Biblicism in a Single Image

I’m not sure I get this….lol.

James, everyone’s political philosophy drives their understanding of the “real world”. Fundamentalists, or those “attuned to the text” usually separate the “real world” from the “spiritual world”. Not only does it lead to sectarianism, but it denies truth other than “special revelation”. In our society, we allow for sects, as we believe that religious liberty is important in a free society. The question is what to do, when a particular sect disagrees with America’s ”ultimate values” such as liberty of conscience, individual rights, and tolerance.

I don’t think the “answer” is to claim Jesus as “moral model” for Americans. We have been doing humanitarian aid, and seeking to resolve the conflicts, and address evil in the world. The question today, is one of priority, for America. We cannot continue to support financially all of the causes, as the money is just not there. Americans are hurting at home. And we must take care of our own business, not seek “Utopian ideals”!

I think there are two answers to that. On the one hand, the possibility that one could in some sense hear the voice of Jesus in some other way – by the Spirit speaking, through other people, etc. – is worth considering. On the other hand, the possibility that what Jesus’ core message was, or some element of Jesus’ teaching, could get obscured through appeal to other parts of the Bible, is also an aspect (think for instance of the so-called “Red Letter Christians”).

Not all are, no. Whether they ought to be is another question!

Alex, evil in the world, is defined by America’s ultimate values of liberty. Liberty is justice, because we don’t believe in unlimited government, dominating over individual choices of value.

Alex, the ones that would believe in the real world AS the spiritual one, would be “post-millenialist” in their eschatology. But, this position has not been popular broadly speaking after the World Wars,  because “idealistic understandings” of reality are not practical.

When Rome fell, Augustine (a Church Father) sought to bring an explaination to “buff up” Christian belief….in a transcendental realm (The City of God)…which became the understanding of “pre-millianialists”…..Luther, though, was an “amillinialist”…Each position sought to make an apology for believing in the “return of Christ” and the Church’s part in the world, until “Christ’s return”.

 Such beliefs are motivating forces for action, or inaction, but aren’t verifiable other than through personal belief in text/tradition. Falsification cannot be accomplished in the transcentdental realm, therefore, one has to rely on probabilities and if one wants to act on “faith” apart from reason.  This is problematic in my opinion, because irrationality is not how our society has made it alliances, in negotiation, and contract based on self interest, not irrational belief systems!

Angie – if you’re going to secularize “spirit”, you might as well just stop using the word. No need for it. Call it conscience. And if all conscience was simply an internalization of one’s cultural upbringing, society would remain fairly static. Your ”nothing other” is a ridiculous reductionistic notion of conscience that would rule out alot of the counter-cultural liberation movements throughout history.

Angie – it really has nothing to do with eschatology. Christian Fundamentalists believe the world is thoroughly imbued with the spiritual. They believe the Spirit of God inhabits their bodies as the Temple of God. Demons inhabit other people, etc. That is the sense that I’m using “spiritual”. I am not sure how you are using it.

The whole criterion of falsification is probematic in and of itself as well so I’m not sure why you’re even mentioning it. Barely anything is really truly falsifiable and it is certainly not a criterion that we actually use in any consistent manner to adjudicate between theories. The criterion of falsification as a measure of whether or not propositions are “true” or “scientific”, etc. – completely falls on its own sword as it is self-stultifying. For instance, a statement like “Propositions are not meaningful/scientific/true unless falsifiable” is not itself falsifiable. I wonder if you’ve studied such criteria from the standpoint of analytic philosophy.

Revolutions are counter-cultural movements, true. But, I don’t believe that our government calls for revolution because we have a Constitution that protects rights and dissent and allows for addressing grievances….

As to conscience, one’s development and understanding of everything depends on what one is taught formally and informally, even though a child is geared to develop self awareness, innately. How that self awareness is understood and expressed depends on how the family/society/culture around the child views “self awareness”, independence, etc.

Many liberation movements, yes, have happened because of a conviction that one would rather die than live under tyranny. Man searches for liberty of some kind, otherwise, man ceases to be man. Man is a rational animal and needs the liberty of choice.

Liberty as justice, is not undefined. The individual has the liberty to pursue his own interests and value his own values, apart from over-intending government. So, I don’t think I made any assertions about what Americans believe, other than liberty. Government is to protect such liberty.

 Angie – forget the Constitution. Not that its not relevant to my comments. The Civil Rights movement had to happen regardless of whether or not we had a Constitution that allegedly protected the rights of blacks for example. Conscience is alot more complex than what one is taught. People have the capacity for conscious moral deliberation and can filter what they are taught by surrounding culture/environment, and respond in ways that are often not inherent to that culture/env. The capacity for moral deliberation is part of what got America its Constitution and liberty in the first place. Culture and environment will always be a factor but it does not eclipse the importance of the individual and their unique decision making.

Well – falsifiability as some sort of litmus test for truth or correspondence to reality is untenable. The axiomatic assumptions of any belief system are completely unfalsifiable, as is the criterion of falsifiability itself. You will rarely even see falsifiability mentioned by scientists doing their work, outside of the creation/evolution debate. Such demarcation criteria fell out of use decades ago after realizing that, philosophically, they did not hold up under scrutiny, and actually ruled out a lot of foundational beliefs already held by all parties. You may see such criteria mentioned in abductive reasoning or inference to the best explanation, but only as one of a number of such, which might make a particularly theory more palatable to an individual, over and above another – not as a prerequisite. But all such abductive inferences are decided according to the subjective value one assigns to the criteria themselves. Nowadays, more popular criteria are simplicity, beauty/elegance, tractability, explanatory power, and explanatory scope, etc. It would benefit you to pick up an introductory text on Philosophy of Science, and Inference to the Best Explanation.  

American government should not prescribe an individual’s commitments or values, though, obviously, those that think that government is an answer to control and make others “see things their way”, might prescribe certain things through the regulations, over and above the Constitution. These are debates about whether government should intervene in birth control, for instance, or should that be an individual’s personal choice and responsibility.

 Angie – how do you know this?

 Angie – referring to a diversity in human perspectives on God really doesn’t tell us that God hasn’t said anything to humanity. As an analogy, most people probably believe in an underlying objective reality that science attempts to describe. There have been a diversity of scientific opinion on the nature of reality throughout history, more failed hypotheses than otherwise, radical paradigm shifts in scientific understanding, and currently there are a vast diversity of views, particularly when it comes to cosmology. Many believe our two best theories – Quantum Mechanics and General Relativity – are irreconcilable and even contradictory at the moment. None of this, however, would contradict the view that science attempts to describe an underlying objective reality – some aspects of which we have accurately glimpsed.

Further, any explanation (whether scientific or otherwise) has to be “believed”. Indeed, belief is part of the tripartite understanding of knowledge as “justified true belief” that has been around since Plato. Asserting that any or all religions are merely man’s attempt to explain reality as you are, and that there is no legitimate divine revelation is simply begging the question. 

I’d recommend some introductory texts on epistemology as well. Do you have a solid grasp on how it is you think human beings come to “know” anything? I’d be interested to hear your take on the process.