nieciedo

Posts: 5,617

May 8, 2012 -- 8:16PM, Blü wrote:

nieciedo

How does one ascertain if an a posteriori claim conforms with reality? Especially when it's a personal subjective experience, and also when it's the 1st century BCE and the scientific method hasn't been invented yet?

Personal subjective experience of reality is evidence for court purposes, but is always greatly stengthened by corroboration. If it comes to a contest between a witness's description and a CCTV recording, the witness will very usually lose.

Personal subjective experience of the supernatural is generally a report of an emotional experience, not a factual one.

I don't agree. If I see a ghost, for example, I'm not having an emotional experience: I'm experiencing a visual sensation that may or may not be objectively real but which I am interpreting as a factual experience.

Where supernatural revelation of factual information is claimed, it's innately improbable, it's incapable of corroboration and no objective test can distinguish it from the imaginary.

So only faith can let one believe it.

True, but is this a universal rule or is it culturally conditional? We presume that supernatural revelations are improbable and so we hold them in suspicion. On the other hand, if a culture assumes that these revelations are common and probable, does this change?

Eliascomes

Posts: 861

May 8, 2012 -- 8:13PM, Paladinsf wrote:

"Who said God needed Ananias to do it or that He couldn't have healed Paul Himself? "

So why didn't he?

To bring them together, remember Paul was a persecutor of Christians and Ananias was afraid of Paul; That had taken great faith for them two to meet.

Eliascomes

Posts: 861

May 8, 2012 -- 5:53PM, mainecaptain wrote:

May 8, 2012 -- 4:55PM, Eliascomes wrote:

The same as how we know if our leaders of today speak the truth of their life experiences. It's all about faith.

Using only faith, means he could have been completely wrong. Or completely lying. Everyone who believes Paul could very well be following a charlatan.

As KWinters sais, faith is not knowledge

Christianity is all about having the knowledge of the spiritual realm that bring you closer to God.

Matthew 14:31
Immediately Jesus reached out his hand and caught him. “You of little faith,” he said, “why did you doubt?”

John 20

But he said to them, “Unless I see the nail marks in his hands and put my finger where the nails were, and put my hand into his side, I will not believe.

²⁶A week later his disciples were in the house again, and Thomas was with them. Though the doors were locked, Jesus came and stood among them and said, “Peace be with you!” ²⁷Then he said to Thomas, “Put your finger here; see my hands. Reach out your hand and put it into my side. Stop doubting and believe.”

²⁸Thomas said to him, “My Lord and my God!”

²⁹Then Jesus told him, “Because you have seen me, you have believed; blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed.”

Blü

Posts: 21,138

nieciedo

I don't agree. If I see a ghost, for example, I'm not having an emotional experience:

Point taken. I was thinking of descriptions of encounters with god,

I'm experiencing a visual sensation that may or may not be objectively real but which I am interpreting as a factual experience.

Our subject - call him A - sees something - call it X - and interprets it as a ghost. A is in the same position as any other witness - as you say, no matter he's right or wrong, whether he's believed will depend partly on social norms.

Say in A's culture, ghosts are everyday events, and no distinction is made between real and imaginary. Everyone accepts that A saw a ghost. Even if a video shows X is a dog, some may say Ah, the ghost took the shape of a dog.

That doesn't mean A's culture has it right. That scientific method provides a more accurate description of reality is shown by its success. That's why other cultures are persuaded to adopt it.

fodaoson

Posts: 10,062

Donald Rumsfeld at a press conference on Feb 12 , 2002. Uttered th quote below. He and the quote have been much criticized but it is a brilliant explanation that can be applied to Religion, faith, science and all human knowledge. [ I am not a Rumsfeld fan.btw

“There are known knowns. These are things we know that we know. There are known unknowns. That is to say, there are things that we know we don't know. But there are also unknown unknowns. There are things we don't know we don't know.”

Rumsfeld was talking about the Iraq invasion but the statement has other wider applications as I indicated above. Some can be seen at en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unknown_unknown. For wiki critics, don’t read and don’t’ complain ““I[seldom]make the mistake of arguing with people for whose opinions I have no respect-.

Rumsfeld use some of the statement as his memoir book title.

“I seldom make the mistake of arguing with people for whose opinions I have no respect.” Edward Gibbon

davelaw40

Posts: 19,145

May 8, 2012 -- 9:47PM, Blü wrote:

That scientific method provides a more accurate description of reality is shown by its success. That's why other cultures are persuaded to adopt it.

Argumentum ad populum?

Non Quis, Sed Quid

Blü

Posts: 21,138

dave

Argumentum ad populum?

No, argument from observation - scientific method works.

Bob_the_Lunatic

Posts: 3,458

May 8, 2012 -- 1:34PM, Kwinters wrote:
Paul never knew the earthly Jesus, so how would he know it was Jesus who appeared to him?

He might have thought it was Jesus, he might have believed it was Jesus. But why should anyone have confidence that the thing that Paul experienced was, in fact, Jesus and not something or someone else pretending to be him?

Obviously he had a photograph Kwinters-SNUH.

I agree with your confidence point... I mean this guy wrote what, 20% of the "holiest of holies"??? yet wasn't a god, didn't perform any miracles with the help of a god, didn't even claim to be related to a god.... I mean Moses did all kinds of junk that proved (biblically) that he was 'something' and to be 'trusted' and so forth.... did Paul demonstrate anything that lends any evidence of a god or gods behind him? Just curious. And if not-I'm more curious why again, they'll take so much of this "some guy who was maybe in the desert too long" as such a rock of info.... are they nuts? Is it that whole, "be a christian, and forget how to question" thing? What's the deal Kwinters?

teilhard

Posts: 42,710

According to Luke's Narrative (Acts 9:5), "Jesus" IDENTIFIED Himself to Saul as "Jesus, Whom you are persecuting ... "

May 8, 2012 -- 1:34PM, Kwinters wrote:
Paul never knew the earthly Jesus, so how would he know it was Jesus who appeared to him?

He might have thought it was Jesus, he might have believed it was Jesus. But why should anyone have confidence that the thing that Paul experienced was, in fact, Jesus and not something or someone else pretending to be him?

Dostojevsky

Posts: 4,732

'

“There are known knowns. These are things we know that we know. There are known unknowns. That is to say, there are things that we know we don't know. But there are also unknown unknowns. There are things we don't know we don't know.”

How true**

Argumentum ad populum?

Argumentum ad populum?

Beliefnet On Facebook

What's Hot