User Tag List

+ Reply to Thread
Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 32

Thread: On Nature and Grace: The Role of Reason in the Life of Faith

  1. #21
    Points: 74,636, Level: 66
    Level completed: 65%, Points required for next Level: 814
    Overall activity: 41.0%
    Achievements:
    50000 Experience PointsSocialVeteran
    Standing Wolf's Avatar Senior Member
    Karma
    314972
    Join Date
    Oct 2015
    Posts
    25,625
    Points
    74,636
    Level
    66
    Thanks Given
    5,717
    Thanked 21,089x in 12,284 Posts
    Mentioned
    415 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Chris View Post
    One, no, I do not do that.

    Two, you do and it shows you still do not understand what first principles are.

    From observation and experience you derive/deduce laws/rules/etc. First principles are not derived/deduced.

    Again, as an example of a first principle, empiricism, which means that all knowledge is derived from observation and experience, is a first principle of science. It is not observed, it is not experienced, it is not derived, it is not deduced. It cannot be proved. It cannot be disproven. It is assumed to be true. It is thus a first principle.

    As another example of a first principle, that of religion, God exists--or, more generally, revelation. It is not observed, it is not experienced, it is not derived, it is not deduced. It cannot be proved. It cannot be disproven. It is assumed to be true. It is thus a first principle.

    And yet another, the axiom of Euclidean Geometry, a straight line is the shortest distance between two points. It is not observed, it is not experienced, it is not derived, it is not deduced. It cannot be proved. It cannot be disproven. It is assumed to be true. It is thus a first principle.

    I can and have done the same with first principles in law, politics, economics, and so on.

    Statements about observations, experiences, derivations, deductions, inductions, proofs, disproofs are secondary propositions, they are not first principles.

    I am clearly distinguishing first principles from observation and experience. If there is conflation, it is yours.
    More nonsense. The first principles of scientific disciplines, along with those of the law, mathematics, etc., only remain first principles because they do not contradict or conflict with observation and experience - in other words, with our empirical knowledge. If they did so, they would be abandoned. I asked the question before, which you ignored - no surprise - of whether you can imagine a devout Christian or other religionist suddenly renouncing their belief in the existence of God, the divinity of Christ, etc., because something came to their attention that disproved what they thought of as a first principle. First principles, except for those postulated by Religion, do not come out of a burning bush or a patchwork compilation of myths and poetry. First principles in Science and other disciplines, despite your dishonest attempts at misrepresenting them as so, are in no way comparable to the "first principles" of any religion.
    Civilized men are more discourteous than savages because they know they can be impolite without having their skulls split, as a general thing.” - Robert E. Howard

    "Only a rank degenerate would drive 1,500 miles across Texas and not eat a chicken fried steak." - Larry McMurtry

  2. #22
    Points: 665,289, Level: 100
    Level completed: 0%, Points required for next Level: 0
    Overall activity: 85.0%
    Achievements:
    SocialRecommendation Second ClassYour first GroupOverdrive50000 Experience PointsTagger First ClassVeteran
    Awards:
    Discussion Ender
    Chris's Avatar Senior Member
    Karma
    433316
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Posts
    197,553
    Points
    665,289
    Level
    100
    Thanks Given
    31,984
    Thanked 80,905x in 54,720 Posts
    Mentioned
    2011 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Standing Wolf View Post
    More nonsense. The first principles of scientific disciplines, along with those of the law, mathematics, etc., only remain first principles because they do not contradict or conflict with observation and experience - in other words, with our empirical knowledge. If they did so, they would be abandoned. I asked the question before, which you ignored - no surprise - of whether you can imagine a devout Christian or other religionist suddenly renouncing their belief in the existence of God, the divinity of Christ, etc., because something came to their attention that disproved what they thought of as a first principle. First principles, except for those postulated by Religion, do not come out of a burning bush or a patchwork compilation of myths and poetry. First principles in Science and other disciplines, despite your dishonest attempts at misrepresenting them as so, are in no way comparable to the "first principles" of any religion.

    Nah, you're still not getting it.

    The first principles of scientific disciplines, along with those of the law, mathematics, etc., only remain first principles because they do not contradict or conflict with observation and experience - in other words, with our empirical knowledge.
    The empirical first principle of science is that all knowledge can be attained through observation and experience. Empirical knowledge does not prove that assumption. Newton’s F = ma nor Einstein's e = mc2 prove that all knowledge can be attained through observation and experience. No observation or experience proves that all knowledge can be attained through observation and experience.

    The same applies to first principles in any discipline. And that includes revelation.

    Understand that and you will understand first principles and then understand what the OP is saying. Until then it is you conflating first principles with practice in any discipline.
    Tradition is not the worship of ashes, but the preservation of fire. ― Gustav Mahler

  3. The Following User Says Thank You to Chris For This Useful Post:

    Mister D (04-20-2022)

  4. #23
    Points: 84,523, Level: 70
    Level completed: 87%, Points required for next Level: 327
    Overall activity: 12.0%
    Achievements:
    Tagger Second Class50000 Experience PointsSocialVeteran
    Captdon's Avatar Senior Member
    Karma
    12826
    Join Date
    Aug 2017
    Location
    Charleston South Carolina
    Posts
    38,294
    Points
    84,523
    Level
    70
    Thanks Given
    67,690
    Thanked 12,837x in 10,134 Posts
    Mentioned
    161 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Standing Wolf View Post
    More nonsense. The first principles of scientific disciplines, along with those of the law, mathematics, etc., only remain first principles because they do not contradict or conflict with observation and experience - in other words, with our empirical knowledge. If they did so, they would be abandoned. I asked the question before, which you ignored - no surprise - of whether you can imagine a devout Christian or other religionist suddenly renouncing their belief in the existence of God, the divinity of Christ, etc., because something came to their attention that disproved what they thought of as a first principle. First principles, except for those postulated by Religion, do not come out of a burning bush or a patchwork compilation of myths and poetry. First principles in Science and other disciplines, despite your dishonest attempts at misrepresenting them as so, are in no way comparable to the "first principles" of any religion.
    Disprove God and I would stop believing. You can't lump all believers together. That others have had other beliefs makes no difference.
    Liberals are a clear and present danger to our nation
    Pick your enemies carefully.






  5. #24
    Points: 665,289, Level: 100
    Level completed: 0%, Points required for next Level: 0
    Overall activity: 85.0%
    Achievements:
    SocialRecommendation Second ClassYour first GroupOverdrive50000 Experience PointsTagger First ClassVeteran
    Awards:
    Discussion Ender
    Chris's Avatar Senior Member
    Karma
    433316
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Posts
    197,553
    Points
    665,289
    Level
    100
    Thanks Given
    31,984
    Thanked 80,905x in 54,720 Posts
    Mentioned
    2011 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Captdon View Post
    Disprove God and I would stop believing. You can't lump all believers together. That others have had other beliefs makes no difference.
    With due respect, I direct you to the thread that addresses that question: https://thepoliticalforums.com/threa...o-gods-or-many.

    Here, the point is that revelation is a theological first principle and that all that follows from it is reasonable--as reasonable as any other discipline that assumes a first principle.
    Tradition is not the worship of ashes, but the preservation of fire. ― Gustav Mahler

  6. #25
    Points: 74,636, Level: 66
    Level completed: 65%, Points required for next Level: 814
    Overall activity: 41.0%
    Achievements:
    50000 Experience PointsSocialVeteran
    Standing Wolf's Avatar Senior Member
    Karma
    314972
    Join Date
    Oct 2015
    Posts
    25,625
    Points
    74,636
    Level
    66
    Thanks Given
    5,717
    Thanked 21,089x in 12,284 Posts
    Mentioned
    415 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Chris View Post
    With due respect, I direct you to the thread that addresses that question: https://thepoliticalforums.com/threa...o-gods-or-many.

    Here, the point is that revelation is a theological first principle and that all that follows from it is reasonable--as reasonable as any other discipline that assumes a first principle.
    Religion is the only realm in which a first principle can come into being through supernatural revelation. In no other area or discipline are first principles so derived. Your equation of the two because it is said that neither "requires proof" demonstrates that you either don't understand what that means or you're being dishonest in pretending that you don't.
    Civilized men are more discourteous than savages because they know they can be impolite without having their skulls split, as a general thing.” - Robert E. Howard

    "Only a rank degenerate would drive 1,500 miles across Texas and not eat a chicken fried steak." - Larry McMurtry

  7. #26
    Points: 665,289, Level: 100
    Level completed: 0%, Points required for next Level: 0
    Overall activity: 85.0%
    Achievements:
    SocialRecommendation Second ClassYour first GroupOverdrive50000 Experience PointsTagger First ClassVeteran
    Awards:
    Discussion Ender
    Chris's Avatar Senior Member
    Karma
    433316
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Posts
    197,553
    Points
    665,289
    Level
    100
    Thanks Given
    31,984
    Thanked 80,905x in 54,720 Posts
    Mentioned
    2011 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Standing Wolf View Post
    Religion is the only realm in which a first principle can come into being through supernatural revelation. In no other area or discipline are first principles so derived. Your equation of the two because it is said that neither "requires proof" demonstrates that you either don't understand what that means or you're being dishonest in pretending that you don't.
    Quote Originally Posted by Chris View Post
    First principles are not derived.

    First principles are not provable or derived or observable.

    Why are you cross-threading topics?
    Tradition is not the worship of ashes, but the preservation of fire. ― Gustav Mahler

  8. #27
    Points: 665,289, Level: 100
    Level completed: 0%, Points required for next Level: 0
    Overall activity: 85.0%
    Achievements:
    SocialRecommendation Second ClassYour first GroupOverdrive50000 Experience PointsTagger First ClassVeteran
    Awards:
    Discussion Ender
    Chris's Avatar Senior Member
    Karma
    433316
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Posts
    197,553
    Points
    665,289
    Level
    100
    Thanks Given
    31,984
    Thanked 80,905x in 54,720 Posts
    Mentioned
    2011 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)
    One way to look at first principles is this: They delimit the universe of discourse. In science, that space is limited the empirical. In religion, it is limited to the revelatory. Within each universe of discourse, each is required to be rational, to use reason. To go outside empiricism in science is irrational. To go outside revelation in religion is irrational. Under this view, it is just as nonsensical to criticize science for being revelatory as it is to criticize religion for not being empirical. This is sort of what Gould meant by non-overlapping magisteria.
    Last edited by Chris; 04-20-2022 at 03:17 PM.
    Tradition is not the worship of ashes, but the preservation of fire. ― Gustav Mahler

  9. #28
    Points: 74,636, Level: 66
    Level completed: 65%, Points required for next Level: 814
    Overall activity: 41.0%
    Achievements:
    50000 Experience PointsSocialVeteran
    Standing Wolf's Avatar Senior Member
    Karma
    314972
    Join Date
    Oct 2015
    Posts
    25,625
    Points
    74,636
    Level
    66
    Thanks Given
    5,717
    Thanked 21,089x in 12,284 Posts
    Mentioned
    415 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Captdon View Post
    Disprove God and I would stop believing. You can't lump all believers together. That others have had other beliefs makes no difference.
    If you mean that there are different religions with different gods - historically, probably thousands - I would ask, "Why not?" Odin, Thor, Jupiter, Mars, Bast, Ganesh...their followers accept or accepted the existence of those gods with every bit as much certainty and sincerity as any modern day Christian, Jew or Muslim.
    Civilized men are more discourteous than savages because they know they can be impolite without having their skulls split, as a general thing.” - Robert E. Howard

    "Only a rank degenerate would drive 1,500 miles across Texas and not eat a chicken fried steak." - Larry McMurtry

  10. #29
    Points: 74,636, Level: 66
    Level completed: 65%, Points required for next Level: 814
    Overall activity: 41.0%
    Achievements:
    50000 Experience PointsSocialVeteran
    Standing Wolf's Avatar Senior Member
    Karma
    314972
    Join Date
    Oct 2015
    Posts
    25,625
    Points
    74,636
    Level
    66
    Thanks Given
    5,717
    Thanked 21,089x in 12,284 Posts
    Mentioned
    415 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Chris View Post
    Why are you cross-threading topics?
    Because you're employing the same dishonest arguments in both.
    Civilized men are more discourteous than savages because they know they can be impolite without having their skulls split, as a general thing.” - Robert E. Howard

    "Only a rank degenerate would drive 1,500 miles across Texas and not eat a chicken fried steak." - Larry McMurtry

  11. #30
    Points: 74,636, Level: 66
    Level completed: 65%, Points required for next Level: 814
    Overall activity: 41.0%
    Achievements:
    50000 Experience PointsSocialVeteran
    Standing Wolf's Avatar Senior Member
    Karma
    314972
    Join Date
    Oct 2015
    Posts
    25,625
    Points
    74,636
    Level
    66
    Thanks Given
    5,717
    Thanked 21,089x in 12,284 Posts
    Mentioned
    415 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Chris View Post
    One way to look at first principles is this: They delimit the universe of discourse. In science, that space is limited the empirical. In religion, it is limited to the revelatory. Within each universe of discourse, each is required to be rational, to use reason. To go outside empiricism in science is irrational. To go outside revelation in religion is irrational. Under this view, it is just as nonsensical to criticize science for being revelatory as it is to criticize religion for not being empirical. This is sort of what Gould meant by non-overlapping magisteria.
    At least, if nothing else you're beginning to understand and acknowledge that the "unproven" nature of first principles in religion and in areas other than religion are fundamentally different from one another. It's a start.
    Civilized men are more discourteous than savages because they know they can be impolite without having their skulls split, as a general thing.” - Robert E. Howard

    "Only a rank degenerate would drive 1,500 miles across Texas and not eat a chicken fried steak." - Larry McMurtry

+ Reply to Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts