read through your blog entry and couldn’t decide whether to respond to it over there or here (I decided to here as a courtesy to Kevin).
I would say the same to you (that you’ll need to preface this argument any time you want to use it if you want to do so with integrity) and I want to take this further by addressing the question of how valid a document the Bible is.
Analogy time.
A guy is arrested on suspicion of murder. A gun matching the bullet that was used and had his fingerprints on it was found at his house. In court his only defence is his personal diary which details what he was doing on the night of the alleged murder. At the beginning of the diary he says “Dear diary, I promise to never lie to you” and in the entry for the day in question he states that he was at home all night watching TV and that lots of people had walked past his flat and therefore have seen him through the curtains.
The defence were unable to locate any of these witnesses and have nothing else to go on apart from this diary. They make a special point of the promise in the diary not to lie and the fact that he’d written in the diary that lots of people had seen him.
Now, can you see the problem with the validity of the evidence used for his defence? It’s circular evidence - which means that if we assume that it’s right and it says that it’s right then we were right in the first place to trust it. We can then go on to have full confidence in the fact that lots of people saw him (because he wrote about it and as we already know, he doesn’t lie in his diary).
Much the same logic is used in your blog entry where this circular evidence is used to confirm what has already been assumed. Someone commented “I’ll say Lord, ’cause five hundred people witnessing Jesus, alive, post crucifixion and burial, is enough for any court of law” which is what lead me to draw the analogy to a court room.
Can you see the similarities here and why it is easy to see something as completely true once you’ve made that ‘leap of faith’ and assumed that the Bible (or the diary) is infallible? Can you also see how the apparent self-confirmations can also not, in fact, be the truth? I assume you wouldn’t accept the testimony of the alleged murder on the weight of his defence and that you’d at least accept my logic in this case.
I’d encourage you to look deeper into the evidence for the validity of the Bible and to approach it as you would do any other endeavour that requires evidence (like a courtroom) for your own sake. Who knows? What you find might well further confirm what you already believed in which case you’ll have a stronger relationship with God. And if you find otherwise at least you’ll be closer to the truth which has to be a good thing.
You sound like the thinking type and I’m sure you’ll do a good job of it.
For the record, I used to be a Christian but went through this exercise myself and in doing so discovered a lot of things that pointed in the opposite direction of what I’d believed in faith. But I could well be wrong (hell, I’ve been wrong most of my life when I look back) and if, after your studies, you find some good evidence please drop me a line and let me know your findings. With evidence I’ll happily change my stance.
Neil again, in the time I took to post this another couple of posts have appeared. For clarity, I was referring to your first link to your blog post about the lord/liar/lunatic issue.
And after reading your subsequent posts I might have to amend my second-to-last paragraph in my previous post
Damian’s last blog post..Infidel - by Ayaan Hirsi Ali
Hi Damian,
“Can you see the similarities here and why it is easy to see something as completely true once you’ve made that ‘leap of faith’ and assumed that the Bible (or the diary) is infallible?”
No, I can’t see the similarities because 1) you are arguing against a point that I didn’t make, 2) you completely mischaracterize the evidence we have for the reliability of the Bible and 3) you are making a straw-man argument. I don’t rely on the Bible as a leap of faith. I’ve poured through tons of evidence. If you’ve viewed the evidence and didn’t find it compelling, good luck with that.
“For the record, I used to be a Christian . . .”
Sorry to nitpick, but you used to identify yourself as a Christian.
“I’d encourage you to look deeper into the evidence for the validity of the Bible and to approach it as you would do any other endeavour that requires evidence (like a courtroom) for your own sake.”
Done and done, many times over (I was an atheist before I became a believer). Jesus is Lord!
Neil’s last blog post..Temples
“And after reading your subsequent posts I might have to amend my second-to-last paragraph in my previous post”
Actually, what you might want to do is read first, then think, then comment, and stop making so many assumptions. Prejudiced, fact-free straw-man arguments are a big waste of time.
Neil’s last blog post..Temples
Haha! OK, peace bro.
Peace!
Neil’s last blog post..Temples
wow…awesome dialouge. but i am still trying to put a handle on Kevin’s question…what is truth. We have a lot of answers for what we think its not, but the question still exist, so I am wondering how do we define what is truth?
Thought this was interesting… someone sent me this… a little off topic… but still, I think, good for the discussion.
God vs Science
A science professor begins his school year with a lecture to the students, “Let me explain the problem science has with religion.” The atheist professor of philosophy pauses before his class and then asks one of his new students to stand.
“You’re a Christian, aren’t you, son?”
“Yes sir,” the student says.
“So you believe in God?”
“Absolutely.”
“Is God good?”
“Sure! God’s good.”
“Is God all-powerful? Can God do anything?”
“Yes.”
“Are you good or evil?”
“The Bible says I’m evil.”
The professor grins knowingly. “Aha! The Bible!” He considers for a moment. “Here’s one for you. Let’s say there’s a sick person over here and you can cure him. You can do it. Would you help him? Would you try?”
“Yes sir, I would.”
“So you’re good…!”
“I wouldn’t say that.”
“But why not say that? You’d help a sick and maimed person if you could. Most of us would if we could. But God doesn’t.”
The student does not answer, so the professor continues. “He doesn’t, does he? My brother was a Christian who died of cancer, even though he prayed to Jesus to heal him. How is this Jesus good? Hmmm? Can you answer that one?”
The student remains silent.
“No, you can’t, can you?” the professor says. He takes a sip of water from a glass on his desk to give the student time to relax.
“Let’s start again, young fella. Is God good?”
“Er…yes,” the student says.
“Is Satan good?”
The student doesn’t hesitate on this one. “No.”
“Then where does Satan come from?”
The student falters. “From God”
“That’s right. God made Satan, didn’t he? Tell me, son. Is there evil in this world?”
“Yes, sir.”
“Evil’s everywhere, isn’t it? And God did make everything, correct?”
“Yes.”
“So who created evil?” The professor continued, “If God created everything, then God created evil, since evil exists, and according to the principle that our works define who we are, then God is evil.”
Again, the student has no answer. “Is there sickness? Immorality? Hatred? Ugliness? All these terrible things, do they exist in this world?”
The student squirms on his feet. “Yes.”
“So who created them?”
The student does not answer again, so the professor repeats his question. “Who created them?” There is still no answer. Suddenly the lecturer breaks away to pace in front of the classroom. The class is mesmerized. “Tell me,” he continues onto another student. “Do you believe in Jesus Christ, son?”
The student’s voice betrays him and cracks. “Yes, professor, I do.”
The old man stops pacing. “Science says you have five senses you use to identify and observe the world around you. Have you ever seen Jesus?”
“No sir. I’ve never seen Him.”
“Then tell us if you’ve ever heard your Jesus?”
“No, sir, I have not.”
“Have you ever felt your Jesus, tasted your Jesus or smelt your Jesus? Have you ever had any sensory perception of Jesus Christ, or God for that matter?”
“No, sir, I’m afraid I haven’t.”
“Yet you still believe in him?”
“Yes.”
“According to the rules of empirical, testable, demonstrable protocol, science says your God doesn’t exist. What do you say to that, son?”
“Nothing,” the student replies. “I only have my faith.”
“Yes, faith,” the professor repeats. “And that is the problem science has with God. There is no evidence, only faith.”
The student stands quietly for a moment, before asking a question of His own. “Professor, is there such thing as heat?”
“Yes,” the professor replies. “There’s heat.”
“And is there such a thing as cold?”
“Yes, son, there’s cold too.”
“No sir, there isn’t.”
The professor turns to face the student, obviously interested. The room suddenly becomes very quiet. The student begins to explain. “You can have lots of heat, even more heat, super-heat, mega-heat, unlimited heat, white heat, a little heat or no heat, but we don’t have anything called ’cold’. We can hit up to 458 degrees below zero, which is no heat, but we can’t go any further after that. There is no such thing as cold; otherwise we would be able to go colder than the lowest -458 degrees.”
“Every body or object is susceptible to study when it has or transmits energy, and heat is what makes a body or matter have or transmit energy. Absolute zero (-458 F) is the total absence of heat. You see, sir, cold is only a word we use to describe the absence of heat. We cannot measure cold. Heat we can measure in thermal units because heat is energy. Cold is not the opposite of heat, sir, just the absence of it.”
Silence across the room. A pen drops somewhere in the classroom, sounding like a hammer.
“What about darkness, professor. Is there such a thing as darkness?”
“Yes,” the professor replies without hesitation. “What is night if it isn’t darkness?”
“You’re wrong again, sir. Darkness is not something; it is the absence of something. You can have low light, normal light, bright light, flashing light, but if you have no light constantly you have nothing and it’s called darkness, isn’t it? That’s the meaning we use to define the word.”
“In reality, darkness isn’t. If it were, you would be able to make darkness darker, wouldn’t you?”
The professor begins to smile at the student in front of him. This will be a good semester. “So what point are you making, young man?”
“Yes, professor. My point is, your philosophical premise is flawed to start with, and so your conclusion must also be flawed.”
The professor’s face cannot hide his surprise this time. “Flawed? Can you explain how?”
“You are working on the premise of duality,” the student explains. “You argue that there is life and then there’s death; a good God and a bad God. You are viewing the concept of God as something finite, something we can measure. Sir, science can’t even explain a thought.”
“It uses electricity and magnetism, but has never seen, much less fully understood either one. To view death as the opposite of life is to be ignorant of the fact that death cannot exist as a substantive thing. Death is not the opposite of life, just the absence of it.”
“Now tell me, professor. Do you teach your students that they evolved from a monkey?”
“If you are referring to the natural evolutionary process, young man, yes, of course I do.”
“Have you ever observed evolution with your own eyes, sir?”
The professor begins to shake his head, still smiling, as he realizes where the argument is going. A very good semester, indeed.
“Since no one has ever observed the process of evolution at work and cannot even prove that this process is an on-going endeavor, are you not teaching your opinion, sir? Are you now not a scientist, but a preacher?”
The class is in uproar. The student remains silent until the commotion has subsided.
“To continue the point you were making earlier to the other student, let me give you an example of what I mean.”
The student looks around the room. “Is there anyone in the class who has ever seen the professor’s brain?” The class breaks out into laughter.
“Is there anyone here who has ever heard the professor’s brain, felt the professor’s brain, touched or smelt the professor’s brain? No one appears to have done so. So, according to the established rules of empirical, stable, demonstrable protocol, science says that you have no brain, with all due respect, sir.”
“So if science says you have no brain, how can we trust your lectures, sir?”
Now the room is silent. The professor just stares at the student, his face unreadable.
Finally, after what seems an eternity, the old man answers. “I guess you’ll have to take them on faith.”
“Now, you accept that there is faith, and, in fact, faith exists with life,” the student continues. “Now, sir, is there such a thing as evil?”
Now uncertain, the professor responds, “Of course, there is. We see it everyday. It is in the daily example of man’s inhumanity to man. It is in the multitude of crime and violence everywhere in the world. These manifestations are nothing else but evil.”
To this the student replied, “Evil does not exist sir, or at least it does not exist unto itself. Evil is simply the absence of God. It is just like darkness and cold, a word that man has created to describe the absence of God. God did not create evil. Evil is the result of what happens when man does not have God’s love present in his heart. It’s like the cold that comes when there is no heat or the darkness that comes when there is no light.”
The professor sat down.
The student was Albert Einstein
I heard a funny story today about truth…
A man was institutionalized because he thought he was dead…
Whenever anyone asked him he would say, “yep its true I died years ago”…
A young intern one day, set the man straight…
He sat him down and asked him very seriously…
“So you are dead?….”
“Yes, I am dead.”, replied the man…
“Well, I just have one question for you”, the intern said… “Do dead men bleed?”…
Quciklyy, and with little hesitation the man said… “no, dead men in fact do not bleed…”
The young intern pulled out a small needle, and gently pressed it into the man’s thumb, and a little droplet of blood came from the man’s finger…
“Well what are your thoughts about that, sir?”, asked the young intern…
“well I will be darned…” the man said… “dead men do bleed”….
That is the frustration of life and conversations like these we are destined to have…
Neil,
You said to Damian,
For my benefit, could you please explain (1) which point you think Damian was arguing against that you didn’t make, (2) how was Damian’s characterization of the evidence incorrect, and (3) which of Damian’s arguments was against a straw-man? I’m not able to follow the charges you made.
You also said to Damian:
Again for my benefit, could you explain which assumptions you felt were poor assumptions?
Thanks!
m
Excellent point. Since I don’t think any of us are talking about the definition of the word, but rather we are thinking about that which we consider to be true - which raises the question about it means to know (i.e., how do we know that something is true, and how do we know that we know).
I think Descartes hit the nail on the head when he reasoned that the only thing we can know without skepticism is that because we think, then we exist. Anything else is inductive reasoning; that is, deductions based on what we’ve observed to be consistent so far. We “know” that the sun will rise tomorrow because it’s always risen. But we have no guarantee, for example, that moving at the speed of light toward us is some kind of time/space warp that will tear apart the galaxy. None of us believe that that is the case because it’s never happened before, but that doesn’t prove that it couldn’t. In the final analysis, anything we “know,” other than our own existence, is based on induction. Even deductive reasoning is based on our inductive knowledge.
Truth, then, is knowledge of ourselves and our inductive knowledge.
Thoughts?
Neil,
I had a look at your link but I couldn’t figure out where you actually disproved the claim. Could you please post your disproof here?
How can you “know for a fact” unless you know that the Romans 1:18-20 is true for a fact? And if you know that it is true for a fact, could you explain how you know so that I might know too?
Are you suggesting that the truth of the argument depends on who you make the argument to?
Sadly, that’s not the case. In many instances, we know that there are differing versions of the same passage of scripture, but we don’t always know for certain which was the original and which was the corruption. In fact, we don’t always know that we are in possession of the original at all.
I said: “was canonized under dubious circumstances” to which you replied:
Could you describe what the criteria were?
Here we can agree in that the questions have been asked for a good number of years and have been answered. Where we will differ is that though the questions have been answered, the answers have not been (and still are) satisfying. For example, can you explain how Judas Iscariot died?
AAA, as usual I find you to be rather disingenous and time wasting, but I’ll indulge you this one:
“For example, can you explain how Judas Iscariot died?”
Yes, I can explain it. It is right there in the Bible. Do a quick search on “Judas” and you’ll find all the passages about how he died.
Neil’s last blog post..Temples
Neil
In what way?
AAA quoted Neil as saying: “The argument doesn’t fail when used to point out the bad reasoning of the “He was just a good teacher” line. It does fail when attempting to persuade atheists… ”
AAA said: “Are you suggesting that the truth of the argument depends on who you make the argument to?”
Of course not. That is just you being disingenuous. My point was that if you don’t believe anything the NT says about Jesus, then the argument wouldn’t apply to you. But you knew that. Now you know why I ignore most of your questions (also the silliness of your milk jug video and how you either didn’t watch it yourself or are lying about the conclusions it made).
Back to the original question of what is truth: Reality is the way things really are. Beliefs are what you think reality is. Truth is when you are right. Truth is that which corresponds to reality.
Whether I believe Jesus really lived, died and rose again is irrelevant to whether He really lived, died and rose again. I find the evidence to be overwhelming that He did live, die and rose again and I put my faith in him. That is faith grounded in reason and evidence, not the blind faith straw-man atheists like to use.
I have personal experiences I can cite as well, but I never use those for apologetic purposes because other religions can cite those as well (though their’s probably come from Satan) and they don’t have the same level of evidence.
Neil’s last blog post..Temples
Neil,
Well, you’ve accused me of being disingenuous and a lier and a straw man (?), but you really won’t say what I’ve said that was disingenuous (you said that I asked you a question but I’m still at a loss to see how the question was in any way disingenuous) and you said I lied about the video but you didn’t say why you think what I said was a lie (actually, I didn’t lie about it, but I don’t even understand why you think I did). I’m not sure how anyone can be a “straw man” but maybe that’s somehow significant to you and you could explain what you mean.
I’m sensing that either I’ve done something else to offend you and you don’t want to come forward and say what that thing really is, or you just don’t like me. I can take that, some people are just incompatible. If I’ve done something that offended you, then I apologize in advance before even knowing what that thing is; it’s not my intension to offend people. If you just don’t like me, then I’ll just stop having contact with you. But if none of these is the case, and you really do think I’ve been disingenuous in some way or that I’ve lied about something or that I’m a “straw man”, maybe you could address these issues head one and we can get past it.
I think you are a sincere and passionate guy. You and I don’t agree about many issues of faith, but we don’t have to agree to be able to have enjoyable, enlightening conversations. The best conversations are often the ones where people disagree respectfully and learn from each other. I enjoy seeing your points of view so I hope you’ll help me to work this out.
From what I am gathering, the answer for what is truth depends on what you believe. Is that right?
M,
I say truth is Jesus Christ period!
BTW, Fee rocked last night!
Kevin Bussey’s last blog post..Why are you turned off by Christians?–part deux
m,
I think that’s close. I think belief is a necessary component of truth but not a sufficient one. For example, we could each hold equally tenable but mutually exclusive beliefs. In that case, each has to admit that the other belief could just as easily be true. On the other hand it is also possible to hold delusional beliefs; that is, beliefs that do not correspond to experience or observation. In this case, even though there is belief, we wouldn’t consider those beliefs true because belief alone would not be sufficient in this case. And finally, it is possible to form beliefs that are premised by sound observation, but which are based on fallacious conclusions about what we observer. Belief would not be sufficient in this case either.
So maybe truth is belief based on sound induction and deduction?
(note that even delusional or fallacious beliefs are true for the subject, but I think our objective is to define truth in more general terms that might be useful for assessing the truth of different beliefs.)
A3,
That is scary to me. What if someone believes the truth is you can murder anyone you want? Who decides what is sound and what is not?
Kevin Bussey’s last blog post..Why are you turned off by Christians?–part deux
Kevin,
I can’t imagine why that would be scary; that’s the way the world works now. It’s not something new that I’m suggesting we try.
We humans agree that murder is wrong… that is the vast majority of us do, though certainly some don’t. The vast majority who agrees that murder is wrong enforces rules against murder.
There are other more basic reasons to accept that murder is wrong, besides the fact that the majority condemns it. The ethical principal of reciprocity (i.e., “do unto others…”), for example, is a guiding principal of our ethical thinking. Utilitarian ethics (do the most good for greatest number of people and the least harm to the fewest people) is another example of a basic principal that guides our thinking.
I think a legit ? at this point would be from were do the majority get the concept that killing is wrong…or any other concept that they agree upon? Do they believe in a particular truth therefore it exist or does it exist therefore they believe?
M, good question.
It might be beneficial to look at other animals who live in communities (like rabbits or monkeys or lions) and ask why they also don’t make a habit of killing each other.
Now ask the same question: “Do they believe in a particular truth therefore it exist or does it exist therefore they believe?”.
I’m not sure what the answer is but it might be that behaving this way is just the way that seems to work best and so the ‘communities’ that behave that way do better and flourish.
And perhaps it’s the same way with humans but we’ve gone and over-complicated it by turning what was a best-practice into a set of rules and now we think that these rules must have come from an external source.
A3,
Not everyone thinks murder is wrong. Hitler murdered millions of Jews while the Germans watched and thought it was OK. What about Usama Bin Laden? They think it is OK to kill people too.
That is why the ultimate truth is vital. Truth is found in God.
Kevin Bussey’s last blog post..Why are you turned off by Christians?–part deux
m,
That is indeed a good question. I agree with Damian’s view that group behavior in animals (including humans) evolves naturally, and that certain types of behavior are common in social animals - not to kill others in the group for example.
Humans, like many other social animals, have evolved the ability to empathize. I think this innate empathy is at the root of concepts like reciprocity, which is in turn at the root of the concept that killing is wrong.
Let’s go back to our definition of truth. We’ve said that truth is belief based on primary knowledge of self, plus inductive reasoning, then deduction based on the inductive reasoning. If belief is a necessary component of truth, then there is no truth independent of belief, but there can be belief independent of truth (as in belief without reasoning). Unreasoned belief then has no causal relationship with truth.
Reasoned belief based requires the experience to precede the truth (by our definition). In this case, experience precedes reasoning, which in turn precedes belief. So experience causes reason and reason causes truth. But there is still no causal relationship between belief and truth since truth by our definition, truth is the result of forming a belief based on reasoning about experience. We call that kind of belief “truth.”
That was pretty a pretty long (sorry!) way to say that by our definition, there is no causal relationship between truth and belief.
Kevin,
I agree. In fact, that’s what I said
But it doesn’t present a problem (as I explained above).
A3,
What if the political climate in our nation changes and the leaders say it is OK to kill, rape and just live how you want? Where is the truth in that?
Kevin Bussey’s last blog post..Why are you turned off by Christians?–part deux
Kevin,
That has happened in the past - Nazi Germany, Russia, the Crusades, the Inquisition, to name a few. The fact is, unscrupulous people can gain power and abuse it. That fact holds true regardless of what humanity believes to be right and wrong. But we also see that those atrocities do not change human nature. And it is our very nature that guides our feelings about what is right and what is wrong.
A3,
Who cares what the majority thinks? The majority can be wrong and has been. We have to have 1 standard. Our feelings come and go but the truth is the truth.
Kevin Bussey’s last blog post..Toddlers can no longer marry in Arkansas
3A-
Which is exactly why those feelings are insufficient. We by nature do not live to bring glory to God (yes, I realize that I’m assuming his existence), by default living by our “feelings about what is right and wrong.” So, if I’m a member of the Sawi tribe through the 1960’s (Irian Jaya), then I believe that it is perfectly acceptable to befriend a person from another tribe, betray them to their death and then partake of their roasted body. In fact, in that culture I’m more than right, I’m a hero.
Or, like my friend Ivan in a former Eastern Bloc country who lived by his “feelings about what is right and wrong” until he heard someone tell him about Jesus. He then said, “I’d always heard about Jesus, but I never knew who he was.” Raised in an atheist country with a megalomaniac dictator for a president, yet knowing that swilling vodka was somehow not right and ready for a Savior he did not yet know.
No, the reality of objective truth really is settled and, as Kevin has stated, it is in Jesus.
You also ask if someone can explain how Judas Iscariot died. I know that you are very familiar with the Bible and therefore assume you refer to a verse that states he hanged himself and another that says he fell headlong and his bowels gushed out. Before I give you my thoughts, can you explain exactly how these two are contradictory (if that was your point)?
Marty Duren’s last blog post..A Test of the Emergency Podcast System
Kevin,
And what standard would that be? You will say the standard of the Bible. How will you convince the majority that the 1 standard should be the Bible? (that answers your question: “who cares what the majority thinks”)
But as a species, our nature is pretty constant. Regarding the truth being “the truth,” how would you respond to the reasons I gave earlier for concluding that the truth is relative?
Marty,
First of all, it’s been a while! Good to hear from you again.
Actually, we might. Belief in the supernatural may actually be a by product of how our brains evolved. That would make people like me mutants
How do you know that Sawis aren’t right? I’m not arguing that they are, I’m asking you how you know they aren’t. As you consider this question, bear in mind that I, an atheist and you, a Christian both agree that this is wrong.
Regarding Judas’ death:
When I asked the question, I presumed that Neil was also familiar with the contradictory verses. The point of my question was not the contradiction itself but rather this: Neil said that the charges of internal contradictions in the Bible “have been asked and answered for a couple thousand years” which to me implied that the answers had satisfied the questions. I agreed that the questions had been asked and answered but I was illustrating how not all of the answers were satisfying. I used the example of Judas’ death because I know that a popular apologetic is that Judas hanged himself, the rope broke, then he fell of the cliff (and other variations). Most people would find a fabrication to be an unsatisfying response.
To answer your question, about what I perceive the contradiction to be, I think that each of the two verses were meant to describe how Judas died: either by hanging (in Mat 27:3-8) or by falling off a cliff (in Act 1:18-19).
A3,
I say the standard is what God said. I realize that is something you don’t subscribe to but that is what God designed when He created humans.
Kevin Bussey’s last blog post..Toddlers can no longer marry in Arkansas
Kevin,
My point in asking “how will you convince the majority that the 1 standard should be the Bible?” is to demonstrate how, even if you are right about the Bible being the best standard (and for this question, let’s assume it is), then you also have the same problem that you say I have: convincing the majority that they ought to adopt my (or the Bible’s) standard. Just saying that the Bible is the best standard doesn’t solve the problem. To solve the problem (that is, to convince the majority), you have to show them how you know that the Bible is the best standard, and why they should believe you. This requires more than just saying that the Bible is the Word of God. It requires making a credible case that the Bible is the Word of God.
A3,
From what it says in the Bible there will be someone who will bring about “peace” and one standard. Unfortunately the person is what is known as the anti-Christ.
Kevin Bussey’s last blog post..Toddlers can no longer marry in Arkansas
Marty,
I wanted to add: I just did a quick search on Google using the following search string:
At the time I searched, the 3rd result was this:
http://www.carm.org/diff/Matt27_3.htm
The 5th down was this:
http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/143
As it turns out, most of the apologetic sites prefer this particular fabrication as a response to the charge of a contradiction.
I should point out that when I say “fabrication,” I don’t use the term to mean that the story is necessarily untrue (though I do believe that it is). I mean that the story had to be invented (fabricated) to resolve the conflict. There is no indication in the prose that the rope broke, or that Judas tried to hang himself before falling. There are only two different authors (fact) giving two different accounts (fact) which are contradictory (most reasonable conclusion).
Kevin,
When we were talking about the standard for right and wrong, you said: “That is why the ultimate truth is vital,” didn’t you mean that the standard could only be brought about if the Bible were accepted as the standard? That seems at odds with what you are now saying about the anti-Christ - that only the one who is against God (and therefore, against the Bible) could bring about adherence to a standard.
In either case, what do you think about the problem that we both have of convincing the majority to accept a particular standard, whether Biblical or secular?
Let me remind you here that I don’t think I have to convince the majority of a standard - as I explained above, I think morality is innate… which let’s me off the hook as the anti-Christ :))
A3,
You have more faith in people than I do. I know without God I can’t be good.
Kevin Bussey’s last blog post..Toddlers can no longer marry in Arkansas
3A-
You are right; it has been a while. I have been lurking some, though.
Regarding Judas–I see nowhere where the text demands that the stories must be considered as either/or. Acts is a continuation of the Matthew version, not contra to it. If one hangs himself and is not removed from the rope, eventually he will burst open and his guts will spill out (probably after being feasted upon by the local fowl). The word translated in the KJV as “headlong” finds it single biblical usage in Acts 1:18. Recent Greek scholarship (ESV) offers the possible translation of “and swelling up” rather than “and falling headlong.” That would fit with my scenario (which I first thought about when I was 17).
As to your other thoughts, I can’t address them biblically since your don’t accept scripture as the final authority for living. Having read Hitchens, Dawkins, et al, I’m reasonably familiar with the arguments against the Bible, but find all of them lacking.
The reason that I don’t simply say, “Well, I just believe it is God’s Word and that’s that,” is because I’ve done (and continue to do) as much research as possible to the Bible’s veracity and find enough that I do understand to strengthen my faith for the areas that I don’t understand.
For instance, you see in the story of Judas a contradiction. Actually, you expect contradictions and see little reason to go farther. I see apparent contradictions and study further to see why it appears that way. But, even when I don’t immediately find a satisfactory explanation, I keep looking or patiently wait.
Up until 5 years ago, there was absolutely no evidence of King David outside of the Bible. Then, in a discovery that made even the NYT “secular” evidence of the reign of David was found. A mere few weeks ago, a wall that been unearthed outside Jerusalem years and years ago was suddenly re-dated due to the discovery of certain shards of pottery during a further dig. Now, some archaeologists who denied the existence of the wall of Nehemiah believe its existence to be accurate. What about Luke’s census? All manner of doubters cast aspersion on the Bible due to lack of extra-biblical evidence. My response is simply that all the evidence isn’t in. Something does not have to be proven true in my lifetime to be true.
I say all this simply to say that there is enough evidence to believe the truth of the Bible and that the answers to your other questions flow from that (glorifying God, Sawi cannibalism, etc).
Marty Duren’s last blog post..A Test of the Emergency Podcast System
Marty,
The Greek words “prenes genomenos” translate as “becoming headlong” (prenes has the same root as the English word, prone, as in the prone position or head-forward position). The translation of “becoming swollen” presumes a scribal error where the scribe replaced the word presthes (swollen) with prenes (headlong). And as far as I’m aware, the only reason given for the presuming the scribal error was that presthes harmonizes with Matthiew better than prenes does. One obvious reason not to accept presthes as the original is that, at least to my knowledge, presthes is not found in place of prenes any known manuscript! Another reason is that it makes the passage more awkward (and therefore less likely): Jusas purchased the field and jumped head first into it - vs. - Judas purchased the field and swelled up.
If the original word was prenes (headlong), then the writer of Acts is telling us how Judas died which is what we would expect him to do. Then the only problem is that the account conflicts with Matthiew’s who tells us that Judas died by hanging.
On the other hand, if presthes was the original word, then the author is telling us something quite extraordinary and virtually unheard of: that a man swelled up to the point of bursting. To my knowledge, a person can hang until he dries out, or the head pulls off, or the rope breaks - but he wouldn’t burst from swelling (at least not without having eaten a bad burrito or something
). If Judas’ demise was that extraordinary, then it makes little sense that Matthiew mentioned only that he hanged himself but left out the more extraordinary event - that a man swelled and burst. It also makes no sense that Luke didn’t include the means of Judas’ death in his account if he knew that the death was caused by hanging and that the swelling was caused by Judas dangling there long enough. But he instead left the reader to surmise that the fall was the cause of death. Is it possible? Sure. It’s just as possible that he hung himself, then came back to life, then jumped off a cliff. Or it’s possible that his guts burst out but he miraculously didn’t die until he finally hung himself. We can both think of any number of scenarios that are possible - and by possible, I only mean that we have no way to validate or invalidate them. I see little reason to prefer any of the possible but implausible fabrications over the obvious.
A separate but related difficulty with reconciling the two accounts is that Acts says that the reason that the field is called the Field of Blood because Judas’ blood and guts were spilled over it. But Matthiew says that the reason that the field is called the Field of Blood is that Jesus’ blood paid for the field. Was the field named Field of Blood for both reasons? Again it’s possible, but it makes no sense that both authors chose not to tell us only 1 of the 2 reasons.
Ha! So you’re the guy that started it! :)) Actually, that was really pretty smart for a 17-year-old.
Can you name one in particular that you found lacking?
That’s not quote true. I pretty much look at the evidence on a case-by-case basis and just let the chips fall where they may. The difference may be that I am more suspicious of means-end reasoning (manufacturing logic to justify a given belief vs. following the trail of logic to form a belief).
Regarding archaeological evidence, etc., I think we will continue to find new evidence, some of which will invalidate Biblical accounts and some that will validate the accounts. Have you every read Finkelstein and Silberman’s books by any chance?
3A-
Thanks for the thoughts and you taught me something. I did not realize that the alternate interpretation was an assumed scribal error; I did think it was a textual variant. Therefore, I will keep looking (or waiting as the case may be) for historical info that reconciles the two. I don’t like to make a defense based on assumptions. That’s too much like bringing a knife to a gun fight.
Except for the fact that the demise of Judas is mentioned, in both cases, in passing to the larger story of 1. the death of Christ and 2. the birth of the church. What doesn’t make sense to you may have been no issue at all for a first century Jew. That’s why I am content to wait for more evidence. The fact that it makes no sense to you (or might make sense to me) is not evidence. What you call “manufacturing logic” is what I call “attempting to reconcile.” The police do that everyday with apparently conflicting evidence. Of course, the DA in the Duke rape case was just manufacturing…
Admittedly, the other portions of the story (who bought the field, with with what money and how the field got its name) are just as thorny. Be patient, Grasshopper, just like Isaiah’s Sargon, the answer will be clear in time.
I will raise you on this point: that the Acts passage is atypical for Luke who is generally regarded as a top notch historian. It even sounds odd as a medical description; always has to me. I had this thought though: is there any other biblical usage of prenes? I could not find it in a very quick search.
Jesus swooned, Jesus’ time in the grave helped him recover from mortal wounds, there was no Jesus, Jesus was a legend, the biblical writers created Jesus from their own fertile imaginations, there is no historical support for any biblical assertion (Hitchens), the Bible is a collection of myths, Paul was never converted, Moses could not write. I’m sure I could think of a few more.
Contradiction is not invalidation. That much is clear. The only thing changed as much as than “scientific opinion” is dirty underwear (eight glasses of water a day, anyone). I have not read Finkelstein and Silberman, but will check them out.
Have you read JOURNEYS: Transitioning Churches to Relevance by Marty Duren and Todd Wright? It’s available now on Amazon.com :^)
Marty Duren’s last blog post..A Test of the Emergency Podcast System
3A-
<a href=”http://www.tektonics.org/gk/judasdeath.html”This site has some unique thoughts about the Judas death situation. I’m not sure it’s fully accurate, but it was interesting.
Marty Duren’s last blog post..A Test of the Emergency Podcast System
I screwed up the html.
Marty Duren’s last blog post..A Test of the Emergency Podcast System
Marty,
That’s very true and is always an important consideration. However, like other the “possibilities,” we should have a reason to believe that they would understand it differently than we do; we shouldn’t presume that they do in order to make the story say what we wish it would say. That’s what I meant by my earlier comment about means-end reason. We could have evidence that would convince us that the ancients would understand the text different than we do and then conclude that the passages might harmonize in their eyes, or we can presume that they would understand it differently so that we are allowed to conclude that the passages harmonize. Regardless of what you might believe about this passage, can you see what I mean about means-end reasoning and why I am skeptical of it? I see your point about “attempting to reconcile.” I don’t think attempting to reconcile is necessarily means-end reasoning and I’m not skeptical of the attempt. I’m only skeptical of the use of dubious methods such as means-end reasoning to do so.
I know that prenes is not used anywhere else in the NT. I did a search on LXX and couldn’t find it there either. Luke isn’t believed by most modern scholars to be a physician as earlier scholars believed. I’m not sure Luke is actually regarded generally as an historian by most scholars, but rather an educated scholar who was commissioned to write a Church history; his chief expertise was his skill as a writer than as a historian. By that, I don’t mean to say that he is a poor historian because his Gospel contradicts other writings at times. In fact, since there was no New-Testament canon at this time, the ancients were far less concerned about harmonizing the other texts that we are now. Their debates were about which account was right rather than about how both could be right.
Perhaps as you suggest, Luke didn’t write the passage; unique words or phrasing can be indicators of later redaction. If he didn’t write it, can we reconstruct his original text from any other manuscripts we have? I don’t think we can do it just based on the unique word; and the presthes reconstruction doesn’t seem to work well. But we might be able to if there are other alternative versions of the passage. If the unique word (which describes a unique event) is the only clue that the phrase might have been altered, but this word is in every manuscript we know of, I wouldn’t be ready to conclude that the text was not original to Luke. I would want to see other corroborating evidence.
Thanks for listing some of the critical arguments. Here are my responses:
Jesus swooned - I see this as somewhat problematic but only as corroboration with more serious clues that Jesus was not understood to be fully God. I don’t think the argument carries any weight on its own.
Jesus’ time in the grave helped him recover from mortal wounds - I think that’s rediculous
there was no Jesus - the best case for this claim is from Robert Price but I don’t think he’s right
Jesus was a legend the biblical writers created Jesus from their own fertile imaginations - I think that’s rediculous
there is no historical support for any biblical assertion (Hitchens) - rediculous
the Bible is a collection of myths - I think the Bible does contain mythology but it is not simply a collection of myths
Paul was never converted - that’s rediculous
Moses could not write - that’s rediculous
So we’re not as far apart on our views of criticism as you might have thought!
I actually don’t think that contradictions in the Bible invalidate the Bible as a historical document. I do think contradictions in the autographs invalidate it as the infallible Word of God. As for science, the “8 glasses of water” doesn’t really invalidate the principals of science, it only invalidates one of the conclusions. That is, the “8 glasses” was invalidating using the same proven scientific principals plus new knowledge. Scientific principals do change though. But changes become far less common as a particular principal stands the test of time and scientific scrutiny.
I have not, but I promise to… on the condition that you sign my copy!
3A-
I relish saying this: You can get a copy at Lifeway! I’d just like to see you shopping there ;^)
It sounds like a lunch is in the offing. Let me know when you’ve attained your copy and I’ll sign it for you when I buy your lunch.
But we do have reasons to believe that they would have understood it differently. They were Eastern, we are Western. They were (by and large) agrarian, we are industrial. They were 1st century, we are 21st century. They were a subjugated people longing for freedom, we are a free people (sometimes I think looking for subjugation). Their technology was a donkey, quill and papyrus, ours is…well…farther along. They were Jewish, we are Gentile.
I think I do grasp your concern about “means-ends reasoning,” and, thanks to your warning, will strive to make sure that I don’t fall into that trap. I think the “presumption of truth” makes believers lazy, but it does not follow that it makes them wrong.
Marty Duren’s last blog post..A Test of the Emergency Podcast System
Marty,
You got a deal! I’ll try to pick up a copy this weekend. But allow me to buy - you’re the one autographing my book
Certainly we know that there is a large time span and geographical span between them and us, not to mention a language difference, and we expect cultural differences; so we should be cautious about literal interpretation. But we also recognize that there are also a lot of similarities - we see this when we read classic literature and are able to understand it nearly as well as modern literature. I think it’s a mistake to automatically presume that any particular phrase would be interpreted differently then we would read it, without clues that it indeed was interpreted differently (through instances of usage, or ancient translations, or the progression of language evolution for a few examples). As always, we should look for evidence and allow the evidence to guide our conclusions and make the effort to prevent our conclusions from restricting our consideration of the evidence.
I agree that the presumption of truth does not make one wrong. But I think it’s a deeper problem than just being lazy. I think that if one happens to believe the right thing but for the wrong reasons, then he is in the precarious position of being easily persuaded away from the truth when he learns that his reasons are wrong. One might also be severely disadvantaged in persuading others of the truth if all he has to offer are poor reasons. And finally, if one’s reasons are wrong, then even if he might happen to believe the truth despite his poor reasons, it is more likely that what he believes is not the truth.
(I carefully used “one” because I didn’t want to imply that you were the “one” - I was just making a general observation that applies to anyone and for any set of beliefs - not just religious ones)
Marty,
I just picked up a copy of “JOURNEYS: Transitioning Churches to Relevance” … from Lifeway!
Actually, the Lifeway I went to was a brand new one that recently opened up next to the Home Depot I go to, and I’ve been meaning to go in there anyway.