A christian philosophy would be the search for truth under the starting point of reason and observations of the natural world (like any other philosophy), and then attempt to uncover the same conclusions as the christian theology. This is explained in my video Part #3 (I will not put the link because I think the moderators of the forum don't like this). — A Christian Philosophy
Our goal is to get familiar with philosophy in general,
then, move on to use philosophy to examine the theological truths that are verifiable,
And then, once a trust has been built, we take a leap of faith to consider the unverifiable theological truths.
Note that this leap of faith would not be blind, but supported by reason;
Because if all the verifiable claims from a source are verified to be true, then it is reasonable to infer that the remaining unverifiable claims are also true, being that they come from the same source.
We should make a distinction between Christianity and the christians. No doubt, some christians are bad christians; but this does not suggest that Christianity is false; inasmuch as bad mathematicians don't make mathematics a false science.I'd never observed a single "christian" who'd come close to living as Jesus had lived. — 180 Proof
Being a Christian is easy in theory: It is all derived from the two great commandments (Matthew 22:36-40).at bottom there was only one Christian, and he died on the cross. — 180 Proof
It does not necessarily follow, but it it reasonable. I explain this argument in the video Part #4 haha.Just because A, B, C are true, it does not reasonably follow that X, Y and Z are necessarily true. — ThinkOfOne
A christian philosophy would be the search for truth under the starting point of reason and observations of the natural world (like any other philosophy), and then attempt to uncover the same conclusions as the christian theology. — A Christian Philosophy
Scientism, the belief that “any claim that is not provable by the empirical sciences is meaningless”, is itself not provable by the empirical sciences. — A Christian Philosophy
Philosophy is inherently critical. Any Christian philosopher worth their salt would put their efforts into disproving Christianity. — Banno
↪ThinkOfOne Hello.
Just because A, B, C are true, it does not reasonably follow that X, Y and Z are necessarily true.
— ThinkOfOne
It does not necessarily follow, but it it reasonable. I explain this argument in the video Part #4 haha.
But I'll give you the summary here.
If all A's we can observe are B, then it is reasonable to infer that "all A's are B", because the other possible explanation, "some A's are B and some are not", fails Occam's Razor. And if all A's are B, then the A's we cannot observe are also B.
E.g. If all swans we have observed so far are white, it is reasonable to infer that all swans are white, and we expect the next swan to be white.
Here is a closer example to the argument in the video: Suppose a fortuneteller claims he can predict what will happen to you tomorrow. He claims A (something that is not reasonably foreseeable) will happen, and indeed, A does happen the next day. Then he does it again, and again for 100 days in a row. Is it not reasonable to believe his next prediction? — A Christian Philosophy
Using personal Experience and innate Reason to hack a path through the jungle of religious beliefs was my only philosophical option. A common religious/political solution is to eliminate those who believe differently (excommunicate, burn at stake). Anyway, even though I had doubts about some aspects of my childhood religion, I could think of only two explanations for why-there-is-something-instead-of-nothing : A> Eternal Something (objects) or B> Eternal Potential (creative force). Before I was born, a Catholic priest proposed a controversial scientific point-of-origin hypothesis. Shortly afterward, Astronomical evidence for expansion of everything from a single speck of space-time began to pile-up. From those bits of logic & evidence, the Big Bang theory was formulated. Which called into question, the long-standing scientific & philosophical presumption that our physical world (something) was eternal, and all there is.Sounds like a good approach to me. If you already accept a being that is the First Cause, then here is a simple argument to tie it to the God of the bible: — A Christian Philosophy
Robert Grosseteste¹ was not a 20th century "Catholic priest" but a 13th century Bishop. (re: De Luce, 1225 CE)²... a Catholic priest proposed a controversial scientific point-of-origin hypothesis. Shortly afterward, Astronomical evidence for expansion of everything from a single speck of space-time began to pile-up. — Gnomon
But a faithful Christian starts of with the truth. So the philosophy must be disingenuous.Philosophy is the search for truth — A Christian Philosophy
Just because some topics are not empirically verifiable, does not mean they are not verifiable or defendable by reason alone. E.g. the scientific method cannot be defended empirically (that would be circular) but it is defended by epistemology, which is a rational science.It's justification lies in the fact that its rejection would be problematic in terms of claims that are unverifiable which simply means propositions whose truth value can't be ascertained at all. — Agent Smith
Philosophy is the search for truth; thus if Christianity is in fact true, then philosophy will find Christianity. And if Christianity is not true, then philosophy will find that too. — A Christian Philosophy
It is simple induction (or sometimes called abduction): inference to the most reasonable or probable explanation. E.g. We do not know with certainty that the sun will rise tomorrow, yet it is very reasonable given our experience of the world up to now.Actually it isn't reasonable. X, Y and Z each stand or fall on their own accord. Since they are unverified, at best all that anyone can reasonably say about any one of them, is that it might possibly be true. Neither the number of verified claims, nor the number of unverified claims is relevant. — ThinkOfOne
Keep in mind you could always remain agnostic. But let's say we had to choose. Then we should assume that the unverifiable claim is true, because the fact that there is a precedence for truth and not falsehood is a sufficient reason to tip the scale.Let's say a given source only makes two claims. One verifiable. The other unverifiable. The verifiable claim is verified to be true. According to your argument, if the verifiable claim is verified to be true, then it is reasonable to infer that the unverifiable claim is also true. — ThinkOfOne
What would it mean to say Christianity is true? Is this a philosophical question or a historical/scientific one? Which version of Christianity would you want tested in this way? — Tom Storm
Just because some topics are not empirically verifiable, does not mean they are not verifiable or defendable by reason alone. E.g. the scientific method cannot be defended empirically (that would be circular) but it is defended by epistemology, which is a rational science. — A Christian Philosophy
Sure it can be defended – it works. The scientific method consists of an archive of practices, and is not a proposition. Compare modern medicine to "faith healing": the latter does not work anywhere nearly as well, or reliably, as the former. After all, as the abductive saying goes: nothing fails like prayer. :eyes:E.g. the scientific method cannot be defended empirically — A Christian Philosophy
Sure it can be defended – it works. The scientific method consists of an archive of practices, and is not a proposition. Compare modern medicine to "faith healing": the latter does not work anywhere nearly as well, or reliably, as the former. After all, as the abductive saying goes: nothing fails like prayer. :eyes: — 180 Proof
What would it mean to say Christianity is true? — Tom Storm
Good questions Tom :up: — javi2541997
I think something more along the lines of modern healing arts vs traditional healing arts would be more fair a comparison.Compare modern medicine to "faith healing": the latter does not work anywhere nearly as well, or reliably, as the former. — 180 Proof
By works I suppose you mean that predictions (made by scientific theories) come true which is to say we have some semblance of control over our environment; we would like nothing better than to be in the driver's seat which seems to be unoccupied as far as we can tell — Agent Smith
Einstein did. — Yohan
Imagination is more important than knowledge. Knowledge is limited. Imagination encircles the world. — Albert Einstein
Thanks for the obscure info. I had never heard of Grosseteste. I was referring to Lemaître in the 20th century. And the oblique reference was merely intended to suggest that the notion of a sudden beginning to space-time would seem more reasonable to a Christian than to an Atheist. Ever since, Atheists have been trying to find alternative philosophical (hypothetical ; speculative) explanations for the scientific evidence of a creation event (something from nothing). And they are still at it. (see below). :wink:Robert Grosseteste¹ was not a 20th century "Catholic priest" but a 13th century Bishop. (re: De Luce, 1225 CE)² — 180 Proof
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.