A Pedantic Definition Of Knowing

First off, any mention of patchouli clearly amuses the heck out of everybody. Next: Birkenstocks and David Foster Wallace novels.

Second, everybody who commented to say they had read the Bible through, also left it.

Granted, this was a survey sampled from smart people who behave decently. Kudos to sarahmichigan for having read it cover-to-cover the largest number of times: three. That's hardcore. That's like programming in assembly with paper punchcards, punched by a robot which is controlled by patch cables, which are moved around by another robot which you program directly on its hard disk platter with a refrigerator magnet. And just as painful.

The last comment, by drew4096 , inspired me to post some more. Drew employs that hoary technique, a pedantic definition of "knowing":

"We don't *know* that the Christian description of reality is wrong. It is *probably* wrong based on what we know about the physical world."

1. OK, metaphysics are so hard to say anything about that pretending to know them for sure and making a big deal about them is absolutism. Agreed. If you had said "the supernatural description of reality" you'd have a point. This is why I'm agnostic about the origin of the universe.
2. Next on the scale comes forensic science. I'm not agnostic about a God-concept that denies evolution; I am as atheist about that as I am about Thor and Zeus. The universal skeptic will argue that biology and archeology are weaker evidences than first-hand experiences. Sure they are. This is why so few people take science seriously when it disproves scriptural claims, even if they watch CSI. (By the way, this goes to the point of why religious apologetics is so sneaky. They keep all the evidences for their claims off into the distant past and unverifiable future, with no reference to what we should expect to experience here and now.)
3. After science, and on the opposite end of the scale from metaphysics, is first-hand experiences. It is not absolutist to claim to "know" the furniture around you exists. Most of you on board with me with that so far? I expect so. It is not absolutist to say I "know" (in the furniture sense) the Christian description of reality is wrong.

If you don't know how specific the Bible is in its falsifiable claims about what believers are supposed to experience, that indicates you haven't read it. So that particular patchouli-scented hand can go down, please. Let's give just one example.

"Therefore if any man be in Christ, he is a new creature: old things are passed away; behold, all things are become new."

There is no reasonable interpretation of 2 Corinthians 5:17 which holds up under the scrutiny of anyone who is paying attention. This has nothing to do with "Christians were mean to me so I don't want to be in their group." It has to do with the things you expect to happen to your own heart through the supernatural influence of God. ( Read more... )