That’s what the scientific methods is for – to sift through those preconceptions until reaches the truth of the matter. So far, to the best of my knowledge it has yet to be successful in that search because we keep running into new and contradictory evidence for most theories and even some scientific laws.

If we ever do figure out the truth of anything, and recognize it as such, we will have lost the freedom to believe those prior, possibly comforting, preconceptions.

Exactly. Or like Sam Harris puts it: “The problem with faith, is that it really is a conversation stopper. Faith is a declaration of immunity to the powers of conversation. It is a reason, why you do not have to give reasons, for what you believe.”

However, without going into dept about the fallacies of “faith”, my two cents on truth: I view truth as a verb and not as a noun. Psychologist Robert Kegan has a great stand point on that one, imho:

“Talk about truth can raise hackles because someone may seem to be claiming to know The Truth. I do not claim to know The Truth: I am not even sure what it would mean to say one did. What I do have a conviction about is what the truth is about. It is an activity, an activity of relation or balance.”

Kind of similar to how the scientific method is a methodology for finding a truth that is always subject to change, if new and contradictory evidence is discovered in the activity of that truth performance…

Does that make any sense?

/T

Anyway to your point…

My last comment was in response to Brett’s assertion that he was freed from things by his acceptance of- and/or belief in the truth of Jesus Christ. I was disputing that what he described was freedom as opposed to the slavery that I claim the knowledge of Truth equates to.

I’m not sure where my premises and conclusions self serving for the faithful though. In point of fact, faith and absolute knowledge are not, to my mind compatible. Faith in anything requires an amount of uncertainty or lack of empirical proof.

speaking as an aetheist, your premises and conclusions strike me as rather self serving for the faithful. faith in a belief is a far cry from any truth. i don’t suggest to have any truth either. so i guess we are all drifting in the same freedom boat as far as i can tell by your definition. the only difference seems to be that i know where i am. i’m not so sure about you and suspect you might be fooling yourself.

but still a thoughtful idea. thanks for the opportunity to give this some thought and express a contrary opinion.

I cannot imagine a God who would want his people not to open the door to every opinion and to choose between them.

I believe that God wants us to think for ourselves, not to just follow the rules by rote, that is just slavery, and not freedom at all.

I’ve been waiting to respond to you comment; I’ve been trying to frame my response carefully but I’m finally just going to say it. Please don’t take it as a personal attack.

You are effectively and eloquently describing slavery.

It seems to me that what you wrote can be summed up as your belief in the Truth of Christ frees you from the the responsibility of thought and decision. That is either the servitude of slavery, being as a pet, or – at best – being a child who is sheltered from choice, decision or thought – and therefor growth into adulthood.

Do you truly believe that your God commands you to follow His strictures by rote? I cannot imagine a God who would want his people not to open the door to every opinion and to choose between them.

There is no morality without choice and thought; there is only compliance.

You state: “I see freedom as solely the ability the choose and to act on one’s own judgment and to further one’s own motives.”

This is a fine definition of freedom as far as it goes. However, and I speak as a Christian, one’s motives and desires and even judgments will be determined by one’s nature. Jesus’ point in Matthew 7 regarding false prophets rests upon this: (vss 16-18) “You will recognize them by their fruits. Are grapes gathered from thornbushes, or figs from thistles? So, every healthy tree bears good fruit, but the diseased tree bears bad fruit. A healthy tree cannot bear bad fruit, nor can a diseased tree bear good fruit.” He makes this point again in Matthew 12:33-35 and this is even implicit in the context of John 8:32 (cf. vs 34).

So while one lacks the Truth, one lacks the ability to do that which they ought to do. They are slaves to sin. When one knows the Truth they are freed (from sin) but become “slaves” to Christ (cf. Romans 6:17-19; note especially that this “slavery” is simply a metaphor describing our obligation to worship and obey God). There exists no middle ground by which a person can be free from both sin and Christ and there exists no middle ground in the sense that man’s choices will not be determined by his nature. Thus, even your definition of freedom must be qualified.

Furthermore, I take it, and have been taking it, that you mean that the person has this ability with no moral obligation and it is this moral obligation that is the key in your argument. (But you did not mention this in your above definition.) I take you to mean this because even if one knows the truth, they can still choose to act against that truth; in fact, this is what Scripture assumes sinners do all the time. Thus, it doesn’t logically follow, given your stated definition, that knowing the truth limits the person’s ability to choose and act according to their judgments and motives unless one takes into account the moral dimension of obligation.

Men always choose to do that which is congruent with their strongest inclination and is available given the circumstances. Even if someone holds a gun to your head and says “dance, or I’ll kill you,” your choice will be determined by your strongest inclination: to dance or to die. Clearly, the concept of freedom can be spoken of with many different nuances and on many different levels.

You state: “Reason does not require truth, or even accuracy, just a logical approach to one’s aims and environment. Reason and reasoned actions can easily – and often are – based on untrue data and perceptions.”

This is true on some levels but false on others. Ultimately, truth is required for reason to be sound. Your statement is true in that one may have a modus ponens argument that is “rational” in that it is valid but not true in that it is unsound. However, when I speak of rationality being dependent upon truth I am using it in regards to soundness and I think this is the way Plato would have understood it as well. When you speak of reason not requiring truth, you are only refer to formal matters. One cannot have a logical approach to reach something that correlates to reality unless they move beyond the formal to the informal, to truth.

You state: “I disagree that Jesus added anything to the concept of truth. A lack of conviction is not a lack of freedom. In point of fact, knowledge of the truth eliminates the need for conviction. One doesn’t need conviction when one knows that something is.”

First of all, I spoke of Jesus adding something freedom, not truth. Secondly, what I meant was that Jesus added something to Plato’s concept of freedom and by this I do not mean that there was a time that true freedom did not have a moral dimension. Christian theology most certainly equates a lack of conviction to do that which is right with a lack of freedom; as freedom is experienced in its highest form: to worship and enjoy the Creator. I also disagree that one does not need conviction when one knows the truth. The Bible speaks of all men as knowing God (Romans 1:18ff; This should be distinguished from relational knowledge spoken of in John and yet this knowledge is not enough to cause them to act in accordance with that knowledge. Men can and often do rebel against the truth.

You state: “Also, hatred of the truth is immaterial to one’s freedom. The knowledge of a truth still eliminated the freedom presented by possibilities that are no longer available for consideration.”

If knowledge reveals that what was thought possible (squaring a circle) is impossible then the freedom that that possibility brought was illusory. Thus, knowledge frees you from illusion or, conversely, knowledge binds you to reality. How you see this (as tyrrany or bondage) reveals something of your world-view… but my initial point was that the notion of freedom was tied to one’s broader world-view anyway. Either way, knowledge does not bind you to live in accordance with that truth outside of a moral sense.

You state (to a different person under a different issue): “Faith or conviction is not the same as knowledge. In fact it could be said that knowledge precludes faith by making it redundant or unnecessary since faith requires a lack of knowledge to exist. You don’t need faith in a thing that you know.”

As there are different concepts of freedom so there are different concepts of faith. According to the Christian world-view, knowledge does not preclude faith and faith is the basis of knowledge. This is one of the famous slogans of the Christian theologian Anselm (from Augustine): “credo ut intelligam” (I believe that I may understand). Proverbs 1:7 makes a similar point. But this is true of every world-view. Every world-view must have an ultimate starting point and that starting point provides the basis for the rest of a person’s epistemology.

You state: “I don’t remember anywhere in the Old Testament where Yahweh stepped in and exerted his will in a way that couldn’t be (mis-)interpreted as a natural act. That would have left room for both doubt and faith.”

First of all, your criterion is too high. I believe that under such a construct the only thing “knowable” is a tautology. God’s self-revelation is always sufficient to its purpose, this is the idea behind revelation. We may be able to reflect upon theophanies in the OT and doubt them because we do not share the actual existential experience that the people to whom the theophany occurred did. It is not only possible that the OT (and NT) revelations of God were sufficient to know He exists but the Scriptures assume they were. The problem is that you are taking “faith” out of its biblical construct and then applying an extra-biblical construct of faith to knowing God. Faith, in the Bible, is not propositional knowledge of God’s existence (all men have this, and more, according to Rom. 1:18) it is relational knowledge. This is why YHWH says in Amos 3:2 “You only have I known of all the families of the earth; therefore I will punish you for all your iniquities.” Obviously, YHWH is speaking of a relationship. The book of James address this issue in direct relationship to faith. See particularly James 2:19-20. Thus, while you may be able to reflect upon past theophanies and doubt it, the Bible presents the theophanies as leaving no room for “faith” as you conceive it.

I’m going to get addicted to this site if I don’t stop…