What is Evidence?

[Bharat Jhunjhunwala]

Sounds like an ad-populum fallacy to me in my view.

What is yr alternative?

 

[Bharat Jhunjhunwala]

. I believe that more truth from God has been revealed since the Bible was canonized. I believe that the verses that say not to add to the Bible mean not to add to the Bible after the Bible had been canonized. Those verses do not mean that no further truth from God could ever be revealed by God after the Bible was canonized.

Applies to all texts including the quran.

 

[Brian2]

Christians believe that the Bible is the Only truth, which is final. I do not believe that. I believe that more truth from God has been revealed since the Bible was canonized. I believe that the verses that say not to add to the Bible mean not to add to the Bible after the Bible had been canonized. Those verses do not mean that no further truth from God could ever be revealed by God after the Bible was canonized.

Most Christians probably don't believe that the Bible is the only truth, which is final,,,,,,,,,,,, but most of us would believe that the Bible is the truth.

 

[PearlSeeker]

Any self-proclamation by a text that it is the final truth is obviously not acceptable. The question is what then would be the test? One possibility is to rely on the spiritual perception of the sages. But this also is not workable because the sages of different religions at different times have different perceptions, so they can be in conflict.

We don't know that because there is only oral tradition. For example Budha and Jesus didn't write anything.

In my understanding the only touchstone of the truth of a Scripture is whether it has provided succour to a large number of people. If a text actually reflects the Word of God, then people should get benefit from that word. So, on that ground alone, it is possible in my opinion, to decide whether a text is spiritually valid or not.

Usefulness is not a reliable touchstone of truth. Placebo also works... Many children also get benefit from the word about Tooth fairy...

 

[Bharat Jhunjhunwala]

We don't know that because there is only oral tradition. For example Budha and Jesus didn't write anything.

We have a text howsoever it was composed. Is it truth?

 

[Bharat Jhunjhunwala]

Most Christians probably don't believe that the Bible is the only truth, which is final,,,,,,,,,,,, but most of us would believe that the Bible is the truth.

Self contradictory. The truth leave no room for other truths.

 

[Trailblazer]

Applies to all texts including the quran.

I agree.

 

[danieldemol]

What is yr alternative?

The best alternative we have to determine if scripture is true is to assess its claims regarding physical phenomena using science in my view.

 

[Bharat Jhunjhunwala]

The best alternative we have to determine if scripture is true is to assess its claims regarding physical phenomena using science in my view

Answer my question

 

[PearlSeeker]

We have a text howsoever it was composed. Is it truth?

It depends what kind of truth are you looking for.

Explanations of natural phenomena? Definitely obsolete. See creationism, young Earth, flat Earth...

Historical truth? Not very much. Mostly myths and legends.

Prophesy? Too vague.

Ethics? A mixed bag.

Spiritual (metaphysical) teachings like theology, soteriology, eschatology...? As already said they may be useful and meaningful to people despite religions being in conflict with each other. Furthermore, many religious claims have no rational and empirical basis. No way to test it.

Again: Every religion works for its members. True or not true is a different story.

 

[danieldemol]

Answer my question

I just did. Here it is again since you missed it;

"The best alternative we have to determine if scripture is true is to assess its claims regarding physical phenomena using science in my view."

 

[firedragon]

Do you get to decide for yourself what is evidence and what conclusion that evidence supports?

Or is there a standard that something must surpass to be considered evidence and a methodology to showing how the evidence necessarily supports the conclusion being claimed by it.

For example, is the Bible evidence of the existence of God?
Is the Bible evidence because I say it is evidence? Or is the Bible evidence because surpasses a standard of evidence necessary to be considered evidence.

And, if we except the latter, is it evidence of God's existence because I say it is or because I have methodically show that it necessarily leads to that conclusion?

Bonus question: If you think there is a standard that must be surpassed for something to be considered evidence, what is it and does the Bible meet that?

Well, anyone should know not to get into a category error when speaking about evidence. The biggest error that is rampant is looking for evidence of a metaphysical being like let's the God of the Tanakh through some kind of scientific testing. It's like looking for plastic using a metal detector.

So when someone throws the word evidence out the epistemology should be clarified.

 

[PearlSeeker]

Well, anyone should know not to get into a category error when speaking about evidence. The biggest error that is rampant is looking for evidence of a metaphysical being like let's the God of the Tanakh through some kind of scientific testing. It's like looking for plastic using a metal detector.

So when someone throws the word evidence out the epistemology should be clarified.

Is the God of Tanakh just a metaphysical being or a being that acts sensory perceptionally in the world?

 

[firedragon]

Is the God of Tanakh just a metaphysical being or a being that acts sensory perceptionally in the world?

It's a metaphysical being. That's a category.

 

[CG Didymus]

We don't know that because there is only oral tradition. For example Budha and Jesus didn't write anything.

Yeah, good point... Why would we expect oral traditions from ancient people to be accurate? Those traditions eventually got written down and have meaning for those people, but why would others look at them and say, "Ah, now that is the truth"?

Usefulness is not a reliable touchstone of truth. Placebo also works... Many children also get benefit from the word about Tooth fairy...

Yeah, and stories of Gods could easily be placeboes. How do you get people to obey the rules? Tell them an invisible being is watching them and will reward or punish them depending on what they do.

And how do we know this invisible being is real? Because he did all these things in the past that our ancestors told us about. Try it and see. If you pray for rain, doesn't it rain?

But then there was a glitch... We did good and bad things happened. Oh, well that's the invisible being testing you to see how strong you really believe in it.

A placebo sounds like a pretty good explanation to me. I wonder if there's any evidence for it?

 

[Bharat Jhunjhunwala]

" spiritually valid"

I agree that the impact of Scripture can be said to be spiritually valid, but I do not understand why we need the qualification spiritually, because that implies that it is not valid other than in the spiritual world. My sense is that the whole humankind is evolving and a scripture that helps a large part of humankind to evolve should be considered valid, both spiritually as well as generally.

 

[Bharat Jhunjhunwala]

As for the OT Bible, you need to compare it with another equivalent piece of history from an equivalent ethnicity. History is about what believed (by a historian) to be valid human testimonies. It says that if God is true (let's assume so for the sake of argument), there's not a better way for this truth to convey other than what have been conveyed by the Jews.

I do not agree that one has to compare the impact of Scripture from an equivalent ethnicity. The whole humankind is evolving to say that one part of humankind, or one ethnicity, has to have the true Scripture is not correct. The Mayas, Incas, Hindus, Chinese, they all are evolving and any text that helps in that evolution is to be considered true.

Philosophically, the question becomes that can truth be mutually inconsistent? I think it is possible because if God is infinite, then truth is also infinite. And in that case, parts of the infinite would also be true although they may be inter-se self-contradictory.

 

[Bharat Jhunjhunwala]

It depends what kind of truth are you looking for.

Explanations of natural phenomena? Definitely obsolete. See creationism, young Earth, flat Earth...

Historical truth? Not very much. Mostly myths and legends.

Prophesy? Too vague.

Ethics? A mixed bag.

Spiritual (metaphysical) teachings like theology, soteriology, eschatology...? As already said they may be useful and meaningful to people despite religions being in conflict with each other. Furthermore, many religious claims have no rational and empirical basis. No way to test it.

Again: Every religion works for its members. True or not true is a different story.

The statement of a Scripture has to be tested both on the criteria of science as well as its impact. It is possible to have a situation where something is accepted by known science but not accepted by Scripture and vice versa. They correct approaches is that the scripture should have long standing impact on humanity and also be consistent with known science. If it is contra science, then there is a need to revisit the scripture.

 

[Bharat Jhunjhunwala]

I just did. Here it is again since you missed it;

"The best alternative we have to determine if scripture is true is to assess its claims regarding physical phenomena using science in my view."

Our knowledge of physical phenomena is constantly evolving. Whereas the scripture gets fixed at the time at a particular time. Therefore, it is not fair to assess the truth of the Scripture which was written at, let us say, 2000 BCE, by examining its correctness with respect to our knowledge of the physical phenomena today.

My interest in Scripture is only to develop mutual understanding between different religions. Therefore, it is best that we look at the phenomena on which different scriptures have something to say and then work on it in the sense of Hegelian synthesis by interaction between scriptures. I think we can develop a better understanding of both the scriptures.

 

[Bharat Jhunjhunwala]

Yeah, good point... Why would we expect oral traditions from ancient people to be accurate? Those traditions eventually got written down and have meaning for those people, but why would others look at them and say, "Ah, now that is the truth"?

Yeah, and stories of Gods could easily be placeboes. How do you get people to obey the rules? Tell them an invisible being is watching them and will reward or punish them depending on what they do.

And how do we know this invisible being is real? Because he did all these things in the past that our ancestors told us about. Try it and see. If you pray for rain, doesn't it rain?

But then there was a glitch... We did good and bad things happened. Oh, well that's the invisible being testing you to see how strong you really believe in it.

A placebo sounds like a pretty good explanation to me. I wonder if there's any evidence for it?

While it is true that scriptures may not have been written at the time they were revealed but I personally accept that the scribes who wrote them were inspired. So, the knowledge that is in the Scripture is not restricted to what it is revealed, but also gets modified in the light of the interpretation by the present-day scribes. You can see this happening before our eyes by newer versions of the Bible, which reinterpret the Scripture as it was revealed. This is a healthy practice, and we have to only expand it to the level of inter scriptural debate. Thank you.