Archived

Evidentialism and Reformed Epistemology

Read 7649 times

Chuck Snell

  • *
  • 2 Posts
    • View Profile
test for truth and Christian claims
« on: August 05, 2009, 02:36:34 pm »
Greetings,

The following tests for truth were presented to test statements and find problems in worldviews:

1) must be logically consistent

     2) There has to empirical adequacy

            3) must be relevant to my experience

A friend of mine stated that when applying these tests for truth to the statement, “God is a Trinity” the statement would fail the test for truth.

After thinking about this, one can come up with other Christian truths that would fail these tests for truth.

How do I explain this?

How do I get out of this where these tests for truth can expose some illogical snags in some instances and yet how do I apply these tests to “God is a Trinity” and other doctrinal statements?

It seems like I can get caught in a circle, “you can apply these tests in this case but not in this other case and it is still true…”


These tests for truth apply to the physical - "The grass is green"

It seems like a cowards way out to say one doesn't apply these to Christian truths.

Do you see my confusion?

Thanks
Sparky


1

Randy Everist

  • ***
  • 1737 Posts
    • View Profile
    • Possible Worlds
test for truth and Christian claims
« Reply #1 on: October 17, 2009, 11:22:22 am »
Sparky wrote: Greetings,

The following tests for truth were presented to test statements and find problems in worldviews:

1) must be logically consistent

     2) There has to empirical adequacy

            3) must be relevant to my experience

A friend of mine stated that when applying these tests for truth to the statement, “God is a Trinity” the statement would fail the test for truth.

After thinking about this, one can come up with other Christian truths that would fail these tests for truth.

How do I explain this?

How do I get out of this where these tests for truth can expose some illogical snags in some instances and yet how do I apply these tests to “God is a Trinity” and other doctrinal statements?

It seems like I can get caught in a circle, “you can apply these tests in this case but not in this other case and it is still true…”


These tests for truth apply to the physical - "The grass is green"

It seems like a cowards way out to say one doesn't apply these to Christian truths.

Do you see my confusion?

Thanks
Sparky


Hey Sparky. I definitely see your confusion. Let me see if I understand this correctly (since if I do, I've heard this plenty of times before): In order for any statement to be considered "true," it must be logically consistent, it must be empirically observed (or have such adequacy), and must be relevant to one's experience. Otherwise, we have no reason for it to be true, this claims.

All we must do to defeat this nonsense is ask one question: Is that statement for the tests of truth a true statement? Presumably, the proponent would answer "yes." The problem is that the statement fails its own test: the truth of the statement "a truth must be logically consistent, empirically observable, and relevant to one's experience" is itself not empirically observable! You cannot observe that truth; it is considered foundational! (one could say he observes things conforming to that truth, but it would not be true that he observes the truth of the statement itself)

This is sufficient to render that statement false, but I think we should show one more potential problem: presumably, the statement's claim is true regardless of our experiences, otherwise there could potentially be experiences we have which render the statement itself untrue. If it is the case that the statement is true and has no relevance to our experiences, it is untrue. If it is the case that the statement can be based on our experiences, then it seems the statement is not necessarily true, since experience may show us that we do not need to claim relevant experience for us to know that a claim is true. (the law of noncontradiction is one such example, where it is a foundational truth that does not need inductive experience) In any case, it is a self-defeating proposition at best.
"Every great man was thought to be insane before he changed the world. Some never changed the world. They were just insane."

Check out my blog, "Possible Worlds," at http://www.randyeverist.com

2
test for truth and Christian claims
« Reply #2 on: September 07, 2010, 10:19:28 pm »
I do not know who told you of these standards for worldviews/paradigms.  It is close to an idea that has been proposed by Humanists since the 19th century when they managed to change the focus and function of logic to the emergent predicate logic format around 1859 or so.

Bertrand Russell was one who held that there is no axiomatic truth but that all things must be examined as that which is observable and subject to experimentation.  This standard was applied to the hard sciences originally, not to the applied sciences at all.

How can you subject an experience in history to experimentation for verification of validity?  You cannot.

How do you observe the existence of the fabric of space and time burping universes into existence?  You cannot.

You cannot even apply this standard to the Theory of Evolution; although many try.  The origin of life and of this planet are equally out of the ability of the hard sciences to prove by this standard which they themselves set.

The origin cannot be observed nor can it be repeated in an experiment.  Indeed, if life could eventually be manufactured in a laboratory from non-living matter, then it wouldn't go to prove this is how we originated but it would bolster the argument that there needed to be a designer.

I'm willing to discuss this with anyone.  Or not.  I see some of these threads are long quiet.
 

Sparky wrote: Greetings,

The following tests for truth were presented to test statements and find problems in worldviews:

1) must be logically consistent

     2) There has to empirical adequacy

            3) must be relevant to my experience

...

Do you see my confusion?

Thanks
Sparky

suffering servant,
gralan
BTh student
http://TrinityTheology.org/
..................Prov14.31 Micah6.8 Heb13.3 Matt5.48 Titus3.14 James1.27

3

Cletus Nze

  • **
  • 490 Posts
    • View Profile
test for truth and Christian claims
« Reply #3 on: January 07, 2011, 02:38:17 pm »
Sparky wrote: Greetings,

The following tests for truth were presented to test statements and find problems in worldviews:

1) must be logically consistent

     2) There has to empirical adequacy

            3) must be relevant to my experience

A friend of mine stated that when applying these tests for truth to the statement, “God is a Trinity” the statement would fail the test for truth.

After thinking about this, one can come up with other Christian truths that would fail these tests for truth.

How do I explain this?

How do I get out of this where these tests for truth can expose some illogical snags in some instances and yet how do I apply these tests to “God is a Trinity” and other doctrinal statements?

It seems like I can get caught in a circle, “you can apply these tests in this case but not in this other case and it is still true…”


These tests for truth apply to the physical - "The grass is green"

It seems like a cowards way out to say one doesn't apply these to Christian truths.

Do you see my confusion?

Thanks
Sparky



Is a blind man who has NEVER seen light entitled to conclude that it does not exist on the basis that HE cannot see it?
Pursue Truth - with rigour and vigour!