Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

aChristianPhilosophy t1_iwbw7nn wrote

I made an introduction video (2 mins) to Christian Philosophy, designed for non-Christians and non-philosophers. Here. Could I obtain some input on the content to know if it is too simple or too complex?

Thesis: If Christianity is true, then believing in its claims does not have to start with blind faith in divine revelations but can start with philosophy.

Simply put, the argument is:

  1. Philosophy is the search for truth,
  2. And if Christianity is true,
  3. Then Philosophy will (likely) find Christianity.
1

Gahkhaz t1_iwcougg wrote

Your argument rests on the assumption that Christianity can be determined to be true or false.

3

aChristianPhilosophy t1_iwf7lrp wrote

You are correct. There is the possibility that all Christian truths simply cannot be found (which would be bad news for Christianity).

Now this is outside of the scope of the argument, but fortunately, most Christian denominations agree that the Christians truths (at least some of them) can be found by reason, so that faith is not blind.

1

janbuckgqs t1_iwd38mw wrote

I commented on your Yt aswell, but can't you switch out Christianity in your argument with any other thing (e.g. the Spaghetti monster) ?

The real deal is to explain why you put Christianity in your Argument, and not anything else imaginable.

Plus, your definition of Philosophy stems from an old Tradition, i don't think all modern Philosophers would agree. Philosophy is the love for Wisdom, and that can entail the fact that there are no truths at all (in an objective sense atleast). Greetings

3

aChristianPhilosophy t1_iwf71e8 wrote

Thank you for the feedback!

>can't you switch out Christianity in your argument with any other thing (e.g. the Spaghetti monster) ? The real deal is to explain why you put Christianity in your Argument, and not anything else imaginable.

At this stage, yes, anything that is true can go in the argument. But this is an introduction video for Christian Philosophy. In subsequent videos, I will argue why Christianity is more reasonable than the other religions.

>Plus, your definition of Philosophy stems from an old Tradition, i don't think all modern Philosophers would agree.

Agreed as well. As I explain in the next video, the modern-day definition is actually "search for truth that is not empirically verifiable" (otherwise it is part of science). But I like the pre-modern definition so as to not limit ourselves to strictly using philosophy (in the modern sense) or science when searching for truth.

>Philosophy is the love for Wisdom, and that can entail the fact that there are no truths at all (in an objective sence atleast).

The statement "there is no objective truth" is a self-contradiction, because then this very statement cannot be objectively true ;)

1

janbuckgqs t1_iwg0220 wrote

"At this stage, yes, anything that is true can go in the argument"

No no, eh yes, but your argument also works with other than True stuff, and that's the Problem, more at the bottom.

"Agreed as well. As I explain in the next video, the modern-day definition is actually "search for truth that is not empirically verifiable" (otherwise it is part of science)."

Science is the most reliable way to knowledge, they don't produce objective truths in your sense. everything is Subject to change, if necessary. There is a part of the world, where empirical data represents it the best (e.g. Illness etc., Better not believe them Tom cuises ;) ) and there is a part of the world we can't extrapolate Data - e.g. Morality, because this is a emergent phenomenon. (Nothing special about that, picture a piano: there are no chords on it, still we talk about them. You will never find a chord on your Piano, only the keys, and our taste dictates what keys sound good. The problem is, that the Premises have to be verifiable, and any Argument not trying to prove the premises is a bad one. Your conclusion has absolutely no weight if you cant prove the premises. ( So like the best sounding chord, i cannot imagine a superior religion.)

"The statement "there is no objective truth" is a self-contradiction, because then this very statement cannot be objectively true ;)"

No it is not, you just made a linguistic game out of it. There is a possibility that there are no Truths. I just wrote objectively to make clear that i don't mean Stuff like "I like sandwiches". My comment is not a positive claim, its leaving a possibility open and you just shiftet the burden of proof in a linguistic manner so to say. Your thinking comes from Perikles old ontological view, but there is no proof that ontologically speaking we live in a "completed" world. Also proving stuff only in Language is not the way to go, you need to connect it to the "World."

(If you want to know more about this, read "The promise of artificial intelligence" by B.C. Smith, (existential argument against general AI for now). cool book*.)*

So, here we go, back to the Top:

The argument also works with logically impossible stuff.

-2. "If a squared Ball is True" (for example)

(--> philosophy might not find it.)

So if Christianity would not be true, Philosophy might not find it, and that's what they have (not) done for the last thousand years.

How can u access that Christianity has higher chances than Islam, Bhuddism, or the logically impossible Squared Ball? That's the real question, if you can answer that get ready for a Big Award from Humanity because Ppls trying what your doing for 2000 years now and they continuously failed to do so. I'm not trying to mock you btw.

For your future argument:

"I will argue why Christianity is more reasonable than the other religions."

Sounds to me like saying Santana is better than Gary Moore, and i will show you why. Great, but if you want to prove something else than your taste, you really need to watch out and make sure your premises are checked, and connected to the world. I will take a bow if you show me otherwise, good luck sir.

1

aChristianPhilosophy t1_iwne791 wrote

>everything is Subject to change, if necessary

Even if that is true, it doesn't mean the topic is not objective. A topic can be objective yet can still change. E.g. The Earth is round in 2022. Maybe it will be flat once it get hits by a meteor; but the first statement is still objectively true.

​

>Your conclusion has absolutely no weight if you cant prove the premises. ( So like the best sounding chord, i cannot imagine a superior religion.)

All arguments should start with observation of the natural world, but they don't have to end with observation. If I put 2 spoons in an empty box and then another 2 spoons, I conclude with certainty that there are 4 spoons in the box. This could be verified with observation but it doesn't need to be.

​

>There is a possibility that there are no Truths.

Is it true that "there is a possibility that there are no truths"? The statement must refer to reality, otherwise it is just meaningless or is merely expressing our feelings and nothing more.

To put same point in a different way: Either object A exists in reality or it doesn't. If we say "Object A exists" and "Object A does not exist", one of those two statements must necessarily be true; i.e. it aligns with reality.

​

>"I will argue why Christianity is more reasonable than the other religions."
Sounds to me like saying Santana is better than Gary Moore, and i will show you why.

"Reasonable" does not mean "it makes sense to me"; it is similar to "probable" without the need to be quantified, and it means it is more likely to be true than not.

1

slickwombat t1_iwhwnyb wrote

As given your argument isn't valid, but we can make it valid with some minor tweaks:

  1. Philosophy is likely to demonstrate anything which is true.
  2. (Assume for the purposes of argument that) Christian beliefs are true.
  3. Therefore, philosophy is likely to demonstrate Christian beliefs.

As for soundness, (2) is meant as a supposition here so we can leave it aside.

But is (1) even plausibly true? Philosophy is certainly a search for certain kinds of truths, but not necessarily any kind. We can of course modify that premise to be at least a bit more specific, e.g., "philosophy is likely to demonstrate any truths which are knowable via reason." But would that include Christian beliefs? Only if we assume exactly what you mean to demonstrate, i.e., that these are not instead justified by things like divine experience or revelation.

And of course, even assuming that philosophy is engaged in the relevant kind of enterprise, are we warranted in thinking it's likely to succeed? What if Kant is right, and any philosophical attempt to demonstrate via pure reason, e.g., the existence of God or the immortality of the soul results inescapably in antinomies and thus fails?

3

aChristianPhilosophy t1_iwniph3 wrote

Hi. I agree with pretty much everything you said. The argument on its own has holes. I can give you an answer that stands outside of the argument though.

Each individual Christian claim either falls under the set of topics that (1) can be found with natural reason alone (which includes science), or (2) needs to be supported by divine revelation such as the Bible.

If (1), then the argument stands. If (2), then fortunately arguments can be made to defend that the Bible is a reliable source: If all the verifiable claims from a source or method are verified to be true, then, by induction, it is reasonable to conclude that the remaining unverifiable claims from that same source or method are also true.

As an analogy: If all the planets we have observed so far are round, then it is reasonable to predict that the next planet we discover will also be round.

1

MaxTheAlmighty t1_iwc23ic wrote

As a catholic christian who really likes philosophy, I find your comment to be similar to the syllogisms used by the stoics.

2

Beautiful_Look_8441 t1_iwgzfvc wrote

I replied to your post already to be honest it’s not a very good argument …..

Simply put, the argument is:

1:Philosophy is the search for truth,

Yes

2:And if Christianity is true,

And if Palmistry is true

3:Then Philosophy will (likely) find Christianity.

Then Philosophy will (likely) find Palmistry

1

x3n0n89 t1_iwlwgy1 wrote

I'd say christianity doesn't need to be true. The whole point of having faith gets negated by the search for absolute certainty.

Try Kierkegaard and his idea of a "leap of faith".

Not christian myself but applying principles to your life and act "as if" there is a god, then your days until death will be more likely to be like heaven than hell.

I wouldn't oversimplify by just living by principles. Look at the core values of christianity and compare them to something like humanism and you will find common denominators. Some examples: unconditional love, solidarity, generosity, justice and equality, tolerance etc.

Now you could argue: wait actual christians aren't [insert life-affirming value] at all! That is because core principles and values don't seem to be internalized and applied that much, instead the focus lies on finding out if the scripture is true in a scholastic and calculated sense. Roger Bacon criticised this.

In pragmatic terms the bible doesn't need to be true for it work.

1

aChristianPhilosophy t1_iwnjpas wrote

Hi. What you say works well in the pragmatic sense. But I'd say that we can still find arguments to support that Christianity is also true.

I wouldn't worry about philosophy finding certainty and replacing faith - it's not going to happen. To be very strict, certainty is only found in pure logic and mathematics. For everything else, truth is at best only reasonable or probable. And true faith is not blind but supported by reason. It is "the act of believing and behaving based on knowledge that is not certain yet reasonable".

1