Science and the scientific method is a useful tool to discover epistemological truths that exist within the empirical (that which can be measured) and the theoretical (that which can be inferred from the empirical). However, Science is not a world-view and does not give you any healthy explanation for why reality is as it is (no metaphysical solution). Therefore one needs metaphysical frameworks in conjunction with an epistemological one (such as the scientific method) to have a more holistic/complete view of reality. Such metaphysical frameworks can be that of Christianity, or Philosophy (but Christianity being the pragmatic titan that it is, is already complete in it's perspective; even if some of the minor less important points are wrong).
>Prove me wrong. (and before any of you say that God doesn't exist, consider that you have no proof he doesn't. Don' try pulling that "burden of proof" shit on me, if you make that claim you have to prove it. Just as if i say there is no water in the sahara, i have to prove it. Either way this is not an argument about the existence of God, but the necessity of a framework such as Christianity to having a more complete understanding of the world. If you try pulling that shit in this thread, reevaluate your life and please gtfo).
how can something dogmatic be used as framework to understanding the truth which is in itself not dogmatic
Wyatt Stewart
Metaphysical frameworks are irrelevant to modern experience. People experience reality piece by piece, they don't need the complete view.
Justin Butler
Wouldn't it be more sensible to be right about the big picture and have a few minor specifics wrong, then to have one specific thing right and be wrong about everything else? Even though we experience reality chronologically, it makes more sense to see the whole picture than just a piece of it. t. A theist when they see the mona lisa sees art, an atheist sees paint.
Joseph Adams
>big picture >OP pic is for ants
David Evans
If you eat an apple you'll bite around the bruised areas, not eat it all in one mouthful.
except that the truth is found through dogma, which i define as a presupposed principle based on the following definition (lets not get into a semantic debate please): >Dogma: a principle or set of principles laid down by an authority as incontrovertibly true. A scientists as an authority on naturalistic material epistemology sets down the principle assumption (aka: dogma) that one can learn the truth about material reality based on what they can measure empirically. A Christian sets down the dogma that all of reality is a reflection of a higher transcendental reality (like the platonic cave) and that most everything about the metaphysical intricacies of life can be understood from a big-picture perspective of life through a top-down perspective from the "eye of god" (divorced from in-the-moment biases, retrospective). That this reality being an ordered construct by a higher power, abiding to the laws set forth by said higher power, can be understood if we seek to study it; and that by studying it we can in turn understand the creator that made it and partook in it (that being Jesus).
You certainly don't eat a whole apple by taking a single bite and saying "i ate an entire apple". Likewise, a more pragmatic means of understanding reality (that being from the bigger picture) is better than a very specific understanding of one very specific facet of reality. It's more worthwhile overall to be right about the bigger picture and be wrong about a few specifics than to be right about one specific thing and be wrong with pretty much everything else.
picture related
Aaron Ward
How am I supposed to prove nonsense is false?
Lucas Flores
>It's more worthwhile overall to be right about the bigger picture and be wrong about a few specifics than to be right about one specific thing and be wrong with pretty much everything else. isnt this self defeating
Michael Kelly
What makes Christianity so special? Why shouldn't I go with any other monotheistic religion like Judaism or Islam?
Alexander Jenkins
>isn't this self defeating how so?
Elijah Fisher
how can you be right about the big picture if you don't get the specifics you would always be wrong, infinitely wrong furthermore you are assuming the idea of the big picture is a priori of the experience thus making it so the beings in question are divorced completely from the metaphysical model which would exist regardless
Justin Howard
Judaism is the predecessor to Christianity, and lacks some knowledge that Christianity uncovered later on with the influence of Greek Philosophers and the Medieval era (the first age of enlightenment) where Christianity (unlike Islam) expanded their understanding of the bible and the world around them proto-scientificially, theologically, and philosophically. Whether we are willing to admit it or not, much of the wisdom they discovered still sits at the foundations of western tradition and culture (and our recent attempts to abandon it have produced sour results). Why is Christianity special? Because while the Muslims were developing mathematics, and the Jews developing sage wisdom, the Christians were paving the way for modern science, philosophy, constructing beautiful universities and cathedrals, developing art and culture, architecture, etc. Christianity, of the three monotheistic religions, is the one that has produced the most worthwhile information, and imparted the most complete understanding of reality. What i have to ask is why we should consider any other theology, when Christianity's is so well built?
Levi James
You're missing the forest for trees user. If i only ever focus on one tree, i would never see the forest around me. Seeing the big picture is noticing that you are in a forest, you may miss a mushroom or two, but you will still see the trees, birds, bees, etc. You seem to have the misconception that seeing the bigger picture means being divorced from the specifics. That is not the case at all. Rather, seeing the bigger picture means you don't give as much of a shit about specifics as you do about the overall image. The Mona Lisa consists of multiple paints arranged in a specific way. If an art critic talked about the pain't and it's arrangement rather than about the painting as a whole, they would not be a good critic. >you are assuming the idea of the big picture is a priori of the experience thus making it so the beings in question are divorced completely from the metaphysical model which would exist regardless I am not assuming the big picture is a priori of the experience. You have it backwards. The big picture is built upon a prior discovered understanding of reality, and thus all other understandings of reality are understood within the framework of this rule-of-thumb understanding of reality. The Church fathers, and before them the founders of Judaism (arguably Abraham and Moses) learned some element of truth about the world around them from the world around them, and then from that derived a metaphysical framework from which all other understandings are based on. You build a house from foundation upwards, not roof first.
Wyatt Wright
What about genesis accounts on creation and a global flood?
Alexander Morgan
>Judaism is the predecessor to Christianity, and lacks some knowledge that Christianity uncovered later on with the influence of Greek Philosophers That's not true . Modern Judaism is very heavily by Neoplatonic thought. Ever heard of Kabbalah? The Zohar?
Camden Phillips
People often mistakenly assume that for one to arrive at truth they must have truth be derived from empirical proofs. This is not always the case. Mythology, for instance, demonstrates metaphysical truths, even when they are not literal. Such as the boy who cried wolf. Does anyone give a shit if there really was a boy who cried wolf and got eaten? no (unless you're autistic). That's because most anyone understands that the point is not whether there was a boy crying wolf to trick his village, the point lies in the truth of the myth (that constantly crying false alarms, makes it less likely one will respond to a real one). Likewise, it does not matter so much whether there actually was a flood, or whether creation really did happen in 7 days. What matters is the truth behind such legends/myths/fables (the flood following cain, demonstrating that the travisty of evil in man's heart brings chaos (the waters) unto the very men who invoked it from the evil within their own hearts. [See Stalin's Russia or Hitlers Germany.]). I hope that clears it up for you. (godly youtuber: youtube.com/watch?v=8TWhXouiWpI)
>Modern Judaism is very heavily by Neoplatonic thought. Ever heard of Kabbalah? The Zohar? If i want to get more technical, i could point out that for a while Judaism and Christianity developed side-by-side following their schizim, and that it continued that way for about 300-400 years. (youtube.com/watch?v=fDG5U0inNlE)
Christianity is preferable today since it's developments separate from Judaism have continued to clarify and perfect it's theology and framework, whereas Judaism has tended to stagnate (though i don't know Judaic history post-schism so perhaps i'm wrong).
Kevin Ortiz
>If i only ever focus on one tree but its not one tree its all the trees just you see them separately you just don't get the forest because you cannot get universal truth from singular experience just sets of individual experiences
>misconception that seeing the bigger picture means being divorced from the specifics >upon a prior discovered understanding of reality, except not because if it exist from before the beings like god does then it is divorced
and then again not knowing the specifics makes you infinitely wrong a smaller infinity but still its infinity
Luke Morales
>and then again not knowing the specifics makes you infinitely wrong >not knowing the specifics makes you infinitely wrong >>>>>I happen to know my cat is covered in black and white fur. However, i do not know if this is the case for every single individual hair. Therefore i'm infinitely wrong about the composition of my cat's fur. >>>>>I happen to know there is a basket of apples at the farmers market. Perhaps there is a peach in there, in which case i am infinitely wrong and the basket is not an apple basket. (pic related) You are missing the bigger picture yourself and not quite seeing what i mean, because you are so fixated on the technicalities of my argument that you cannot seem to tell what the main point is. The only way this situation could become more absurd and autistic is if you started to deconstruct my metaphors and analogies.
>if it exist from before the beings like god does then it is divorced How is this the case at all? Please elaborate?
Matthew Jenkins
That's all well and good but the thing is that Christianity is inherently dogmatic. I don't mean this pejoratively; I just mean that it's predicated on the belief in certain dogmas. No mainstream Christian denomination interpret it in the way people like Peterson do.
Nevertheless, Christianity was a vital institution with respect to Western civilization. Many atheists are too butthurt to accept that.
I do think that it's now outlived it's usefulness. With current biblical and historical scholarship, dogma is becoming more and more untenable. To what we should transition to, I don't know
Aiden Myers
To further iterate on the first part, I explained at an earlier time that the bigger picture does not disclude specifics, but focuses more on understanding the whole point precisely, even if it lacks a bit of accuracy (like a rule of thumb. Generally true with possible techicalities or exceptions).
The sky is blue. This is a generalization which holds true with the exception of sunset, sunrise, and special celestial events.
Justin Richardson
lol you probably just binge-watch Jordan Peterson and now you're larping as an expert on Christianity.
Dylan Phillips
>To what we should transition to, I don't know Problem is there is nothing else to transition to. Which is why i have to disagree that Christianity has lost it's utility. That and Christianity understands the human condition, and addresses it with excellent solutions to it's less-than-glorious outcomes.
The dogma of original sin and human sinfulness makes us more self-critical and cautious, which makes us more responsible, and accountable human beings. The dogma of debt to the love of God makes us as Christians less likely to waver to immoral action, because of our loyalty to the contract with moral good (God). This can be seen in the death camps of Hitler's Germany, where Christians even in the worst of conditions still acted humanely, while everyone else lost their humanity.
Unless there comes something that does a better job in both theory and practice than Christianity, then it is unwise to assume that it is no longer useful to have Christianity around.
Nolan Morales
you're a fuqing idiot prove me right wait you did
Joseph Brooks
i have watched JP, not going to deny that. And i like his explanation of mythological truth, however he is not the first nor the last Christian to understand this about our Theology. (in modernity) GK Chesterton, CS Lewis, etc. all understood this principle about christian theology.
I am no expert on Christian theology, I'm quite the lay-man. But i know a lot because i am required to in a modern secular world that attacks this faith from every angle that it can.
Oliver Gray
>Oh look, here comes r/atheism :^)
Nathan Jackson
>I happen to know my cat is covered in black and white fur. However, i do not know if this is the case for every single individual hair. Therefore i'm infinitely wrong about the composition of my cat's fur >>>>>I happen to know there is a basket of apples at the farmers market. Perhaps there is a peach in there, in which case i am infinitely wrong and the basket is not an apple basket. exactly you would be infinitely wrong. who can establish the limits of what makes something be? infinity in itself
>How is this the case at all? Please elaborate? because it doesn't come from empiricism or theoretically its exist a priori god the beginning of all creation. all creation doesnt exist before god so you are not taking what is know you are just applying metaphysics to physics
Wyatt Ross
>The dogma of original sin and human sinfulness makes us more self-critical and cautious, which makes us more responsible, and accountable human beings. Those are themes, I'm referring to dogma like what you see in the nicene creed. The belief thst the historical Jesus was the only son of god. The belief in a literal hell. And of course, the most infamous form of literalism in the denial of evolution and so on.
If Christianity could evolve into something like what he describes, then I'd support it. If we could get to the point where mainstream Christianity accepted the allegorical and human nature of their texts and rejected literalism, then that would be a Christianity compatible with the future.
Zachary Brooks
>exactly you would be infinitely wrong. who can establish the limits of what makes something be? infinity in itself because it doesn't come from empiricism or theoretically its exist a priori god the beginning of all creation. all creation doesnt exist before god so you are not taking what is know you are just applying metaphysics to physics absolutely none of this is true and i will highlight why in pieces. >because it doesn't come from empiricism or theoretically Of course it does not. I used pretentious wording to say in essence that empiricism/theoretics aka: science only gives us a partial understanding of reality, not a complete one. >all creation doesnt exist before god so you are not taking what is know I am indeed taking what is known (the physical worlds existence, that order does not arise from chaos, etc) and from that inferring other things. >you are just applying metaphysics to physics I forgot what Rene Descartes called it, principle/prime philosophy or something? You need to start somewhere to develop a philosophy (a framework from which the rest of reality is understood). This is the case with what i am arguing. Christianity being that prime principal since it is so well built and makes sense logically, theologically, and sometimes even physically.
Jack Wilson
>Of course it does not. I used pretentious wording to say in essence that empiricism/theoretics aka: science only gives us a partial understanding of reality, not a complete one. Exactly its divorced from them its not inferred how can you paint a big picture out of nothing
> am indeed taking what is known when you claim god is the beginning you are not talking about what is known just god and gods attributes which again would exist a priori making it divorced . It would make more sense to name nature as that supreme being from which all comes
Angel Cruz
>I'm referring to dogma like what you see in the Nicene creed. Nicene creed's dogma is essential for an orthodox understanding of Christianity. For a while Christianity had no idea what it was (going through teen-age angst phase), Gnostic's and Aryans came about because of this angst phase and continued until all the church fathers came together and voted unanimously for the Nicene creed, which is the basis of all orthodox belief and fundamental for Christianity to be Christianity. The Trinitarian God-head, Christs Resurrection, all these things are required. Remove any of them and it's no longer Christian (that is why Mormonism is not recognized as Christian by any denomination except Mormons).
>The belief that the historical Jesus was the only son of god. The belief in a literal hell. And of course, the most infamous form of literalism in the denial of evolution and so on. If Jesus is not the son of God, then he lacks the purity required to be the atonement for sin. If hell does not exist, then rapist rick gets to enjoy heaven with pure patricia despite doing evil, which would not be justice. The only Christians who believe in 7-day Adventism or Genesis Literalism are fundamentalists, and that's because they tried to wedge Scientific Empiricism into what could very well be metaphor and then demanding that it (the infallible word of God) in the improper context (scientific literalism) be the go to explanation for the physical world, and not scientific proofs. And remember that this infamous stuff is incredibly recent (only started in the 19th century). continued-->
Chase Thompson
continued-->
>If we could get to the point where mainstream Christianity accepted the allegorical and human nature of their texts and rejected literalism, then that would be a Christianity compatible with the future. That existed more than 1000 years ago and still continues to exist in large part. Christianity is as much shaped by the culture around it as it shapes the culture around it. Give it time and Christianity will continue to improve, as it has in the past and will continue to by the guidance of the holy spirit forevermore amen.
Henry Flores
>When does a heap of sand and took each grain out, when does it stop being a heap first you should define what counts as a heap.
>Exactly its divorced from them its not inferred how can you paint a big picture out of nothing I would love to argue in circles with you for the next millennium about how an inferred concept of reality is divorced from reality. Unfortunately i have more important things to do (like fiscal returns).
>when you claim god is the beginning you are not talking about what is known just god and gods attributes which again would exist a priori making it divorced. i have no clue what you're on about (probably because you lost me after i was "infinitely wrong".
Adrian Nelson
Believing in the nicene creed is just as incorrect as believing genesis literalism. Read Bart Ehrman. The gospels are imperfect human constructs. It's unlikely that the historical Jesus ever called himself God at all. I'm unsure as to whether or not you believe otherwise or if you're arguing for the utility of these beliefs in terms of their ability to structure society a certain why. I can sympathize with the latter argument
Cameron Sanders
* certain way
Ryder Long
>The gospels are imperfect human constructs. They're a lot more perfect than you think, considering that the scribes who copied it and held it in oral tradition held it in high reverence, and were unlikely to change much at all. That and the words of Jesus were passed down at most 3 generations (~40 yrs each) between the beginning of the apostolic mission and the first written copies of the gospels, which makes it ulikely that much if any flaws occured. There is proof of this hypothesis, considering that the fragments of papyrus we were able to find for the gospels showed an incredible level of similarity. Let me show you the math: Jesus was born around 2-5AD. He began his service at 30 years old and died at 33 (35-38AD). His apostles then spread the good news for another 30 years (Peter's papacy ended between 64-68AD). Meanwhile paul began his spiritual journey in 36AD and helped author the gospel of mark in 45AD, around the same time he began his missionary journey [chronology detailed by this fine gentleman: ccel.org/contrib/exec_outlines/paul.htm]. His first missionary journey lasted from 45-49AD, then came the Conference In Jerusalem. Then came the second missionary journey (51-54AD) where in teh latter end paul wrote his first two epistles, i won't detail the rest. In sum, hes mission ended in 68AD (60 years before the oldest copy of the gospel, papyrus 52 was written). Keep in mind that the next generation (Timoty, Mark, etc) were carrying this tradition for about 40-60 more years (not including the persecution, which spread the gospels greatly). The Gospels are VERY true, considering everything i have just said.
Ian Jackson
>It's unlikely that the historical Jesus ever called himself God at all. You never met him in person so i doubt you can say that with certainty. Best to trust the secondary sources that document what he said and did (aka: the gospels). >I'm unsure as to whether or not you believe otherwise or if you're arguing for the utility of these beliefs in terms of their ability to structure society a certain why. both. The Faith is not merely a means to the ends of societal stability, but it is also an ends in and of itself. >Read Bart Ehrman. Is he a biblical scholar, and does he have ulterior motives?
Hudson Gray
Read "How Jesus Became God" by Bart Ehrman and look him up on YouTube. He has no agenda; he's a respected scholar in this. Most schools use his textbooks.
Jaxon Brown
I checked quickly. He is indeed the scholar who wrote my uni textbook on this topic. He is indeed respectable (since he does not assume Christ actually was the son of God, or anything like that).
This is a bit abrupt, but i need to do something else right now. C u.
