The most credible JTBs are scientific knowledge and more credible when further rationalized and reinforced with philosophy-proper.
Why are scientific knowledge the most credible?
It is because they are leveraged upon a Scientific Framework and System with its Scientific Methods, assumptions, limitations, principles, processes, peer review and other conditions.
Scientific knowledge is the most credible because it is objective, i.e. testable and repeatable and any one can test the conclusion [without personal subjective bias] to convince themselves it is true.
Whilst Scientists rely totally on their Framework and System to judge the credibility of scientific knowledge, philosophers reinforce scientific knowledge with rational and sound philosophical theories.
Christianity is not leverage on objective knowledge.
What Christianity is leveraged on is the claim that God exists who delivered his message to one person called Jesus Christs.
The idea God exists [as demonstrated] is an impossibility and there is no way for any one to test and repeat the same conclusion ‘God exists as real’.
By its defaults, it is impossible for Science to prove the existence of God.
Now what other more efficient Framework and System can you think, show, produce to rely on to prove God exists? I say there is none, except;
My claim is the ‘idea of God exists’ arose purely out of psychological impulses within the brain of theists to deal with an inherent unavoidable existential crisis. I have given explanations and evidences to prove the above.
In addition, many Eastern philosophies has recognized this non-theistic psychological perspective and dealt with it psychologically.
Christianity says that the world is ordered, that knowledge can be gained about it and that it can be changed. It’s a real objective external world. That philosophical approach makes science possible.
Where is your sense of logic and rationality?
Anyone can insist on the above. Whatever ideology and the evil elements proposed by Islam [with 1.5 billion Muslims] also works.
Note the original point was Ierrellus claimed Christianity is based on JTB which he wrongly thought is based on the consensus of billions of people. viewtopic.php?p=2692261#p2692261
I have shown Christianity has no solid grounds to be a JTB.
Pretty much all the religions say that. You could argue that Hinduism says it is Maya, but still one can learn about Maya. It is an ordered set of phenomena one can learn about. Certainly all indigenous groups, who would not separate out relgion from other facets of life the way moderns tend to, learned via empiricism, though not only through the kinds of learning we tend to lump under (scientific) empiricism. So we still would need to show why Christianity leads to advancing some societies, if it does.
He wrote that it “works”. I just proposed a criteria for what “works” could mean - scientific and technological advancement. I moved away from concentrating on personal subjective “happy brain juices” to something that could be measured and compared.
I’m using it. One can’t know which of the events described in the New Testament really happened. One can’t know if Jesus was really the son of God.
But one can know the consequences of having Christianity as a personal and/or state religion are. And one can compare those consequences to the consequences of Buddhism, Hinduism, Islam, etc.
Sure, there are lots of factors at play, besides personal/state religions, but one can see some trends. One trend is that Buddhism achieves almost nothing scientific. Why? Because it’s too internally focused.
I’m bypassing the abstract debates and I’m talking about what is practical and effective.
I don’t think that’s really the case. 1492 is a nice summation of a lot of the research about indigenous groups in the Americas before Columbus’ arrival and they were doing all sorts of terraforming, for example. But on a smaller scale, like say with medicinal herbs, they were doing all sorts of empirical type research, using plants, in combinations and singly, processing them, often in complicated ways, for their own use. IOW they aimed emprical research at nature, changed it, and used it. IOW their beliefs lay a groundwork for science and technology. And how do we judge the success of their choices about what to study and what to change? Christianity tells us we have dominion over nature, and that nature/the world is not that important. That facet of Christianity might lead to the radical turning everything into products we do. We’ll see if that should be called successful fairly soon I would guess.
I do think the technocrats have inherited the arrogance of built into Christianity in relation to nature, for example.
And that’s not just a politically correct rewriting of history?
Well sure, advanced technology may kill us all … bio weapons, nuclear weapons, genetic engineering and AI are just a few of the ways. And then there is the depletion of resources by “efficiently” manufacturing useless crap. Therefore, advanced technology may not even be considered a “good”. Maybe sustainability is a critical term in the evaluation of what is “good” and worth pursuing. And indigenous populations probably value that much more than North American Christians.
My goal here is to move away from “happy brain juices” discussion and towards something real and tangible.
Yes, I admit it works but it works directly only for psychological benefits, i.e. theistic religions work to soothe the existential crisis in promising salvation with eternal life in Paradise.
Nope, got to be joking, there is no way one can link scientific and technological advancements directly to the holy texts of Christianity or religions. I don’t want to drag into this argument. If you insist you can keep it, I don’t want to waste my time on it.
As stated above, religions work directly for psychological benefits, i.e. soothe the existential crisis and angst.
True Buddhism achieves nothing scientific because that is not the purpose of Buddhism as a religion [Ninian Smart’s definition].
True Buddhism is very focused internally [explicit in the Buddha’s Story and 4 Noble Truths] because psychological and life stability require very strong internal psychological foundations and stuctures to deal with the inevitable turbulences in life.
4 Noble Truths
The truth of suffering (Dukkha)
The truth of the origin of suffering (Samudāya)
The truth of the cessation of suffering (Nirodha)
The truth of the path to the cessation of suffering (Magga)
Buddhism faces reality and deal with it effectively.
The Abrahamic religions focused on an illusion [God] thus flimsy.
If that were true then why would there be so much guilt and fear about eternal damnation. Why have any punishment for sin? Why have a doctrine of original sin? Why have Jesus say that “all have fallen short of the glory of God”?
If it’s all about “soothing” then it would make much more sense to create a religion with a blissful afterlife in heaven and no hell.
As if you can just separate science from a person’s religious and philosophical beliefs. Maybe like “today I’m doing science so the world is not just illusion … today it’s real and objective with permanent laws … until 5 o’clock when I go home.”
Very true, Phyllo. There exists today progressive religious sects who do not believe in the corrupt nature of man as determining some afterlife of non-punitive torture. See Matthew Fox’s “Original Blessing”.
In any event it makes little sense to me to anthropomorphize brain chemistry by suggesting what thoughts it can or can create without considering the genetic evolution of the brain as a source of such thoughts. Existential angst may only amount to incentive to move forward, which, if not followed, could be experienced as negative. Feeling good may, as I continue to emphasize, may only be the indication that everything is working properly. The brain is the supervisory organ for all bodily processes. When body parts malfunction the brain expresses pain, depression, etc., all of the negatives which require no further explanation than that they are experienced.
Ah, but go to a Western doctor and he/she orders some tests. If the tests show “nothing”, then you are dismissed as a hypochondriac. Your pains are imaginary.
If the doctor or medical team is sensitive enough to localize a body site of distress, they may be able to relieve it. I’ve see many “demons” exorcized by modern meds. Besides, hypochondria indicates something is amiss in the brain’s normal functioning. The something does not have to be labeled a demon.
Success in adapting causes “feel good” juice" experiences. Failure to adapt prompts experiences of existential angst. Why would anyone relegate this experience of angst to a religion based on humans as rotten to the core?
The point is that “the tests” establish whether you are sick or not … your personal experience is dismissed. That’s why people turn away from Western medicine … they don’t feel like they are being heard.
The existential crisis generate all the existential angst related to
guilt and fear about eternal damnation.
Instead of explaining the real cause i.e. Christianity use the concept of the original sin to invoke the natural guilt and fear of eternal damnation [existential extermination]
The above problems are actually and fundamentally driven by human psychology.
Religion thus use the idea of God to neutralize the above problems psychologically.
Example;
If a group of people are trapped 1000 feet in a diamond mine and knowing they are facing certain death [existential crisis], they will surely be triggered psychologically, i.e. worry, be anxious, in despairs and suffer all sort of terrible existential fears. But if they get actual news help is on the way very soon comprising the latest rescuing technology, they will get immediate relief and all the terrible existential fears will disappear immediately except for maybe the minimal reservation until they are really safe above ground
Note when they get the news help is on the way, there is no certainty yet, it is only information and what works is only based on belief, trust and faith that things will work well.
From the above the principle is this;
The problem started psychologically as triggered by an existential crisis and it is psychology [belief help is on the way] that resolve the initial psychologically driven existential fears.
The above is the same with religion;
Theists as human suffer from an inherent existential crisis that generate terrible existential psychological states. [guilt from sins, threat of hell, etc.]
It is religion and their beliefs [eternal life in heaven] that can give immediate psychological reliefs inhibit those existential angst.
In the sense those activities of Science and religion are from the same mind of a person, we cannot separate them.
But it is a fact, Science and religion are conditioned to their respective Framework and System.
There is no way Mendel can make genetic claims insisting God said so and nothing else. The only way Mendel theories can be accepted is because they complied with the Scientific Framework and System and they are not based on the Bible as an authority for Science.
Thus the Framework and System of Science and religions are independent of each other in terms of scientific knowledge and doctrines respectively.
