is Christianity true or false? (evolution, beliefs, belief, exist)

[mordant]

Originally Posted by MissionIMPOSSIBRU

1. Instrumentalism uses science as a basis to determine the meaningful utility of science, meaning that its justification is tautological.

Theism uses the Bible as a basis to determine that the Bible is accurate and inspired and has meaningful utility. THAT is tautological.

Using science to determine the (in)validity of a hypothesis is not science (in)validating science; it is science (in)validating reality. And note the important distinction here: science is based on falsifiability, and is just as happy to disprove a thing as to prove it. Religion is only interested in "proving" its rightness; anything demonstrating wrongness is itself invalid by definition, as it contradicts given revelation.

Originally Posted by MissionIMPOSSIBRU

2. Meaningful utility and truth value have correlated poorly in the history of science.

What does that even mean? Some truths (e.g., celestial mechanics) have more utility than others (e.g., how to build a classroom volcano). So? Does religion correlate utility and truth? Does it do a better job of it? And ... is it even an important measure of validity? I know a zillion facts that I don't get much use out of, a million or so that I do get a lot of use out of. Learning and exploring the world is all about sorting out the wheat from the chaff.

Originally Posted by MissionIMPOSSIBRU

3. The standard of 'natural world utility' is necessarily a poor standard when it is used to evaluate the truth value of causal interrelationships beyond the natural world.

You are assuming that there even IS a world beyond the natural world. By necessity and definition, since we are natural beings confined to a natural world, our science cannot speak about other worlds. We can't even raise valid (falsifiable) hypotheses about other worlds. We can only speculate. Religion is how we do that. We use it to dress up sheer speculation in pretty clothes so that we can pretend we are doing something useful with our time.

Originally Posted by MissionIMPOSSIBRU

I agree that science and religion are not a dichotomy. However, you go on to identify Christian dogma (in essence, metaphysical foundational beliefs) as an epistemic standard apart from the scientific method, unaware that science itself is founded upon a panoply of metaphysical assumptions. By their nature, these assumptions cannot be verified evidentially, at the risk of circular reasoning, and their existence is among the many reasons why logical positivism collapsed 70 years ago.

Any point of view has to start from a set of first principles. That set of principles should be as economical as possible. A set of principles based on our consistent shared experience of known reality is a far better starting point than a set of principles based on our inconsistent unshared non-experience of unknown alternate realities.

[MissionIMPOSSIBRU]

Originally Posted by mordant

Theism uses the Bible as a basis to determine that the Bible is accurate and inspired and has meaningful utility. THAT is tautological.

Any point of view has to start from a set of first principles. That set of principles should be as economical as possible. A set of principles based on our consistent shared experience of known reality is a far better starting point than a set of principles based on our inconsistent unshared non-experience of unknown alternate realities.

Christian theism is actually justified, in epistemic terms, through the personal spiritual experience of Christ under the guidance of scripture. Technically, this isn't a tautology, but a sub-type of foundationalism [specifically, reformed epistemology]; much like empiricism (sensory experience of the real world) and rationalism (intuitive experience of synthetic a priori knowledge, such as logic) serve as foundations of science and reason.

Is personal experience of another individual truly less parsimonious than the panoply of foundational beliefs that are assumed a priori in the scientific method of inquiry? I don't think so. Is it any less reliable? I suppose, as an epistemic naturalist, you could claim that this is all hallucination or formal thought disorder; but this is inherently defensive and weak.

As a former non-believer, I've been in the position of throwing vitriol and hatred at Christians for professing such experiences, ridiculing them for being delusional. However, when one experiences the spirit of God moving in your life, making changes far beyond the realm of coincidence or chance, it is a humbling experience.

Using science to determine the (in)validity of a hypothesis is not science (in)validating science; it is science (in)validating reality. And note the important distinction here: science is based on falsifiability, and is just as happy to disprove a thing as to prove it. Religion is only interested in "proving" its rightness; anything demonstrating wrongness is itself invalid by definition, as it contradicts given revelation.

I agree. However, all you've done here is describe the scientific method, or some aspects of it. This is not equal to your instrumentalist claim earlier, which was a direct inference from the 'practical utility' of science to the position that the world described by science is, exclusively speaking, the correct world.

Science is a methodology predicated upon the foundations of empiricism and rationalism; instrumentalism is a philosophy that asserts the epistemic exclusivity of science. The latter is something that, by definition, cannot be verified or falsified by science. By your own falsificationist standards below, it is meaningless, so I don't even have to argue against it here. You do a fine job of that yourself.

What does that even mean? Some truths (e.g., celestial mechanics) have more utility than others (e.g., how to build a classroom volcano). So? Does religion correlate utility and truth? Does it do a better job of it? And ... is it even an important measure of validity? I know a zillion facts that I don't get much use out of, a million or so that I do get a lot of use out of. Learning and exploring the world is all about sorting out the wheat from the chaff.

What it means is that claiming that knowledge P is true on the basis of P's meaningful or practical utility is historically unreliable. This is nothing to do with the claim that Christian theism does a better job of correlating utility with truth, nor is it the claim that Christian theism has more utility, therefore a superior representation of truth. I suggest you pay attention to the nuances here.

You are assuming that there even IS a world beyond the natural world. By necessity and definition, since we are natural beings confined to a natural world, our science cannot speak about other worlds. We can't even raise valid (falsifiable) hypotheses about other worlds. We can only speculate. Religion is how we do that. We use it to dress up sheer speculation in pretty clothes so that we can pretend we are doing something useful with our time.

When we speak of an observer evaluating the truth value (note this term carefully) of causal processes beyond the natural world, this is not an a priori assumption of the supernatural. It refers to the observer determining whether or not such causal processes exist at all.

The rest of your comment is interesting. Earlier, you were keen to distance yourself from scientism; yet what you describe here is a textbook reiteration of the falsifiability criterion of meaning; the view that scientifically unfalsifiable knowledge is meaningless, or in your terminology here, nothing short of empty "speculation".

I needn't go over why or how this position is wrong, given that there is ample literature on the collapse of Verificationism/Falsificationism. Indeed, when even the original authors of this philosophy are keen to disavow it, I think one should pay careful attention.

[ATUMRE75]

Christianity and all other religions belief systems are beliefs without any proven facts. The Christian doctrine was grafted and plagiarized from older text that predates Christianity by thousands of years such as the Torah, old testament, Gilgamesh Epics, Enuma Elish, and the Egyptian Book of the dead.

Jesus can be found in Egypt as Horus and can be found in Sumeria as Tammuz. Cross reference all three stories without being under the spell of belief and you will see that these people and stories are one and the same. Even the so-called virgin Mary can be found in Sumeria and Egypt as Ishtar and Isis. The trinity was also grafted out Egypt from the triad of Atum-re, Amun-ra, and Atun-re (Father the Son, and Holy Ghost) = Morning, High noon, and Shadow our or night fall. I find it strange that the Mother Mary who carried this holy child for 9 months was left out of the Christian trinity which further proves that religion is man-made.

To answer the question it is false.

[MissionIMPOSSIBRU]

Originally Posted by KCfromNC

Christianity uses a superset of these assumptions, so if an empirical outlook fails philosophically, so do Christian beliefs. That is, unless you're asserting that Christianity rejects the idea that there's an observable reality and that we can learn about it, but I think that's a pretty daft idea.

More simply, there's a huge difference between assuming reality exists and assuming that God sent his only begotten son who was also himself to sort of but not really die as a sacrifice to himself for screwing up when he created humans. One's a reasonable jump necessary to get anything done, the other is a bald assertion of faith backed by nothing but wishful thinking. Playing philosophy word games to try and pretend these assumptions make both views equally weak isn't going to get very far considering their relative accomplishments. Just because we all have to make assumptions doesn't mean we get to make up anything we want.

This is the only vaguely coherent response I could find in your comment. Sorry, friend, but I really tried to make sense of the rest of your comment in the context of my reply, and failed.

There are plenty of naturalistic foundational beliefs that aren't also maintained by Christian theism. These include beliefs such as Verificationism, Falsificationism, logical positivism, the causal closure principle, anomalous monism, instrumentalism and operationalism. None of these are determined by physical observation of the real world, but are maintained as foundational philosophical positions; or "bald assertions of faith" in your terminology.

All of these positions assert far more than the fact that "[the natural world] exists". They either assert the exclusiveness of the natural world (metaphysical naturalism) or the meaninglessness/conceptual unacceptability of things beyond the natural world (epistemological naturalism), which is a different set of claims altogether. Moreover, most of epistemological naturalism is now disregarded as untenable by scholars, as of the late 20th century.

Indeed, Christian theism has no quarrel with pure empirical inquiry when it is unburdened by other epistemic or ontological assumptions, otherwise the history of science would not be replete with astoundingly gifted believers.

[KCfromNC]

Originally Posted by MissionIMPOSSIBRU

This is the only vaguely coherent response I could find in your comment. Sorry, friend, but I really tried to make sense of the rest of your comment in the context of my reply, and failed.

If you have any specific questions on stuff you didn't understand, let me know.

There are plenty of naturalistic foundational beliefs that aren't also maintained by Christian theism. These include beliefs such as Verificationism, Falsificationism, logical positivism, the causal closure principle, anomalous monism, instrumentalism and operationalism.

Those aren't foundational beliefs. They're particular approaches to discovering truth built on a number of assumptions, but they're not the assumptions themselves.

And interesting you have Christians accepting and contributing to science in one moment and rejecting the basis of it - falsificationism - the next. Maybe this list doesn't have much to do with naturalistic beliefs after all if the super-naturalists are [at least selectively] adopting these positions as well.

None of these are determined by physical observation of the real world

So? Why would you expect them to be?

All of these positions assert far more than the fact that "[the natural world] exists".

Yes, it appears that presenting these as naturalism is a red herring.

Moreover, most of epistemological naturalism is now disregarded as untenable by scholars, as of the late 20th century.

If you say so. Meanwhile, despite the pronouncements of those scholars, we continue to use naturalistic approaches to produce real results.

Indeed, Christian theism has no quarrel with pure empirical inquiry when it is unburdened by other epistemic or ontological assumptions, otherwise the history of science would not be replete with astoundingly gifted believers.

Yeah, people are pretty good at compartmentalizing and applying special rules to their pet beliefs.

[KCfromNC]

Originally Posted by MissionIMPOSSIBRU

Is personal experience of another individual truly less parsimonious than the panoply of foundational beliefs that are assumed a priori in the scientific method of inquiry?

Which are you most willing to accept as a true representation of reality :

1. Based on personal revelation, all must reject Jesus to have a fulfilling intellectual and spiritual life
2. Based on scientific investigation, objects accelerate towards the earth at 9.8m/s^2

Your response should answer your own question for you.

[BigCityDreamer]

Originally Posted by MissionIMPOSSIBRU

Christian theism is actually justified, in epistemic terms, through the personal spiritual experience of Christ under the guidance of scripture.

In other words - "God exists and Jesus Christ is the only-begotten Son of God, ... because I say so and a certain book confirms it for me."

Well, okay.

[MissionIMPOSSIBRU]

Originally Posted by KCfromNC

If you have any specific questions on stuff you didn't understand, let me know.

Those aren't foundational beliefs. They're particular approaches to discovering truth built on a number of assumptions, but they're not the assumptions themselves.

And interesting you have Christians accepting and contributing to science in one moment and rejecting the basis of it - falsificationism - the next. Maybe this list doesn't have much to do with naturalistic beliefs after all if the super-naturalists are [at least selectively] adopting these positions as well.

So? Why would you expect them to be?

Yes, it appears that presenting these as naturalism is a red herring.

If you say so. Meanwhile, despite the pronouncements of those scholars, we continue to use naturalistic approaches to produce real results.

Yeah, people are pretty good at compartmentalizing and applying special rules to their pet beliefs.

1. Ideas like Verificationism, Falsificationism and Instrumentalism were formally maintained as foundational (properly basic) beliefs. They were regarded by their proponents to be "self-evident", "incorrigible" and "physically sensible"; the formal criteria for classical foundationalism. Logical positivism was simply an aggregate of such basic beliefs centred upon Verificationism.

2. When we speak of scholars and theistic scientists rejecting Falsificationism, they are not rejecting the scientific method, or resorting to special pleading. They are rejecting the view that science is the only method by which to acquire meaningful knowledge.

This is an important distinction for the fact that science itself is predicated upon axiomatic knowledge, such as logical and mathematical truths, that cannot be verified or falsified by science. Under Falsificationism, logical and mathematical axioms would be rendered "meaningless".

3. Naturalism is the ontological proposition that "there exists nothing beyond the natural world". This is a far bolder claim than the fact that "the natural world exists", which is simply a truism, and a belief shared by both naturalists and theists.

Which are you most willing to accept as a true representation of reality :

1. Based on personal revelation, all must reject Jesus to have a fulfilling intellectual and spiritual life
2. Based on scientific investigation, objects accelerate towards the earth at 9.8m/s^2

Your response should answer your own question for you.

And what are the axiomatic foundations of scientific investigation in this comparison?

How is knowledge such as classical logic, the rules of inference, the Peano axioms and Euclid's axioms known to be true? Science cannot verify these truths because science presupposes them. Read about the Intuition-Deduction thesis of Rationalism to understand such knowledge is justified. I suggest you then see how your comparison fares.

[MissionIMPOSSIBRU]

Originally Posted by BigCityDreamer

In other words - "God exists and Jesus Christ is the only-begotten Son of God, ... because I say so and a certain book confirms it for me."

Well, okay.

There is more to it than simple anecdotal evidence, or the commonality of experience shared by many.

What is described here is the idea that an observer has an innate understanding of the existence of God - at the very least some basic appreciation of the transcendental - in the same way that he has an intuitive grasp of axiomatic truths (the foundations of reason), or the way that he has an innate appreciation of the reality of the physical world through the senses (the foundation of empiricism).

The theistic aspect of this has engaged some of the greatest minds from the present day (Reformed Epistemology) to the time of Descartes (the "Trademark argument"). What is also evident is that whenever one or more of these innately evident truths are masked or suppressed, some kind of eccentric theory of knowledge, such as Verificationism, is usually to blame.

[KCfromNC]

Originally Posted by MissionIMPOSSIBRU

1. Ideas like Verificationism, Falsificationism and Instrumentalism were formally maintained as foundational (properly basic) beliefs. They were regarded by their proponents to be "self-evident", "incorrigible" and "physically sensible"; the formal criteria for classical foundationalism. Logical positivism was simply an aggregate of such basic beliefs centred upon Verificationism.

You'll have to take that up with whoever you think is saying these things.

2. When we speak of scholars and theistic scientists rejecting Falsificationism, they are not rejecting the scientific method, or resorting to special pleading. They are rejecting the view that science is the only method by which to acquire meaningful knowledge.

Yep, this is a good example of what I meant about theistic beliefs being a superset of non-theistic ones.

This is an important distinction for the fact that science itself is predicated upon axiomatic knowledge, such as logical and mathematical truths

Nope, people have done science without math.

Under Falsificationism, logical and mathematical axioms would be rendered "meaningless".

Why would you think that methods used to collect and formalize observations about reality would even apply to formal languages like math and logic?

And what are the axiomatic foundations of scientific investigation in this comparison?

What difference does it make? Do you disagree that the second claim is a pretty basic discovery of classical physics?

How is knowledge such as classical logic, the rules of inference, the Peano axioms and Euclid's axioms known to be true?

They're neither true nor false - they're useful tools in particular situations. This is particularly obvious in the case of Euclid - the same people use both Euclidean and non-Euclidean geometry to get work done. Each has a set of mutually contradictory assumptions, and yet each is useful for simplifying certain sets of problems. Not sure that fits into your idea that they are knowledge, per se, just that they're useful tools.

It is like asking if the English language or a ruler known to be true - a pretty obvious category error. They're not meant to be truth statements, they're meant to be useful tools to help discover truth.