This site makes extensive use of JavaScript.
Please enable JavaScript in your browser.
Live
PTR
10.2.7
PTR
10.2.6
Beta
Religion Debate
Post Reply
Return to board index
Post by
218246
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Hyperspacerebel
Likewise, that God has revealed certain things is a core principle of certain religions. In fact, there would be no Catholicism without the revelations.
This isn't what I would call obvious or self-evident, especially to an outsider. For arguments' sake, it really is quite different than "that the whole is greater than the part." Not everyone accepts that the revelations are true.
No one ever said it had to be self-evident. That doesn't make it any less a principle of the religion. In fact, why would something that's self-evident need to be revealed? It doesn't even make sense.
Post by
218246
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Hyperspacerebel
This is why they ask you to prove it. It hasn't been revealed to them. That's your job, if you're arguing it.
You don't prove principles. Otherwise they wouldn't be principles.
Post by
204878
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Squishalot
Why am I missing out on the fun? :(
Post by
218246
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
204878
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Squishalot
Heh, worth a try at answering. I'm just swamped at work these days, so I don't get much chance to reply.
In relation to the 'interpreting formulae vs Bible' comments, formulae can only have one meaning - there are strict rules in place to determine what each character means, and there is no ambiguity in such rules. Reading the Bible, with multiple interpretations of different words and phrases, would be like giving you a formula and telling you that the BODMAS rules don't necessarily apply.
4nd + I + 1.153 - M47x5 = c()M21.1nic.473
Not very well though...
Post by
xaratherus
You don't prove first principles.
You do if you want to build an argument upon them to be accepted by people who see no reason to accept your 'first principle' as true.
Back to the mathematics example, you don't prove that the whole is greater than the part. Euclid takes that for granted as a principle of math, and he would just laugh in your face if you demanded he prove it because you don't agree with one of his proofs.
Euclid would laugh in my face (and rightly so) because someone before him
did
prove that the whole is greater than the part, and could illustrate that to anyone willing to learn. The reason your metaphor fails in this instance is because the same does not hold true for religion.
If a Muslim came up to you and laughed in your face because you did not accept the truth that is the Qur'an, what would be your reaction? After all, if you accept his first principle as true - which is what you're asking anyone else to do when you base an argument upon the Roman Catholic doctrine - then the rest of his statements are supported.
But you don't accept it because he can't prove that first principle, and thus the remainder of his argument is unsupported.
Post by
OverZealous
Except we don't speak in mathematics or put together sums to communicate and you don't have to use maths in nearly every social situation from birth to death. Learning your native language enough to read and comprehend the bible is not as difficult as learning to interpret complex mathematical formulae.
I actually gotta side with HSR on this, though. Even from a strictly archaeological point of view, the bible is pretty complex. It had hundreds of authors over thousands of years across a multitude of ancient societies. From slave-caste Jews in ancient Egypt, to kings of Israel and Judea, to largely literate and well-educated Roman imperials in the New Testament. There actually is an awful lot of room for misinterpretation there.
I'm going with this aswell. Just the fact that there are so many different authors from so many different places, castes and of different languages, should be able to prove, even to you, DoctorLore, that there will be misinterpretations, it is near-inevitable.
Oh dear, i joined a religious discussion again...
Post by
204878
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
xaratherus
I actually gotta side with HSR on this, though. Even from a strictly archaeological point of view, the bible is pretty complex. It had hundreds of authors over thousands of years across a multitude of ancient societies. From slave-caste Jews in ancient Egypt, to kings of Israel and Judea, to largely literate and well-educated Roman imperials in the New Testament. There actually is an awful lot of room for misinterpretation there.
I'm going with this aswell. Just the fact that there are so many different authors from so many different places, castes and of different languages, should be able to prove, even to you, DoctorLore, that there will be misinterpretations, it is near-inevitable.
Misinterpretation implies there is a correct interpretation, that is not a conclusion we can draw from the available evidence.
While I agree with HSR and the others (which runs contrary to the beliefs of a number of Christian groups, who literally believe the Bible's word to be utterly infallible, and to have come through multiple millenia and translations with no major semantic changes), I also somewhat agree with DoctorLore here. Who gets to determine which is an error due to mistranslation, and which an error due to misinterpretation?
Post by
Hyperspacerebel
Except we don't speak in mathematics or put together sums to communicate and you don't have to use maths in nearly every social situation from birth to death. Learning your native language enough to read and comprehend the bible is not as difficult as learning to interpret complex mathematical formulae.
You don't speak in religious language, with religious understandings and religious aims.
You do if you want to build an argument upon them to be accepted by people who see no reason to accept your 'first principle' as true.
First
principles. You understand what is meant by the word, correct? A first principle of science is that the universe is intelligible. Science doesn't prove that (and it can't for that matter), it takes it as given, because without that assumption, science couldn't exist.
While I agree with HSR and the others (which runs contrary to the beliefs of a number of Christian groups, who literally believe the Bible's word to be utterly infallible, and to have come through multiple millenia and translations with no major semantic changes), I also somewhat agree with DoctorLore here. Who gets to determine which is an error due to mistranslation, and which an error due to misinterpretation?
I don't like the assumption that someone "gets to determine" an interpretation. If there is a specific meaning to a text, then there is a rights interpretation and a wrong interpretation. If you're right, you're right; there is no prior authority. That is all in a context, however. Catholics do not believe in
sola scriptura
. We believe in revealed truth outside the Bible, and thus any correct interpretations of the Bible would necessarily be made with those other truths in mind.
Euclid would laugh in my face (and rightly so) because someone before him did prove that the whole is greater than the part, and could illustrate that to anyone willing to learn. The reason your metaphor fails in this instance is because the same does not hold true for religion.
That the whole is greater than the part is taken as self-evident. But even if you were right, then you'd just be shifting it all back a step. The things used to prove that proposition would be the principles. No matter where you stick the principles of a system, they have to be taken as they are.
In relation to the 'interpreting formulae vs Bible' comments, formulae can only have one meaning - there are strict rules in place to determine what each character means, and there is no ambiguity in such rules. Reading the Bible, with multiple interpretations of different words and phrases, would be like giving you a formula and telling you that the BODMAS rules don't necessarily apply.
But my point is that there is only one interpretation (which, sure, can have many facets and ramifications) and that is everything in the passage that God meant to tell us. There is no ambiguity if you understand the system (either math or divine revelation).
Post Reply
You are not logged in. Please
log in
to post a reply or
register
if you don't already have an account.