i would consider ‘the bible itself claims to be the written word of god’ to be data. you and i would mutually agree on this. but i would consider ‘and [it] should therefore be regarded as a truthful measure of history’ to be an interpretive conclusion. this is where you and i do not mutually agree on what constitutes data. see how hard it is to reach consensus on data, let alone truth?

I would agree with you on the second part not being data but an attitude to the data. The Bible’s claims about history would be data, the parting of the Red Sea, the fall of Jericho, the reign of Solomon etc. How we use it would be part of the interpretive matrix.

” I do have some ability to be dispassionate…but I will admit that there are some philosophies that I find distasteful. I also find some arguments ridiculous….I am perfectly happy to consider almost any position…..Aristotle believed in efficient cause, so do I”

If only the topic of this thread were Jason C.

Did I use “I” that many times? I must be slipping. I really have to try harder to use “I” in every sentence.

Which one among us truly knows the mind of God?

To think that any one can truly exegete is totally presumptuous.

jason–

i would consider ‘the bible itself claims to be the written word of god’ to be data. you and i would mutually agree on this. but i would consider ‘and [it] should therefore be regarded as a truthful measure of history’ to be an interpretive conclusion. this is where you and i do not mutually agree on what constitutes data. see how hard it is to reach consensus on data, let alone truth?

quote quote–

‘the bible will always be the final authority’ isn’t data. it is definitely a conclusion– perhaps based on data? what data do you base this conclusion on? and how would you verify this data?

peace–

scott

“We need to…not put our presuppositions above the objective truth put before us. The Bible will always be the final authority.”

This is an interesting set of claims. Can you explain them more? Should one of “our presuppositions” be the idea that “the Bible will always be the final authority” because it is “objective truth”?

I think advice is that is needed for Apologist of this time. We need to maintain a balance and not put our presuppositions above the objective truth put before us. The Bible will always be the final authority. May be defend the truth with truthfulness indeed.

” I do have some ability to be dispassionate…but I will admit that there are some philosophies that I find distasteful. I also find some arguments ridiculous….I am perfectly happy to consider almost any position…..Aristotle believed in efficient cause, so do I”

If only the topic of this thread were Jason C.

–jesus is lord
–i believe jesus is lord
–the christian scriptures say that jesus is lord
–at least a million people in america believe jesus is lord
–at least a million people in america profess that jesus is lord

Or, Jesus himself claimed to be Lord, then, based on the best information we have available, rose from the dead. I would consider that reasonable empirical evidence that his claims had some merit.

–christian scripture is the infallible word of god
–i believe christian scripture is the infallible word of god
–at least a million americans believe christian scripture is the infallible word of god
–at least a million americans profess to believe that christian scripture is the infallible word of god

Or the Bible itself claims to be the written word of God and should therefore be regarded as a truthful measure of history. Since much of Christianity, and Judaism before it, is concerned with God’s actions in human history this is important.

Your points about verification of data are valid. We are working with historical works and generally have to ascribe to them a similar level of critical evaluation as we would to any other text. We, at the very least, should not assume that the writers were writing to people exactly like ourselves and should attempt to understand what they would think of what was written. It’s historical decontextualisation that leads to people turning Jesus’ parable of sheep and goats into a theology of salvation by works.

sorry, i hit send too quickly.

one sentence should read, ‘it seems to me in confessional theological studies, the ‘arriving at truth’ process is filled with primarily with interpretation, value, authority of sources, and not much filled with the verifiability of data.

it’s interesting to see the juxtaposition of ‘data’ and ‘truth’ in confessional studies. how does one get from data to truth?

let me first suggest that data is about mutual perception. for instance, which of the following are data:
–jesus is lord
–i believe jesus is lord
–the christian scriptures say that jesus is lord
–at least a million people in america believe jesus is lord
–at least a million people in america profess that jesus is lord

i suspect that while there is some agreed upon congruency about which of these constitute data, there is not a complete consensus among this blog’s readers about which of the statements are verifiable, accurate data. how would you verify ‘jesus is lord?’ can we reach a truth claim about a confessional conclusion, ‘jesus is lord?’ it always strikes me as difficult to talk about data in confessional (belief-oriented) studies. most of what gets used as data is unverifiable.

perhaps data are not enough for confessional studies. in addition to mutual perception, it seems there needs to be some mutual meaning (interpretation of the data) as well. again, there is some congruency over what constitutes valid meaning about some of the data, but as we move away from the data itself, there is less consensus about interpretation. one would think if the data were crystal clear and verifiable that the interpretation of meaning would be highly congruent, but this often is not the case when assessing theological data. else there wouldn’t be so many denominations and doctrines.

i think there also needs to be a sense of mutual value as well. while some data may be highly congruent, it may also seem trivial. red herrings are filled with accurate, valid, highly verifiable data.

which then leads to mutual truth claims. and then what one’s response, individually and in community, might be to a mutually-reached truth claim.

i’m not sure that this rigorous ‘data leads to truth’ process is as readily do-able in confessional studies as one might think. it seems to me in confessional theological studies, the ‘arriving at truth’ process is filled with primarily with interpretation, value, authority of sources, and much filled with the verifiability of data. and the truth claims arrived at are applicable to faith communities’ orthodoxies and orthopraxies.

as for authoritive sources of data, christian scripture is often the beginning and the end of data collection. which of these are data?

–christian scripture is the infallible word of god
–i believe christian scripture is the infallible word of god
–at least a million americans believe christian scripture is the infallible word of god
–at least a million americans profess to believe that christian scripture is the infallible word of god

peace—

scott

Now if your eternal salvation depends upon having a particular belief (i.e., your belief in truth of the Gospel), then is it really worth it to put this particular belief at risk in order to understand alternative arguments?

I would say salvation depends on faith/loyalty/allegiance to Jesus which I suppose is the Gospel in a nutshell.

I do have some ability to be dispassionate ( the consequence of severe shortcomings in my basic humanity subroutines) but I will admit that there are some philosophies that I find distasteful. I also find some arguments ridiculous, such as an article I read in Philosophy Now where a writer claimed to have presented an argument that disproved the existence of God to a little old lady only to have her respond that she didn’t accept his conclusions. He claimed this to be an example of the religious rejecting reason, but then he didn’t put up his argument so that others could critique it.

I fear that philosophy is the profession best left to those who don’t have to work for their crust.

I am perfectly happy to consider almost any position possible provided it is presented in a reasonable fashion but atheism long ago failed the test of reasonableness for me. The Pastafarian arguing for the existence of the Flying Spaghetti Monster is far more rational in my view than someone arguing that everything including themselves was spun into existence from nothing by nothing.

Aristotle believed in efficient cause, so do I, so does every rational person. Nothing is not an efficient cause, and people who talk in terms of negative energy should probably pick up crystals and start cleansing their chakras.