>[...]
>
>CC>I still want to know which of my epistemological standards I'm
> >supposed to
> >give up in order to consider the "evidence" for Christianity "without
> >prejudice," to use Jones's phrase. Since Jones seems to have no
> >suggestions
> >in this respect, perhaps others would like to give it a shot.
Stephen
>Chris does not have to give up any of his "epistemological standards".
>
>All he has to do is consider seriously the possibility that Christianity
>*could* be true.
Chris
In other words, all I'd have to do is give up the principle that logical
contradictions do not exist. That this is what Stephen has in mind is
supported by his remarks below, in which "open mindedness" consists of
regarding unsubstantiated fairy tales as evidence that Jesus existed, that
he was some sort of Messiah, and so on.
Stephen
>This is the same "epistemological standard" one applies to
>*everything*.
>
>PR>Apparently, according to several Jones posts, you have to accept
> >that Jesus is the Messiah and the Bible contains predictive prophecy,
> >this being a prior requirement of his arguments.
Stephen
>No. One has to be *prepared* to consider seriously the possibility "that
>Jesus is the Messiah and the Bible contains predictive prophecy".
Chris
In other words, "open mindedness" consists of regarding unsubstantiated
fairy tales as evidence that Jesus existed, that he was some sort of
Messiah, and that the Bible contains predictive prophecy, and that
predictive prophecy is somehow evidence of the existence of God, etc. I've
seen some of the attempts at deriving such fantastic claims from the
"evidence" of the Bible. They are conspicuously punctuated by gaps or
bizarre kinds of "inference," similar to those that Jones has frequently
used in his posts.
Sorry, but no thanks.
>PR>Once you have accepted this as a fact, you are open minded to the
> >fact that Jesus is the Messiah and the Bible contains predictive prophecy.
Stephen
>No. One is then "open minded to the" *possibility* "that Jesus is the
>Messiah and the Bible contains predictive prophecy."
Chris
Until it is made logically possible by suitable re-definitions or whatever,
it would be stupid to be "open minded" in this way, just as it would be
stupid to be "open minded" to the *possibility* that spherical cubes exist,
or that 2+2=76.
> >CC>That seems to be about it. However, to give Jones a better chance, I'm
> >hoping to offer, in a later post, my main
> >epistemological views, so he can better decide which ones I need to
> >change in order to examine the evidence
> >"without prejudice."
Stephen
>All Chris needs to change is his *prejudice*!
Chris
That is, I must give up my requirement that there be *evidence* supporting
what I believe *and* that I be willing to accept the "possibility" that
logical contradictions can really exist.
Of course, with such "standards" as those of Jones, we could "prove" almost
anything, whether it was true or not. And that is the terrible flaw in such
proposals. The function of standards is to protect oneself, as much as one
reasonably can, from grave error. Eliminating such standards, or adopting
ones like Stephen's means being so grossly indiscriminate that one *will*,
with almost absolute certainty, accept and hold serious falsehoods as
important beliefs.
My basic standard is to believe all, but *only* what I have adequate
cognitive basis for. Being "open minded" to the propositions that Jones
proposes that I be open minded to above would require showing that the God
in question is *not* logically impossible, as I claim him to be, and so on.
Neither Stephen nor anyone else, as far as I can tell, has been able to
come up with an idea of a Christian God that is both logically coherent and
yet still a God. I don't think that anyone ever will. I don't think it's
even *possible.*
>[...]
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed Jan 03 2001 - 14:12:34 EST