[kongming]

I'd like to add:

I once went to a friend's going away party and there I met a starnge fellow. He was an analyst for a bank in Toronto. He said that he didn't believe in Dinosaurs. When I asked him why he said implied it was because of all the inconsistancies and contradictions fromt the science community. I'm pretty sure he wasn't christian, although my evidence is pretty weak I suppose. 1) he was asian (and I know that the Koreans and Philipinos are christian but I can tell he wasn't either) 2) he didn't finish his statement by placing his hand on my shoulder and saying: "Do you know that Jesus died for your sins? Do you have a personal relationship with Jesus? Have you accepted him as your personal lord and saviour?"

I suppose it POSSIBLE he was but he seemed your typical stock trader I love money type and not the born again creationist type. In fact I'm pretty sure he said he believed in evolution just NOT dinosaurs.

Anyway, I didn't refute his belief. In fact I told him that it bothered me not at all that he didn't believe in dinosaurs. I just didn't agree with his reason for not believing in them.

[kongming]

These are some pretty horrible arguments, kongming. Let's look at one (remembering it's your argument, not you, that's tied to the whipping post here):

Sure, whatever.

This is a straightforward arguement by analogy: if A justifies X, then B, which ='s A, should also justify X. The fact that 'life' is contradictory obviously does not justify disbelieving 'life,' therefore the fact that the Bible is contradictory does not justify disbelieving the Bible.

No the arguement by analogy would have been thus:

Life itself is contradictory and inconsitant. If it weren't then we could predict everything that would happen to us and therefore not be surprised or shocked at anything. So therefore you don't believe in life. OR So therefore if you believe in life then you also believe in the bible.

Existentialists argue that life doesn't exist: we don't exist. And yes I was using an analogy. I like them. The simpler they are the better. I was pointing out that there are reasons to overlook the inconsistancies in the bible. that's all.

The first, most debilitating problem, is that if inconsistency does not justify disbelief, then this argument has absolutely no teeth, since it's arguing that it would be inconsistent for Miriamele to disbelieve in the Bible because of its inconsistency, and yet believe in 'life' despite its inconsistency. You're actually arguing against the very grounds that make your argument possible! which is just to say that your argument is internally incoherent.

Well there's the logical hole in your arguement:

it would be inconsistent for Miriamele to disbelieve in the Bible because of its inconsistency, and yet believe in 'life' despite its inconsistency.

I never implied that I didn't believe that miriamele didn't believe in the bible.

I only wanted to point out that portions of the bible being inconsistant or contradictory does not make the entire thing untrue. It only possibly makes one part untrue. as an example: if genesis says that God created man before beast and then later says God created beast before man then it's PROBABLE that one of the statements is false. (I would add that they POSSIBLY could both be true OR both be false). My point was that if this were the only seemingly contradictory portion of the bible would that make the remainder untrue? And if every part was inconsistant does that make the ENTIRE book false? I would argue that the most likely conclusion to draw would be that one inconsistancy is true and the other is false. So if it were an equal balance, meaning that for every part that said something true then there was another part saying the exact opposite (or false) then therefore only 1/2 of the bible is to be disbelieved.

My point is this: just because something doesn't seem consistant doesn't mean that it's false, it just means we don't fully understand it. And there are MANY things we don't fully understand and therefore can't predict but that's not reason enough for me to disbelieve.


The second, more obvious problem, is that your analogy between life and the Bible simply doesn't hold. The Bible is an isolated account, and as such has a much different relationship to consistency than does life. Since the vast majority of accounts we encounter are riddled with inaccuracies, 'consistency' is one of several different ways we need to distinguish between accounts - the most important one, in fact. Since we only have one life, and since that life is not a verbal account, the relation between it and what you call 'contradictoriness' is far different.

then no analogy holds because no two things are EXACTLY alike.

My analogy holds simply because the two (life and the bible) seem to have inconsistancies and if one disbelieves something because it seems inconsistant, then why not believe in the other as well? I never said that I follow this rule. I mean I have stated before that I bleieve in parts of the bible and I have acknowledged that it is inconsistant and the God is a parodox. But I don't have a problem with this. I don't need something to be consistant to be able to look at it for truth. But I simply wanted to know that if someone needed something to be consistant before believing it, then wouldn't they have to be consistant and require consistancy from everything?

How exactly does a book hold more of a relationship to consistancy than does life, or anything else for that matter?

Some lives are now in the present only a verbal account. At least one that I know of anyway, that guy Napolean I'm sure is dead.

Also life does not just mean her life, my life or your life. It means LIFE, the universe, the galaxy, the solar system, the earth, me, you, that tree, a patch of grass, evolution, creation, bio-organisms.

Obviously issues of consistency are horribly important when it comes to determinations of fact. Any time you argue anything, kongming, you're literally relying on the truth of this statement.

Certainly you're not saying all accounts are equal (because that would render the Holy Bible and The National Enquirer equal). So the question is, what do you use to distinguish faulty from accurate accounts, kongming?

I don't see how you can say that is obvious. It's highly probable, but neither you nor I know for sure that ANYTHING is consistant. We just assume it is and go on. It doesn't really matter anyway because even if it WERE consistant it's not like we could do anything about our lives because we wouldn't know what those consistancies are.

[Scott Bakker]

Regarding your first post, kongming, I'm not sure what to say! Pasting a bunch of quotes with bolded phrases does not an argument for inconsistency make - you'll have to walk me through with actual arguments. My guess is that you're simply misinterpreting me (there's that damn interpretative underdetermination thing again!).

Existentialists argue that life doesn't exist: we don't exist.

Actually, this is false. I specialized in continental philosophy for a time - several years in fact.

And if every part was inconsistant does that make the ENTIRE book false?

But no one suggested anything of the sort, kongming. Only that it makes it impossible to know what you can and cannot trust.

Otherwise to make your analogy stick, you need to argue how life is like an account. Argue, not assert.

But I don't have a problem with this. I don't need something to be consistant to be able to look at it for truth.

Which is why I asked my question (which you never really answered): How do you distinguish between accounts? What are your criteria? How can you tell the 'good' inconsistency from the bad?

[Miriamele]

Whoa, this argument is taking off again...I really don't want to keep on posting here (it's time consuming!) but I can't resist because I disagree with many of your statements, Kongming. Here goes:
Or maybe we do pick up on them and figure that an omnipotent God would have to be both inconsistant and consistant if he were to be omnipotent. Or it doesn't matter what order God created things. It's not the specifics that really matter, it's the message.
How does it follow that an omnipotent being must be inconsitant? If anything the opposite should be true. I don't understand your reasoning here. Furthermore, you don't think the specifics of the Bible count, only the overall message--but if specific details in the Bible are shown to be incorrect or inconsitant then why do you assume that the big important juicy parts are free from these flaws? Because I just can't understand how anyone could believe anything in a book, any book, when some parts of said book are shown to be inconsistant with other parts. I respect that you're talking about faith here, and I understand that these issues don't change your faith, but I just don't see how it's an attractive option to put faith before reason.

You are PROBABLY right, but that doesn't mean that it is so, there is the possibility of both occuring
Oh, come on! You really think it's likely for a guy to have his guts spew out and then get up and go hang himself? Or for the same guy to hang himself and then go out for a walk? Both passages clearly indicate that Judas died, not that he just had an accident. This kind of "well techically it's possible" rationalization is what drives me crazy. With all due respect Kongming, why do you choose to believe something that is massively unlikely over the logical explanation, which is that at least one of those writers didn't know what he was talking about?

I'm not even going to touch on how contradictory each of these quotes are.
What did you find contradictory about Scott's quotes? I didn't see anything contradictory about them. Each one praises science as mankind's most effective vehicle to obtaining knowledge.

Life itself is contradictory and inconsitant. If it weren't then we could predict everything that would happen to us and therefore not be surprised or shocked at anything. So are you saying you don't believe in life?
I don't believe that life is contradictory or inconsistant. The universe and all the life in it operate according to physical laws. These laws (such as the force of gravity) don't change. Furthermore everything that happens in life is a direct result of cause and effect. An innocent person who never drinks getting killed by a drunk driver is a direct result of the drunk individual's decision to drink and drive. It's not inconsistant--although it might be unfair--it's a logical outurn of events. We can't predict what will happen to us because there are far too many variables to ever take into account and because we can't know what other people are planning or thinking. Really, I don't think there's anything mystical or magical going on.

If you believe in the Bible and it makes you happy Kongming, then I'm happy for you. But your methods of arguing your case are weak. I'm sorry, but the only logical thing I can think of to do here is to NOT believe in the Bible. Because like Scott said, although some parts may be true how can you know what parts you can trust if it's not all true? What can I say, I'm a skeptic to the core. :)

[Prunesquallor]

My analogy holds simply because the two (life and the bible) seem to have inconsistancies and if one disbelieves something because it seems inconsistant, then why not believe in the other as well?

it is a bad analogy, because "inconsistency" is being used inconstently. To talk about inconsistencies in the bible is to talk about contradictions - two statements that are mutually incompatible. To talk about inconsistencies in life is to talk about (I guess) events changing or being unpredictable.

A good analogy requires the things compared to be similar. Books and lives aren't very similar. Contradictions and changing events aren't very similar either.

[Gary Wassner]

That was the point of this thread to begin with. The only argument for faith is belief and the only argument for belief is faith. Everthing else is irrational. So ultimately, the best argument for belief is the irrationality of it, and that is what having faith means - accepting the irrational. How does one disagree with that? The error is to engage in argument.

[Scott Bakker]

The error is to engage in argument.

This is nub of the matter for me as well: the confusion of faith and knowledge. To take something on faith is to commit to it despite the absence of justifications. To literally stomp one's foot and say, 'Because I say so!'

Of course unjustified commitment to claims is irrational, and irrationality is downright embarrassing, which is why, I suspect, so many believers have so much difficulty with it, and insist on cooking up what are in fact preposterous rationalizations in the prosecution of their claims. If consistency threatens your conclusions, then consistency - consistency! - must be wrong! I'm not sure I could come up with a better example of rationalization (where conclusions fix justifications rather than vice versa).

Prunesquallor, I've been meaning to ask you, have you had a chance to check out that book you mentioned, the one about all the ways our reasoning malfunctions... What was it called again?

[Gary Wassner]

Ah, but the need to prove the argument is so compelling. Look at Anselm and Aquinas. Man is both rational and irrational. A proof of God satisfies so much. It makes the irrational rational and the doubter a philistine.

[Prunesquallor]

The book (I think) is "How We Know What Isn't So: the fallibility of reason in everyday life", Thomas Glovich. the first two parts are "cognitive determinants of questionable beliefs" and motivational and socialogical determinants of questionsale beliefs". Just got it from half.com, looks pretty good. Or is that the one you suggested?

[kongming]

Actually, this is false. I specialized in continental philosophy for a time - several years in fact.

Are you arguing that no single Existentialist has ever argued that we may not exist?