Great video, but I have to disagree with knowledge being defined as "justified, true belief". No one in epistemology takes this as the definition since Gettier's famous problem. It doesn't affect your argument, since the modern definition is "justified, true belief + other stuff".
Thanks for that. I was trying to keep it simple, I know the discussion about what can be considered knowledge is deep and complex. But, as you said, I dont think my point is not really affected. However one wants to describe true knowledge, the biblical definition that Aaron tries to espouse, would make the meaning of faith unintelligible.
@djosephallen "I think that just because you give a reason....doesn't make it a GOOD one."
True, but do you think that is what the verse is suggesting? "Be prepared to give reasons for your hope, but it doesn't matter if they suck." Generally when people talk about reasons, they are referring to GOOD ones.
“I believe that God has made me and all creatures. He has given me my body and soul, eyes, ears, and all my limbs, my reason, and all my senses, and still preserves them.”
Or this from Tertullian:
"For reason is a property of God's, since there is nothing which God, the creator of all things, has not foreseen, arranged and determined by reason; moreover, there is nothing He does not wish to be investigated and understood by reason."
The first one really doesn't say much. He is just crediting god for creating him. He credits god for giving him reason, yet says nothing about how he implements it.
The second one.....seems like, as many theists do, Mr Tertullian spoke out of both sides of his mouth, and probably appealed to reason when convenient, and dismissed it when it was inconvenient.
Also....context might be important. Can you please cite your source?
@djosephallen About Luther: Yeah, that could be true, but I think taken in context Luther is trying to say that reason is a good thing, unless you want to claim that Luther believed the body and the senses were also evil. Plus, a theologian of his caliber would see the trouble of admitting that bad or undesirable things could come from God.
The Tertullian quote is taken from "De Paenitentia," which means "On Repentance" I think, and has some differing translations.
@shotinthedark90 "Faith must trample under foot all reason, sense and understanding, and whatever it sees it must put out of sight, and wish to know nothing but the word of God."
Thanks for that!.....I think we can see a pattern developing. Quotes can be given for both sides, and that was a point I made in the video. The reality is, Faith has come to mean what it does over time, for a good reason. If taken in totality, the stance of religions towards reason, science and progress is less than stellar.
@djosephallen That is just blatantly false. The Church CARRIED education through Antiquity and the Middle Ages. If not for religious institutions, there is no telling where we might be today. In fact, one of the reasons we value reason so much is due to the scholastic and humanist movements which started with Church thinkers.
That said, it is true that anyone can cherrypick quotes. It is important to note that Luther doesn't hate reason, else he would never have debated Erasmus.
Really? So who was it then that condemned Galileo for heliocentrism? Who was it that fought evolution and modern scientific progress tooth and nail? (Some still do).
Back then, the Church had much power and monopoly on everything. So yeah they might have "carried" education in a way. But science has carried THEM kicking and screaming into modernity.
@djosephallen I never said that the Church has always agreed with scientific theories, but to say that all religions are somehow an opposing force to reason and scientific knowledge is... well... silly, to use a nice word.
Also, there are different suggestions as to why the Church opposed Copernican theories, some of which have nothing to do with religious dogma. There are political, social, and economic factors to be taken into account.
I think we can somewhat agree here. I stated "the stance of religions towards reason, science and progress is less than stellar." By no means did I imply that all religions and religious leaders are completley against reason. Just like I wouldnt say that "religion is the root of all evil". But can you really deny that religions have been, more than once, a substantial opposing force to reason and science? Let's be honest.
@djosephallen You are right, we can partially agree here. I can not deny particular cases of religious people opposing scientific theories, but I think I am justified in denying that they have opposed reason altogether. Let's remember that reason and science are not synonymous, and that a conflict perceived by a few is not always an actual conflict. So, certain religious beliefs have been perceived by some to conflict with certain scientific theories, yes.
@djosephallen Just like there must be a distinction between "science" and "scientists," there must be a distinction between "religion" and "the religious." Let's take the Copernican Revolution for example. Certainly there were even scientists who disagreed with heliocentric models, does that mean that science opposed science? No, that's ridiculous. By the same token, there were certainly Church clergy who opposed such models as well, but does that necessarily mean religion opposed science?
@shotinthedark90 Sorry for the belated response. It seems we can go on forever, so after this, I suggest we agree to disagree. But let me say this: Your example proves my point. Science and scientists are ALWAYS against science,but in a manner different from religion. Scientists that were against the Copernican revolution, did so on grounds of the perceived evidence and the resistance of a paradigm shift. (CONT....)
Religions and the religious were against it on a basis of faith and scripture. And they would condemn as heretics and threaten with hell, people like Galileo that contradicted their religions notions. When have scientists EVER condemed each other, or killed each other over a scientific dispute? The answer is NEVER, They challenge each other on the basis of facts and evidence. (CONT...)
There is no denying, from looking at history and what historical figures have left behind, that the churches have constantly been a force against scientific progress. Sure, there are some exceptions here and there, but I'm talking big picture. What you are doing, is exactly what some religious people are starting to do with homosexuality, claiming that ohhh, religions were never against it, it was just misinterpreted. (Cont...)
In 100 years there will be a guy just like you, trying to argue that the Church was never against homosexuality or homosexuals. Its historical revisionism at its finest. (Sorry for the long response :)
@djosephallen Well, we can agree to disagree. I am in no way trying to argue that the Church was never against modern scientific theories. My point was that there must be a distinction between "the Church" and Christianity. You can easily make a justified claim that the Church was historically opposed to certain scientific theories which challenged its authority. BUT, you can not make a logical leap from "the Church opposed science" to "Christianity opposed science."
@djosephallen In order to show that Christianity opposed to science you'd have to do some scripture interpretation that stands up to scrutiny.
The modern assumption is that science and religion are playing king of the hill for the truth, and religion somehow has impure motives, but science doesn't. Religion is playing for control of society or something, but science just wants the facts. In reality, religion searches for spiritual truth while science searches for physical truth. Same team.
@djosephallen I could go on, but like you said... agree to disagree. Thanks for the thought provoking video. Also, thanks for the responses to my comments, much appreciated.
@djosephallen In fact, nobody actually despises reason. All these quotes suggest is that there is a different understanding of the relationship between faith and reason. What Luther and Tertullian mean is that, when there is a conflict between faith in God and our own reason, we must take faith over reason, since we are prone to error. But that position itself they seek to defend with reason, so it's not as if faith and reason are in conflict as much as they compliment one another.
@booniesman88 the problem with your example of wind is that wind can be imperically proven, as well as confirmed by other parties. You can't say this with the effects of a god. How do you know the effects aren't the product of a mental disorder? Even if the effects were the product of a god how can you be certain of which god caused it?
Hebrews 11 1Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.
This is the only direct definition of "Faith" I could find in the Bible! All other reference of faith are always someone else's interpretation of the word. "...evidence of things not seen" If it's not seen, is it really evidence?
When I was making the vid, I thought about searching for more examples where the Bible contradicts Aarons assertion, but I couldn't be bothered. I figured since he used only one passage I would do the same. But now we have another good example of the bible describing faith as less than reasonable and not supported by evidence.
@anthony167 : is it evidence if it is not seen. Yes. Of course my definition of "seen" may differ from yours in the context of the verse. When i'm on my porch and look out across the yard and see the snow blow and my flag gently swaying I know that it is from the wind though I can not see the wind, I see it's effects.
@booniesman88 We call something evidence because it distinguishes two possible hypotheses from each other. Not simply that you claim to observe an effect. For example, if you observe "nature" this does not qualify as evidence of "God" in a discussion between theism and naturalism because "nature" existing will be the case in both hypotheses.
Usually there must also be a solid theory connecting observation to a causal chain connecting X to Y, as well as agreement about what Y is.
Great video, but I have to disagree with knowledge being defined as "justified, true belief". No one in epistemology takes this as the definition since Gettier's famous problem. It doesn't affect your argument, since the modern definition is "justified, true belief + other stuff".
PainefulMass 1 year ago
@PainefulMass
Thanks for that. I was trying to keep it simple, I know the discussion about what can be considered knowledge is deep and complex. But, as you said, I dont think my point is not really affected. However one wants to describe true knowledge, the biblical definition that Aaron tries to espouse, would make the meaning of faith unintelligible.
Thanks for your comment.
djosephallen 1 year ago
What do you think of this statement from 1 Peter 3:15
"Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have."
shotinthedark90 1 year ago
@shotinthedark90
I think that just because you give a reason....doesn't make it a GOOD one.
djosephallen 1 year ago
@djosephallen "I think that just because you give a reason....doesn't make it a GOOD one."
True, but do you think that is what the verse is suggesting? "Be prepared to give reasons for your hope, but it doesn't matter if they suck." Generally when people talk about reasons, they are referring to GOOD ones.
shotinthedark90 1 year ago
What do you think of this quote from Luther:
“I believe that God has made me and all creatures. He has given me my body and soul, eyes, ears, and all my limbs, my reason, and all my senses, and still preserves them.”
Or this from Tertullian:
"For reason is a property of God's, since there is nothing which God, the creator of all things, has not foreseen, arranged and determined by reason; moreover, there is nothing He does not wish to be investigated and understood by reason."
shotinthedark90 1 year ago
@shotinthedark90
The first one really doesn't say much. He is just crediting god for creating him. He credits god for giving him reason, yet says nothing about how he implements it.
The second one.....seems like, as many theists do, Mr Tertullian spoke out of both sides of his mouth, and probably appealed to reason when convenient, and dismissed it when it was inconvenient.
Also....context might be important. Can you please cite your source?
djosephallen 1 year ago
@djosephallen About Luther: Yeah, that could be true, but I think taken in context Luther is trying to say that reason is a good thing, unless you want to claim that Luther believed the body and the senses were also evil. Plus, a theologian of his caliber would see the trouble of admitting that bad or undesirable things could come from God.
The Tertullian quote is taken from "De Paenitentia," which means "On Repentance" I think, and has some differing translations.
shotinthedark90 1 year ago
@shotinthedark90 "Faith must trample under foot all reason, sense and understanding, and whatever it sees it must put out of sight, and wish to know nothing but the word of God."
-Martin Luther
Gnomefro 1 year ago
@Gnomefro
Thanks for that!.....I think we can see a pattern developing. Quotes can be given for both sides, and that was a point I made in the video. The reality is, Faith has come to mean what it does over time, for a good reason. If taken in totality, the stance of religions towards reason, science and progress is less than stellar.
djosephallen 1 year ago
@djosephallen That is just blatantly false. The Church CARRIED education through Antiquity and the Middle Ages. If not for religious institutions, there is no telling where we might be today. In fact, one of the reasons we value reason so much is due to the scholastic and humanist movements which started with Church thinkers.
That said, it is true that anyone can cherrypick quotes. It is important to note that Luther doesn't hate reason, else he would never have debated Erasmus.
shotinthedark90 1 year ago
@shotinthedark90
Really? So who was it then that condemned Galileo for heliocentrism? Who was it that fought evolution and modern scientific progress tooth and nail? (Some still do).
Back then, the Church had much power and monopoly on everything. So yeah they might have "carried" education in a way. But science has carried THEM kicking and screaming into modernity.
djosephallen 1 year ago
@djosephallen I never said that the Church has always agreed with scientific theories, but to say that all religions are somehow an opposing force to reason and scientific knowledge is... well... silly, to use a nice word.
Also, there are different suggestions as to why the Church opposed Copernican theories, some of which have nothing to do with religious dogma. There are political, social, and economic factors to be taken into account.
shotinthedark90 1 year ago
@shotinthedark90
I think we can somewhat agree here. I stated "the stance of religions towards reason, science and progress is less than stellar." By no means did I imply that all religions and religious leaders are completley against reason. Just like I wouldnt say that "religion is the root of all evil". But can you really deny that religions have been, more than once, a substantial opposing force to reason and science? Let's be honest.
djosephallen 1 year ago
@djosephallen You are right, we can partially agree here. I can not deny particular cases of religious people opposing scientific theories, but I think I am justified in denying that they have opposed reason altogether. Let's remember that reason and science are not synonymous, and that a conflict perceived by a few is not always an actual conflict. So, certain religious beliefs have been perceived by some to conflict with certain scientific theories, yes.
shotinthedark90 1 year ago
@djosephallen Just like there must be a distinction between "science" and "scientists," there must be a distinction between "religion" and "the religious." Let's take the Copernican Revolution for example. Certainly there were even scientists who disagreed with heliocentric models, does that mean that science opposed science? No, that's ridiculous. By the same token, there were certainly Church clergy who opposed such models as well, but does that necessarily mean religion opposed science?
shotinthedark90 1 year ago
@shotinthedark90 Sorry for the belated response. It seems we can go on forever, so after this, I suggest we agree to disagree. But let me say this: Your example proves my point. Science and scientists are ALWAYS against science,but in a manner different from religion. Scientists that were against the Copernican revolution, did so on grounds of the perceived evidence and the resistance of a paradigm shift. (CONT....)
djosephallen 1 year ago
@shotinthedark90
Religions and the religious were against it on a basis of faith and scripture. And they would condemn as heretics and threaten with hell, people like Galileo that contradicted their religions notions. When have scientists EVER condemed each other, or killed each other over a scientific dispute? The answer is NEVER, They challenge each other on the basis of facts and evidence. (CONT...)
djosephallen 1 year ago
@shotinthedark
There is no denying, from looking at history and what historical figures have left behind, that the churches have constantly been a force against scientific progress. Sure, there are some exceptions here and there, but I'm talking big picture. What you are doing, is exactly what some religious people are starting to do with homosexuality, claiming that ohhh, religions were never against it, it was just misinterpreted. (Cont...)
djosephallen 1 year ago
@shotinthedark90
In 100 years there will be a guy just like you, trying to argue that the Church was never against homosexuality or homosexuals. Its historical revisionism at its finest. (Sorry for the long response :)
djosephallen 1 year ago
@djosephallen Well, we can agree to disagree. I am in no way trying to argue that the Church was never against modern scientific theories. My point was that there must be a distinction between "the Church" and Christianity. You can easily make a justified claim that the Church was historically opposed to certain scientific theories which challenged its authority. BUT, you can not make a logical leap from "the Church opposed science" to "Christianity opposed science."
shotinthedark90 1 year ago
@djosephallen In order to show that Christianity opposed to science you'd have to do some scripture interpretation that stands up to scrutiny.
The modern assumption is that science and religion are playing king of the hill for the truth, and religion somehow has impure motives, but science doesn't. Religion is playing for control of society or something, but science just wants the facts. In reality, religion searches for spiritual truth while science searches for physical truth. Same team.
shotinthedark90 1 year ago
@djosephallen I could go on, but like you said... agree to disagree. Thanks for the thought provoking video. Also, thanks for the responses to my comments, much appreciated.
shotinthedark90 1 year ago
@shotinthedark90
Cool. Thank you for the interesting exchange.
djosephallen 1 year ago
@djosephallen In fact, nobody actually despises reason. All these quotes suggest is that there is a different understanding of the relationship between faith and reason. What Luther and Tertullian mean is that, when there is a conflict between faith in God and our own reason, we must take faith over reason, since we are prone to error. But that position itself they seek to defend with reason, so it's not as if faith and reason are in conflict as much as they compliment one another.
shotinthedark90 1 year ago
When I want to lie to someone I look them in the eye and assure them - "it's the gospel truth".
AncientAtheist 1 year ago
@AncientAtheist
I just swear to god :)
djosephallen 1 year ago
@booniesman88 the problem with your example of wind is that wind can be imperically proven, as well as confirmed by other parties. You can't say this with the effects of a god. How do you know the effects aren't the product of a mental disorder? Even if the effects were the product of a god how can you be certain of which god caused it?
anthony167 1 year ago
Thank you for your civil response.
I might respond to it soon.
aaronk1994 1 year ago
@aaronk1994
Sure Aaron. Hope you do respond. Take care.
djosephallen 1 year ago
Hebrews 11 1Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.
This is the only direct definition of "Faith" I could find in the Bible! All other reference of faith are always someone else's interpretation of the word. "...evidence of things not seen" If it's not seen, is it really evidence?
anthony167 1 year ago
@anthony167
Thanks for that.
When I was making the vid, I thought about searching for more examples where the Bible contradicts Aarons assertion, but I couldn't be bothered. I figured since he used only one passage I would do the same. But now we have another good example of the bible describing faith as less than reasonable and not supported by evidence.
Thanks for your comment.
djosephallen 1 year ago
@anthony167 : is it evidence if it is not seen. Yes. Of course my definition of "seen" may differ from yours in the context of the verse. When i'm on my porch and look out across the yard and see the snow blow and my flag gently swaying I know that it is from the wind though I can not see the wind, I see it's effects.
booniesman88 1 year ago
@booniesman88 We call something evidence because it distinguishes two possible hypotheses from each other. Not simply that you claim to observe an effect. For example, if you observe "nature" this does not qualify as evidence of "God" in a discussion between theism and naturalism because "nature" existing will be the case in both hypotheses.
Usually there must also be a solid theory connecting observation to a causal chain connecting X to Y, as well as agreement about what Y is.
Gnomefro 1 year ago