I lived in Southern California for 13 years, where it was a regular occurrence to run into New Age spirituality almost anywhere I went. My wife and I were talking a walk in the hills above Anaheim one day, and were intrigued to hear the sound of a drum and voices, out of sight among the trees ahead of us. I thought maybe it was a Boy Scout group. Our path took us right by the source, and I was wrong: it was 13 people in a circle chanting praises to earth, air, fire, and water. We vacationed in places like Carmel, California, and Sedona, Arizona, 
both of which are hotbeds of this kind of spirituality. We passed more than one ritual fire circle along a trail above our campsite in Sedona, and the town itself is full of interesting places like this Center for the New Age. Of course we had friends who were avid followers of New Age.
Here in southeastern Virginia it’s been different. The dominant employers here are the military (all five services including the Coast Guard, plus whatever they do at Camp Peary) and shipbuilding. We have the Jefferson Lab accelerator facility, and lots of historical tourism and research revolving around Jamestown, Williamsburg, and Yorktown. California is, well, California; and this has been different, either because of the forms of industry, or because things are generally more conservative here on the East Coast. I have had very little contact with the New Spirituality lately.
New Age Resurgence?
Until the last year or so, that is. One reason for that change has been the way Oprah Winfrey has been promoting Eckhart Tolle. Tolle has one book ranked at #2 at Amazon today, and another ranked at #20; and he and Oprah claim viewership in the millions for their combined advocacy for the message of “A New Earth” and “The Power of Now.” One of the most common search phrases by which visitors have been finding this blog lately is “the church of Oprah.”
Contradictory Beliefs
Part of the New Age message is that many paths lead to one goal, even if these paths are in many ways contradictory. This morning I heard a talk by Ravi Zacharias that is very germane to this topic. He was born and raised in a high-caste family in India, but now travels and speaks as a leading Christian thinker. The talk I’m referring to here is on pantheism and its contradictions: the contradictions really do matter, in spite of suppositions that there is an “Eastern” sort of logic in which they are of no consequence.
His website’s design does not permit me to give you the URL for the page where his talk is linked. You would need to begin at the Just Thinking page, and navigate through the archives to “Secularism and the Illusion of Neutrality, Part 3.” I trust, though, that they will not begrudge my providing you some shortcuts. You can:
Download the mp3 directly here, or
Listen online with RealAudio here.
His main point is that even in Eastern religions, with which he is very familiar, contradictory statements cannot both be true at the same time in the same relationship. That’s the dry version. You’ll his telling of it to be far more entertaining than that!
(I strongly recommend all of Zacharias’s talks, so once you listen to this one, I suggest you go back for more; even subscribe to his podcast.)
I don’t know much about new age spirituality. But what if there isn’t just one path and one goal? In other words, neither Buddhists nor Hindus are seeking redemption through Christ. And I doubt many new agers are seeking to follow Jesus. These are Christian paths to Christian goals. What if there are many different paths leading to many different goals?
Please listen to the talk I linked to. If there is more than one path, and more than one goal, then they are different paths and different goals.
If the Christian goal is the true goal, and other paths have different goals, then the other paths lead to false goals.
Now, before you respond to this, I urge you to listen to the talk.
It might even be interesting if you actually offered an opinion, too (after you listen to the talk). Do you think there are different paths? Do you think there are different goals? Those are easy questions; obviously the answer to both of them is yes.
Now for a question that requires some thought and commitment: You have told us often in previous discussions that you believe in and follow the Word of God. (Those are probably not your exact words; I’m working from memory.) In the context of our discussions, the Word of God has always been a reference to the Christian Scriptures.
Do you believe there are other paths and goals that lead to the same destination as that of Jesus Christ as revealed in the Bible?
I’m very familiar with Ravi. My father in law is a big fan and I’ve listened to a number of his talks. I don’t have time at the moment to listen–but I will later.
If the Christian goal is the true goal, and other paths have different goals, then the other paths lead to false goals.
For me, journeying on the Christian path toward the Christian goal is the living act of faith.
I don’t pretend to know the path that other seekers walk or to know what their goals are. I can just see that they more or less differ from mine.
But, logically: If there are many paths and there are many goals, then aren’t there also many truths.
I’m sorry to have to say it, but this is another non-sequitir (the first was on a different thread):
No, it is not logical to conclude there are many truths if there are many paths or goals. What correlation is there between the existence of a path and a truth? What is it about the fact that a person has a goal that entails there is truth connected to it? I could set myself a goal of scoring 2 touchdowns in my next basketball game. Or I could set myself a goal of achieving Nirvana through multiple reincarnations, only to find out that (Heb. 9:27) it is appointed for a person to die once, and then comes judgment.
I love the secularist debate on truth and what they believe. The ultimate reality of what is transpiring now in American culture is called post-modern non-confrontationalism. You can believe whatever you want to believe, as long as your beliefs don’t infringe on my ability to believe whatever I want to believe.
I actually received this as a rebuttal from my sister in which I quoted John 14:6 with regards to what I believe as a Christian. As logic will dictate, the non-confrontationalist’s argument will fail when subjected to truth. And because the only truth is found in Jesus Christ, you’ll find the only true persecution taking place against Evangelical Christianity. Those that stand firm in their belief in what Jesus taught will always run up against those that tell Christians that they need to be free to believe whatever they want to believe.
While that sounds all well and good I’m sure you would agree with me that those that believe that plants have rights would have a problem with those that use a weedwacker on their lawn, or cut their grass. The next thing you know they’ll be arresting Tiger Woods for taking a divot on the golf course.
Just one example of how illogical the non-confrontationalist approach to life is. it’s either that, or we all sit around in silence and lock ourselves behind our doors and do nothing, and interract with no one for the rest of our lives.
“Postmodern non-confrontationalism” - - I like that term.
It reminds me of this clip from E.R., which is fresh on my mind because I’m preparing a men’s discussion session on it.
You originally said that
Part of the New Age message is that many paths lead to one goal, even if these paths are in many ways contradictory.
I don’t know what the correlation between goal and truth is, but here you seem to be saying that paths have goals. I presumed from that that you were saying a path’s goal was truth.
Also in the original post you wrote:
His main point is that even in Eastern religions, with which he is very familiar, contradictory statements cannot both be true at the same time in the same relationship.
Contradictory statements depend on “the same relationship” to something.
However, my point is that Buddhists and Hindus and Christians do not share “the same relationship” with the same God. They do not walk the same paths or seek the same goals. In that sense, there is little risk of contradiction and little problem in saying that these different religions are seeking different truths by walking different paths.
Sure, more zealous people who follow one of the faiths will always declare that their faith is The True Faith and some will attempt to prove it by using science or force or whatever means they can, but ultimately faith is about trust. And trust ain’t certainty.
Walking the path of Jesus is a trusting act of faith, a foolish act that is wiser than man’s wisdom, as Paul said.
Have I been so unclear over all these months? You write,
A path’s goal may be believed to be truth; but that is a far cry from its necessarily being truth.
They share the same God. They share much of the same relationship: both are created by the same God, both depend on the same God for their continuing life (though both may not recognize the fact), both are accountable to the same God.
There is a whole lot of “risk” of contradiction there! One of them is seeking the truth. The other is not seeking “a different truth;” what the other is seeking is false.
I am one of those zealous persons who will say that Christianity is The One True Faith. I don’t mind capitalizing the first letters as you did. (I even added an extra word for emphasis.) Actually, since “Christianity” includes some admixture of human failing, I would prefer to say the Jesus Christ is The One True Savior, The One True Son of God, The One True Source of Life, The One True Hope of Eternal Life, The One True King of Kings and Lord of Lords. But note that I most emphatically do not say that I hold the truth. It is, as my blog motto above states, the other way around.
It is impossible for Buddhism and Christianity both to be seeking the true goal of life. Either there is Nirvana after multiple reincarnations, or there is judgment after one life. Logically it would be possible (based on those two assertions alone, without reference to other relevant information) that neither is correct. It is not possible, however, for both Buddhism and Christianity to be correct.
There are other very major points of fundamental disagreement besides these two. But these two ought to put an end to all thought of truths being a construct of community, society, language, whatever. Language and community will not change whether there is (or is not) a God who is waiting to greet you when you die. You just can’t do that with language, or with societal norms, or any other human construction.
“Ultimately faith is about trust.” Sure. What does that have to do with the previous discussion about contradictions? Are you saying that my trust, and a Buddhist’s trust, make it possible that both of us are right? I hope not. My trust, and a Buddhist’s trust, logical entail that at least one of us is wrong, because the things we are trusting and hoping for are contradictory and cannot both be true.
Stump says,
Tom already covered this with scoring touchdowns in basketball. A goal is not the truth just because you say it is and if you seek a goal but there is no reality corresponding to the object of your goal then you can not achieve it.
If they are walking paths toward goals which Christianity says do not exist then they are in contradiction with Christianity. If they are seeking different Gods then they are in contradiction with Christianity, which claims there is one God and that He has revealed Himself.
A path’s goal may be believed to be truth; but that is a far cry from its necessarily being truth.
Are you too confined to that claim? Are you willing to say about your own beliefs: “What I believed to be truth could possibly be a far cry from its necessarily being truth.”
On one hand, I have you claiming “They share the same God.” But what if a Buddhist says “No, I’m not seeking to follow in the way of Jesus.”
Does it matter what the Buddhist thinks or does it only matter what you think?
There is a whole lot of “risk” of contradiction there! One of them is seeking the truth. The other is not seeking “a different truth;” what the other is seeking is false.
I don’t understand what you’re saying here.
I am one of those zealous persons who will say that Christianity is The One True Faith. I don’t mind capitalizing the first letters as you did. (I even added an extra word for emphasis.) Actually, since “Christianity” includes some admixture of human failing, I would prefer to say the Jesus Christ is The One True Savior, The One True Son of God, The One True Source of Life, The One True Hope of Eternal Life, The One True King of Kings and Lord of Lords. But note that I most emphatically do not say that I hold the truth. It is, as my blog motto above states, the other way around.
I know. I’m not, however, a zealous believer like that. We come from two different perspectives. That is why our conversations spark so.
It is impossible for Buddhism and Christianity both to be seeking the true goal of life.
I’m not saying that Buddhism and Christianity are both seeking “the true goal of life.” Rather, I’ve been saying that there is no one true goal of life. There are many different true goals in life.
Don’t forget what is at issue here. It’s whether both of us can be right, Christian and Buddhist. So you’re taking us a bit off track if you ask whether I think a Buddhist might be right. If a Buddhist is right, then I am wrong, and if I am right, a Buddhist is wrong.
As to which of us is right, what we think matters a whole lot less than what God thinks, or (if you prefer) what we think matters a whole lot less than what is actually real.
But if they contradict, then they can’t all be true. If there are multiple contradictory true goals, no more than one of them can be true. The rest must be wrong. And if you disagree with this, then you are wrong; not because I say so, and not because of my zealotry for my beliefs, but just because it is impossible for contradictory goals all to be in pursuit of what is actually true.
Stump is once again making a question of epistemology into one of ontology.
Let me ask you this, Jacob. Would you be willing to rephrase some of your statements, to commit to this?
“It is incorrect to say that two contradictory beliefs cannot both be correct and true, at the same time and in the same relationship.”
Does this express your opinion accurately?
Don’t forget what is at issue here. It’s whether both of us can be right, Christian and Buddhist. So you’re taking us a bit off track if you ask whether I think a Buddhist might be right. If a Buddhist is right, then I am wrong, and if I am right, a Buddhist is wrong.
I’m not asking if you think a Buddhist can be right. I’m asking if you think your beliefs can possibly not be true.
But if they contradict, then they can’t all be true.
But what if they don’t contradict each other. What if they do not share the same relation? A Buddhist doesn’t follow Christ and Christ didn’t teach about zen.
If there are multiple contradictory true goals, no more than one of them can be true.
But what if the different paths and the different truths do not contradict? What if the Buddhist is walking a different path than the Christian and seeking a different truth than the Christian truth?
Let me ask you this, Jacob. Would you be willing to rephrase some of your statements, to commit to this?
“It is incorrect to say that two contradictory beliefs cannot both be correct and true, at the same time and in the same relationship.”
Does this express your opinion accurately?
Can you rephrase your statement to make it a bit more intelligible?
No, I can’t. At least, I don’t know a good way to do it anyway. The phrasing, including the double negatives, is quite intentional. You could remove “at the same time and in the same relationship” because that’s a refinement of the main point.
Let me explain why I included those qualifiers. I’m trying to find out if you agree with something that denies classic logic. Under the Law of Noncontradiction, two contradictory statements can actually be true. It is possible if they apply to different times, or to different relationships. For example, I could affirm both of these statements: My son is a college student. My son is not a college student.
I could affirm them both if I said them at different times: If I say it now while he is in high school, and if I say it later when (presumably) he is a college student. There is no contradiction there.
I could affirm them both if I say them in different relationships. He is not a college student as it is typically understood, but he is dual-enrolled at the local community college for one of his classes, so in that relationship he is a college student. No contradiction there again.
So I could rephrase my earlier version by asking whether you can affirm this:
“It is incorrect to say that two contradictory statements cannot both be true, except as just noted here.”
Or on further thought I suppose I could try it this way.
Suppose I were to say, “Two contradictory statements can never be true at the same time and in the same relationship.” Would you disagree with that categorical statement?
To your earlier comment:
Then you have changed the subject, which I was making an effort not to do.
Then they are in contradiction, for a Christian says that if the Buddhist is not following Christ, then he is walking toward death; and that Christ did not teach about Zen because Zen is not truth. They do share the same relation to God (as I said above) in the sense of being his creatures, being dependent on him, and being accountable to him. Did you miss that?
(How many times must this be repeated before you hear it, Jacob?!!!)
The problem is the word truth. The word truth cannot apply in both cases. The Buddhist and the Christian may both be seeking truth, I’ll grant that. But if the Christian finds his answer in Christ, and the Buddhist finds his answer in something else, then the word “truth” is the wrong word to apply to at least one of their answers.
Would you please stop using the word “truth” for any old opinion someone takes it into his head to hold? Even if it has a long heritage, an opinion can still be wrong, and if it’s wrong, it’s not truth!
If contradiction depends on a shared relationship, then I can agree that two claims to truth that share a relationship cannot both be true; one must be false.
How does that work?
That works. Please note that religions’ claims to truth inevitably involve shared relationships. If Christian belief is true, then all persons have a relationship with God at least as described above. If Buddhist belief is true, then all persons have a relationship with a reality that permits reincarnation. If Hindu belief is true, then all persons have a relationship with Karma. If Muslim belief is true, then all persons have a shared relationship with Allah. If secularism is true, then all persons have a shared relationship with material reality and its ultimate heat death.
I could go on but you get the point.
Now, if you want to say that “relationship” doesn’t apply to, say, material reality, then I would say that in the sense employed in the Law of Noncontradiction, it actually does. That is the sense in which the word is used there.
Then you have changed the subject, which I was making an effort not to do.
It sounds a lot like you’re evading the question. Can you admit the possibility that your own beliefs are not true? Or is that a possibility only nonChristian new agers face?
Then they are in contradiction, for a Christian says that if the Buddhist is not following Christ, then he is walking toward death; and that Christ did not teach about Zen because Zen is not truth.
Then that’s what a “Christian says” which could possibly be a far cry from the truth. And since the Buddhist is following a different path toward a different truth, the devout Buddhist probably doesn’t care what the Christian says.
They do share the same relation to God (as I said above) in the sense of being his creatures, being dependent on him, and being accountable to him. Did you miss that?
As far as the “Christian says,” from inside the Christian pathway to the Christian God. But to the Buddhist this doesn’t make sense.
The problem is the word truth. The word truth cannot apply in both cases. The Buddhist and the Christian may both be seeking truth, I’ll grant that. But if the Christian finds his answer in Christ, and the Buddhist finds his answer in something else, then the word “truth” is the wrong word to apply to at least one of their answers.
I agree that the problem is with the word truth, but I disagree with your remedy. I think truth is the word we should use. It should be made plural, however. An “s” should be added. It is not that there is Truth, but that there are many paths to many Truths.
There can still be contradiction, but contradiction depends on a shared relationship. Competing Christian claims to truth can be contradictory, for instance, since they share a relation to the Christian God.
I’m not evading the question. I’m trying to stay on track. (The answer: yes, I could be wrong. And if I’m wrong, I’m wrong, I’m not practicing one of many “Truths.” Now let’s get back to the subject.)
Can you reconcile these?
and
I think you’re telling me that the Christian truth, which says there is only one truth, is not one of the Truths. Why does it get left out?
The “Christian God” is ultimate reality for everybody, so we all share a relationship to the Christian God. You have ignored my statements on this repeatedly. Now, what if I’m wrong about the Christian God? Well, the same kind of thing (the universal shared relationship) can be said about every set of truth claims, in the sense that they all make statements about ultimate reality. All ultimate truth claims (which include religions and secular substitutes for religion) make claims about ultimate reality. So they all share a relation. If ultimate reality is the Christian God (as I’m convinced it is) then all the other truth claims are wrong, false, untrue, and so on, and your reply preceding this one, whether or not you think you have a relationship with Christian truth claims, is…
…wrong.
The website went down when I was about to add more to this. I’m going to take off my apologist’s hat and put on a pastoral hat now, with a word of warning to one who claims to follow Christ.
Jacob, you wrote,
Apparently you care about honoring Christ. I hope so. But here is why all this matters so much. By making other “Truths” possible, you are making the Christian God, and Jesus Christ, one of many options. This, by his own statement, is deeply dishonoring to Jesus Christ and to God.
If there are other options that have an equal claim to Truth, then God (the God of the Bible) exists, and he does not exist. This attitude is deeply dishonoring to God, in addition to being incoherent.
If you say that people who follow other truth claims have no relationship to the Christian God, you are saying he did not create the world and its people. This is deeply dishonoring to God.
If there are other paths that have an equal claim to Truth, then Jesus Christ did not really have to die on the cross. That was optional. He died - - it was planned from before the ages for him to die - - for no really necessary reason. God killed his son for no particularly sufficient reason. Or maybe, Christ’s death was one way to God, which makes it, really, one of the universe’s many nice ideas for people who want to find meaning in life. No! The Cross was not a “nice idea,” and if it was optional, if it was not necessary, it was an act of absolute unmitigated horror.
And yet you say you are journeying on the Christian path toward the Christian goal?
Those who deeply dishonor God are not in good standing with him. I grieve for them. I grieve for you, if you insist on dishonoring him so.
Can you reconcile these?
and
I think you’re telling me that the Christian truth, which says there is only one truth, is not one of the Truths. Why does it get left out?
Sorry. Christianity doesn’t get left out. Christians no doubt are seeking their own truth and their own God. And so are the Buddhists. I just don’t think these two religous groupings are on the same path or seeking the same truth.
By making other “Truths” possible, you are making the Christian God, and Jesus Christ, one of many options. This, by his own statement, is deeply dishonoring to Jesus Christ and to God.
I’m no so sure Jesus says anything about admitting that other people seek truths outside the way of Christ. I can proclaim my ever trusting faith in Christ and, at the same time, see with my own eyes that many people do not make the same choices that I have. People choose to follow different paths and seek different truths, which is an empirical claim that I find hard to ignore.
If there are other options that have an equal claim to Truth, then God (the God of the Bible) exists, and he does not exist. This attitude is deeply dishonoring to God, in addition to being incoherent.
I disagree. For me, there are no equal claims to truth. I pledge my faith and trust to one. But I can see also that others pledge their faith and trust elsewhere.
If you say that people who follow other truth claims have no relationship to the Christian God, you are saying he did not create the world and its people. This is deeply dishonoring to God.
In my view, the God of the Bible is the creator of the heavens and the earth, the darkness and the light. There is none higher. For other people, however, the God of the Bible is not the creator.
If there are other paths that have an equal claim to Truth, then Jesus Christ did not really have to die on the cross. That was optional. He died - - it was planned from before the ages for him to die - - for no really necessary reason. God killed his son for no particularly sufficient reason. Or maybe, Christ’s death was one way to God, which makes it, really, one of the universe’s many nice ideas for people who want to find meaning in life. No! The Cross was not a “nice idea,” and if it was optional, if it was not necessary, it was an act of absolute unmitigated horror.
For me, there are no other equal paths. And I’m not claiming the cross was a nice idea. But others believe very differently.
There is a fundamental difference, I believe, between my trusting fidelity in the God of Abraham, Moses and Jesus and between the devout Buddhist’s fidelity to his God. I don’t claim to speak for the Buddhist. All that I know is that for myself, Jesus is the way and the light. And I tell others when the opportunity permits.
If that troubles you, then I’m sorry. There are certain aspects of your faith that trouble me too.
The “Christian God” is ultimate reality for everybody, so we all share a relationship to the Christian God. You have ignored my statements on this repeatedly. Now, what if I’m wrong about the Christian God? Well, the same kind of thing (the universal shared relationship) can be said about every set of truth claims, in the sense that they all make statements about ultimate reality. All ultimate truth claims (which include religions and secular substitutes for religion) make claims about ultimate reality. So they all share a relation. If ultimate reality is the Christian God (as I’m convinced it is) then all the other truth claims are wrong, false, untrue, and so on, and your reply preceding this one, whether or not you think you have a relationship with Christian truth claims, is…
…wrong.
What is the point of continuing the conversation?
You don’t see the problem, do you, Jacob?
But you had earlier said,
How could this be a far cry from the truth if we’re all seeking our own truths? What truth is it far from? But you say that it is, or might be, far from (definite article) the truth. How can it be? You are not agreeing with yourself! How do you expect me or anyone else to agree with you?
Jesus, and his followers, and the Old Testament prophets noted the same empirical truth. They said that people following different paths were wrong. If you deny what they said you are not following Jesus Christ.
God created you, and the heavens and the earth, but somebody or something else created the other people? Jacob, you are not talking about reality at all, are you?
Let it be noted for the record that you have been disagreeing with me repeatedly. I finally decided to bring it to a head by using the dreaded word “wrong.” You have been implying all along that Christian exclusivism is wrong, but you have studiously avoided using that actual word. Instead when it is brought into the conversation, actually directed toward someone, you pull out.
Okay, then. Let it be so.
How could this be a far cry from the truth if we’re all seeking our own truths? What truth is it far from? But you say that it is, or might be, far from (definite article) the truth. How can it be? You are not agreeing with yourself! How do you expect me or anyone else to agree with you?
There are always Christians calling out other Christians and claiming that they are not seeking the true way of Jesus. And the truth that a Christian may be far from is the salvatory graces of Jesus Christ–isn’t that the basic truth of Christianity?
Jesus, and his followers, and the Old Testament prophets noted the same empirical truth. They said that people following different paths were wrong. If you deny what they said you are not following Jesus Christ.
I agree that in the Bible followers of Jesus noted the empirical fact that there were other paths and other Gods and I agree that they usually denounced them. As I said, there are always more or less zealous believers. And I already know that you don’t approve of my stance, but God will ultimately determine whether or not I am following Jesus Christ.
God created you, and the heavens and the earth, but somebody or something else created the other people? Jacob, you are not talking about reality at all, are you?
My point is that most every religion has a creation story. In telling their story, Christians refer to the God of the Israilites. In telling their story, Buddhists refer to their God.
And I am most certainly talking about reality. I mean, don’t you believe the reality of the book of Genesis? I believe that the God of Genesis created the heavens and the earth.
Let it be noted for the record that you have been disagreeing with me repeatedly. I finally decided to bring it to a head by using the dreaded word “wrong.” You have been implying all along that Christian exclusivism is wrong, but you have studiously avoided using that actual word. Instead when it is brought into the conversation, actually directed toward someone, you pull out.
Okay, then. Let it be so.
If I’m “wrong,” what else can I do? I mean, is there any chance that I might be making a credible argument?…..
…I didn’t think so.
There are always Christians calling out other Christians and claiming that they are not seeking the true way of Jesus. And the truth that a Christian may be far from is the salvatory graces of Jesus Christ–isn’t that the basic truth of Christianity? In the Bible it wasn’t “always Christians calling out other Christians.” It was followers of Christ calling out people who were following other ways, what in your parlance you might call “other truths.” What they said was that those “other truths” were lies and false. I’ve said this often enough and you have ignored it: it’s not just within Christianity, it’s all people.
By the way, we’re resuming a pattern that happened back before I was using this Wordpress blog software: you ignore what I say, and yet pretend to answer. Very unproductive.
Your conclusion there is completely uncontested and certainly accurate. But it has little to do with the context in which this topic was first presented. Why did you bother to say it?
The actual topic goes back to your answer at 6:31 pm to my statement,
You had answered by pointing out that empirically, other people follow other paths; I pointed out that this is agreed, and that those other paths are wrong. The point of this exchange, I thought, was to continue to discuss the original point of this post, to wit: that contradictory beliefs cannot simultaneously be true.
You have changed the subject again. I don’t know if this was an intentional attempt to avoid addressing the subject at hand, but that was certainly the result.
What does this mean, now?
No faith and trust to Christ? Or did you mean something else? And all along when you’ve been saying everybody had their own truth, I thought you were affirming their truths equally. Are there degrees of truth? What does that mean?
I really haven’t had the sense you were making an argument at all, Jacob. You’ve shifted the subject, you’ve ignored what I’ve said and pretended to answer, you haven’t really explained your own position very clearly, as just demonstrated.
And if you say that there are multiple truths, based on what a person chooses to believe, I will quite firmly and unswervingly say that there cannot be multiple truths. There are multiple beliefs, but no more than one (if they contradict) can be honored with the appelation “truth.”
The original post was about the contradictory nature of new age spirituality.
The point that I have poorly tried to make is that your post depends on the assumption that new age spirituality and Christianity are walking up the same path toward the same goal.
I cannot disprove that assumption. And I’m pretty sure that you can’t prove it, either.
If we make another assumption, then we get different results.
Again, we can’t prove either assumption, but by making them we can speculate further.
So, I assume that new age spirituality and Christianity are not walking on the same path and they are not seeking the same goal.
This new assumption poses a fundamental problem for your story of a universe, where there is one path and one goal.
The new story assumes a pluriverse, where there are many paths and many goals.
In this way, new age spirituality is not necessarily contradictory. It is only contradictory if you assume we live in a universe where there is one path and one goal.
I’m basically saying, perhaps you should qualify your claim.
Hi Tom,
Very good work here and a nice show of patience.
Once upon a time I had a discussion with Stump:
http://thinkingchristian.net/C228303755/E20070122151155/index.html
There he claimed that knowledge does not entail truth:
http://www.haloscan.com/comments/tgilblog/E20070122151155/#199487
He claimed that the reason that we argue is to convince others of the value of our beliefs but could never define value or allow belief to conform to any reality.
He admitted that truth means something special to him:
http://www.haloscan.com/comments/tgilblog/E20070122151155/#199611
We ended thus:
In short, Stump demonstrated that he is engaging in an activity other than what the rest of us are when we discuss truth and reality. He knows this and continues to do so, even though he acts as though he is communicating something about truth and reality. This equivocation is now demonstrably intentional. Nobody can communicate with him or understand him because he is relating only to himself - on purpose. But still he continues.
Thank you for that clarification. I see that you have been trying to show that New Age and Christianity are following “different truths,” and that they are not walking the same path thoward the same goal. New Age spirituality is nevertheless contradictory, in that it says that there are different paths toward spiritual enlightenment, or fulfillment, or whatever term they may use. And very specifically, it is typical in New Age spirituality to “embrace contradiction,” to say that these different paths are of equal truth and equal value even if they contradict one another.
I was not trying to prove that New Age spirituality involves contradiction. That was one of the givens. They speak openly of their approval of contradiction. Further, they typically say that being able to live with contradiction is a good, and that a dogged insistence on noncontradiction is a Western intrusion on good thinking.*
Ravi Zacharias (have you listened to his talk yet?) explained why this was not true; that the law of noncontradiction cannot be gainsaid. Those who deny the law of noncontradiction have to rely upon it in order to deny it.
From there, you and I went into a discussion of whether there can indeed be multiple truths, of which one might be Christianity. I made the point eventually, and emphatically, that Christianity cannot be one of many truths. It makes a mockery of the heart of Christianity, which is the incarnation, death, and resurrection of Christ–especially his death. If there are other decent options for spiritual life and enlightenment than Christ and the cross, then the cross was massively and horribly wrong. God killed his Son for no particularly good reason. Therefore you cannot hold to any semblance of orthodox, historic Christianity, and also hold that there are “other truths,” other valid paths toward spiritual life or fulfillment.
New Age is contradictory. This is not my opinion, it is theirs. It celebrates contradiction. At the same time it relies on the essential truth of the law of noncontradiction. This is what Zacharias brought to light, and what I was building upon.
The cross of Christ disproves your assumption. I’m speaking to you as to one who says he follows the way of Christ. From that position you must recognize that if there is more than one worthwhile goal, the cross was unnecessary and wrong.
I do not deny there are multiple paths and multiple (intended) goals. There is a path toward the Muslim Paradise, and the Buddhist Nirvana, and the New Age unity with the One. If you accept the truth of the cross of Christ, you must recognize that though there are multiple intended goals, they are all false and will prove to be death in the end.
To reiterate and direct it back toward your assertion: You say that New Age may not fall into any fallacy of contradiction if we acknowledge there are many paths and goals. I say that if Christianity is acknowledged to be one of those goals, it completely obliterates the spiritual value of all other goals. I am not trying (not here, at any rate) to show that Christianity is one of those goals. I am appealing toward your stated claim that you follow Christ. If you follow Christ, you cannot accept the validity of other spiritual goals. Jesus’ teaching and his death for sin eliminate that possibility.
I hope I have qualified my claim clearly enough now.
*Please bear in mind this is about actual contradiction. The ability to live with paradox and ambiguity is a different thing, but these are not the topic.
Thanks for that additional reminder, Charlie.
Neither I, nor you, nor Ravi are new agers. We don’t know what they believe. All that we have is our view of new agers. I’m not even sure that all new agers beleive the same thing. So, I’ll let them speak for themselves. Why don’t you quote some news agers to illustrate your point about contradiction?
While new agers may be internally contradictory, they do not contradict Christianity because they do not walk the same path or seek the same goal as Christians do. And contradiction depends on a shared relationship to the same object, as we both agreed.
If you follow Christ, you cannot accept the validity of other spiritual goals. Jesus’ teaching and his death for sin eliminate that possibility.
Accepting the validity of new age views is different than seeing that there are new age views that walk on a different path than I do and seek a different truth than I do. I don’t accept their faith as valid. I put my faith in Christ. My faith does not blind me to the fact that many people do not have faith in Christ.
I do not deny there are multiple paths and multiple (intended) goals. There is a path toward the Muslim Paradise, and the Buddhist Nirvana, and the New Age unity with the One. If you accept the truth of the cross of Christ, you must recognize that though there are multiple intended goals, they are all false and will prove to be death in the end.
You slipped the word “(intended) goals” in there. In a pluriverse, there would be multiple paths and multiple goals. It isn’t a matter of intention.
Yeah, I recognize that as a follower of Jesus, Jesus is the way, the truth and the light. And as far as Buddhists and new agers are not seeking Jesus, then they are not seeking the way, the truth and the light.
The cross of Christ disproves your assumption. I’m speaking to you as to one who says he follows the way of Christ. From that position you must recognize that if there is more than one worthwhile goal, the cross was unnecessary and wrong.
The cross of Christ doesn’t disprove my assumption. The cross of Christ is a symbol of my faith. For myself, there is no other worthwhile goal. But for other people, there is.
I have in the past. That wasn’t my purpose this time.
We have absolutely not agreed to this, and I’m astounded that you would say so. My gracious, this is remarkable! See here, here (from Charlie), here, here, and here. Was that not enough???
If the cross is just a symbol to you and not a real fact of real history if you believe Jesus did not actually die on the cross for our sins and rise again, then my assumption that you were following the Jesus of the Bible has been wrong. I apologize for my error.
I have a busy day ahead of me, and I spent much time on this discussion yesterday. You have demonstrated, quite astonishingly, that you can misunderstand me (and Charlie) over the course of five clearly stated repetitions of the same point. I don’t see any value in continuing under these conditions. If five repetitions are not enough to communicate a point, to at least the level of your noticing what I said, then I doubt twenty more would be. So I’m ending my part in this discussion.
I have in the past. That wasn’t my purpose this time.
It would still be nice to substantiate your claim.
We have absolutely not agreed to this, and I’m astounded that you would say so. My gracious, this is remarkable! See here, here (from Charlie), here, here, and here. Was that not enough???
You mean that we didn’t agree that contradiction depends on a shared relationship? I thought that that was a point you asserted in the original post.
For myself, I see new agers as potentially internally contradictory. But I do not see new agers as contradicting Christians.
If the cross is just a symbol to you and not a real fact of real history if you believe Jesus did not actually die on the cross for our sins and rise again, then my assumption that you were following the Jesus of the Bible has been wrong. I apologize for my error.
I didn’t say it was “just a symbol.” That is what you said. And what makes you suggest that a symbol is “not a real fact”? Is the cross at your church “not a real fact”?
I have a busy day ahead of me, and I spent much time on this discussion yesterday. You have demonstrated, quite astonishingly, that you can misunderstand me (and Charlie) over the course of five clearly stated repetitions of the same point. I don’t see any value in continuing under these conditions. If five repetitions are not enough to communicate a point, to at least the level of your noticing what I said, then I doubt twenty more would be. So I’m ending my part in this discussion.
The feeling of misunderstanding is mutual. And as usual, you end your part of our conversation. Fair enough. I’ll talk to you next post.
Have a great day!
* sigh *
I was in the middle of an edit on that last post when I got called into a meeting, Jacob. I want to add this much, and also respond to your 10:22 post. You wrote earlier this morning:
I responded by pointing out that there is a shared relationship, and that I had said so five times; so we are not in agreement that there is no contradiction. They do contradict Christianity, and it is wrong for you to imply that I gave you any basis whatever to suggest I agreed with you on this.
You seem to think there is no shared relationship as long as the two groups do not “walk the same path or seek the same goal,” and that I agreed with you on the implications of that premise. But Jacob, my friend, as was pointed out to you five times previously, there is shared relationship on other bases than that.
Yesterday you said,
Let me suggest some things that would have made that possible:
1. Present your case. You have done this very weakly, if at all. Let me give you an example:
You haven’t explained here what you mean by “symbol,” you haven’t really explicated the content of your faith, and you haven’t explained what “worthwhile” means. Does “worthwhile” means “something that I perceive as worthwhile,” or does it mean “something that is worthwhile in terms of ultimate reality”?
2. Respond to my case. I made an extended argument, for example, to explain that if there is truth to the message of the cross, then other “truths” are false, and other goals are false, empty, and will lead toward death. Your response to that was not much more than to say what I just quoted. This does not address what I said. It just says, in effect, “well, for me that’s fine, for others it’s different.”
3. Stay on the subject. I wrote about this earlier.
Months ago I asked you to engage arguments, and then I pleaded with you to engage arguments, and then when you didn’t engage arguments, and when you repeatedly shifted subjects, it became a manifest waste of time to offer you arguments and to try to remain on subjects. Here you have misunderstood something that was repeated five times, and you have shifted topics midstream again. I think you tried to offer substance in your arguments, in the form of showing there is no shared relationship between the various religious views so there is no fallacy of contradiction in them. But when I answered that you did not respond to my answer; you continued simply to repeat what you said at first.
This is threatening again to go the same direction it did before.
Let me compare this to one of my very first blog posts ever: Disappointed by Dawkins. On my first exposure to Richard Dawkins I was very impressed by his knowledge and enthralled by his writing skill. As I wrote in that blog post, all the way through Blind Watchmaker I was eagerly awaiting the unfolding of his argument against a designer. When he finally made his argument, I was really disappointed in it - - it was so incredibly weak!
Jacob, I see you as a thoughtful person with interesting ideas. But when it comes to establishing a point, and responding to points offered toward you, you don’t present substance. I have tried to give you examples here; I could give more. I would really like to have dialogue with you that connects, where when I ask a question you give an answer that’s actually relevant to the question (and vice-versa). I would love to see that happen. I encourage you to think through your form of discussion and argument. Consider whether what I have said here (points 1, 2, and 3) might be true. Be open to the possibility. Consider how you can address it.
You wrote:
I have done so in the past, as I said. And I have substantiated every other claim that I have put forth here - - or at least I have put forth arguments. I call on you to substantiate your claims.
Because it was going in circles as I’ve just explained. If it had been moving forward I would have continued in it for much, much longer. But I don’t have the desire to spin in circles this way for very long at a time.
By the way, Jacob, did you ever listen to the Ravi Zacharias talk? I still strongly recommend it, both as substantiation for the claims I made in the original post, and as an example of good thought carried through logically.
I responded by pointing out that there is a shared relationship, and that I had said so five times; so we are not in agreement that there is no contradiction. They do contradict Christianity, and it is wrong for you to imply that I gave you any basis whatever to suggest I agreed with you on this.
We do agree that a contradiction depends on a shared relationship? Is that correct?
If we agree that contradiction depends on a shared relationship, then we disagree on whether Christianity and new age spirituality share a relationship.
You say “yes” and I say “no.” Ultimately, I don’t think that we can prove these assumptions because we are talking about a shared relationship to an object of faith. God can’t be proven, I don’t think. So we are stuck with contending assumptions. Our disagreement is between universe and pluriverse.
You haven’t explained here what you mean by “symbol,” you haven’t really explicated the content of your faith, and you haven’t explained what “worthwhile” means. Does “worthwhile” means “something that I perceive as worthwhile,” or does it mean “something that is worthwhile in terms of ultimate reality”?
A symbol stands for something else. A rainbow is a symbol of our covenant with God, for instance. A symbol gives some situation meaning, such as when we see a rainbow we are called to remember the covenant.
You are mistaken if you think your original post has anything to do with me accounting for my faith to you.
I trust in the God of the Holy Bible. Accept that or not.
You seem to think there is no shared relationship as long as the two groups do not “walk the same path or seek the same goal,” and that I agreed with you on the implications of that premise. But Jacob, my friend, as was pointed out to you five times previously, there is shared relationship on other bases than that.
There may well be a shared relationship on other bases. But the base that we are talking about is on whether new agers and Christians are walking the same path and seeking the same goal. We are talking about whether or not they share a relation to the same God. I say they do not.
Respond to my case. I made an extended argument, for example, to explain that if there is truth to the message of the cross, then other “truths” are false, and other goals are false, empty, and will lead toward death. Your response to that was not much more than to say what I just quoted. This does not address what I said. It just says, in effect, “well, for me that’s fine, for others it’s different.”
Your argument depends on the presumption of a universe where two different groups are walking on the same path and seeking the same truth. I presume that we live in a pluriverse, where there are many paths to many different religious truths. There is no contradiction so long as we presume a pluriverse. So, I don’t see a problem where you apparently do. In other words, the problem that you see is a result of your starting presumption that we live in a universe.
Believe it or not, I am trying to stay on topic. But it is really difficult since we are coming from two very different perspectives.
Great talk by Ravi. His points are so obviously true….for us Westerners
Jacob,
Then the law of noncontradiction applies.
Then you do not trust in the God of the Holy Bible, as you said you do. You trust in some other God, who is just one God out of some larger set of gods, and you deceive yourself if you think you are trusting the God of the Bible. How emphatically does he have to say there is but one God?
Yet another non-argument, yet another unsupported assertion. Disappointing. It really answers nothing; it just raises jillions of questions. For example:
Do you propose to tell me that I am wrong to assume we live in a universe rather than a “pluriverse”? On what basis? How would we know? Are you telling me that in the plurality of truths that you claim can be held regarding God, my understanding that there is one God gets excluded from among that plurality? Are there beliefs about God that don’t qualify for inclusion among the “truths”? On what basis?
Continuing: do you propose to tell me that others who live in this same universe can worship a God who lives in another universe? Or does “pluriverse” mean that the realm in which we live can connect to multiple gods and multiple truths about gods? (What does “pluriverse” even mean?) How does that square with Biblical monotheism? How does it square with Biblical understandings that God created ex nihilo, so that there is nothing that exists that was not created by the Biblical God? Is there some greater realm inside which the Biblical God is just a sub-God? Doesn’t that dishonor God mightily?
Do you see how an offhand comment like, “I presume we live in a pluriverse” answers almost nothing, indeed says almost nothing? I think you can do better than that, or at least I would like to think that you can. Answer all of these questions without changing the topic and you might be making a good run at it.
Speaking of non-contradiction abuse, let’s not forget the moral pluralists/relativists who say Joe (themselves) in situation X is morally wrong, whereas Sue in the same apples-to-apples situation X - with the same moral components to it - is not necessarily morally wrong because, “Who am I to say what is wrong for Sue?”.
We can argue about what it means to be in the same moral situation, but at the end of the day it either is the same - or it is not.
Moral pluralists/relativists ask the wrong question. Instead of asking “Who am I to say what is wrong for Sue?”, they should ask “Is this the same moral situation?”
Do you propose to tell me that I am wrong to assume we live in a universe rather than a “pluriverse”? On what basis? How would we know? Are you telling me that in the plurality of truths that you claim can be held regarding God, my understanding that there is one God gets excluded from among that plurality? Are there beliefs about God that don’t qualify for inclusion among the “truths”? On what basis?
Talk about missing a point made multiple times. I’ve argued that you assume that we live in a universe, where there is one path and one goal. I assume that we live in a pluriverse. These are two different assumptions about the nature of the world.
Neither assumption can be empirically proven. We can’t know the answer to such questions in any sort of testable or empirical way.
They are two different presuppositions that inform two different perspectives.
Refer to the last post I made last night as to how I see our argument shaping up.
I’m about to demand a refund from my new web hosting company (webhostingpad.com). I had a comment fully written out, and then there was a temporary database service interruption, and it’s gone.
Anyway.
Jacob, I’ll be interested to see how your argument shapes up. So far you have said you have a different assumption. You have provided no reason for me to suppose that your assumption has merit. So far you have only suggested that there really isn’t any way to do that. (The universe idea has at least this going for it: it’s what we observe. It is also consistent with Biblical revelation. It also involves no philosophical contradictions, which at least some forms of multiverse theory involve.)
You have not defined your multi-path, multi-goal assumption in terms of the pluriverse, at least not adequately. An adequate definition would answer most of the questions I asked in my last (real) comment. You have said some of the questions cannot be answered. I’ll be eager to hear the answers to the rest.
Until then, it remains the case that you have not presented an argument.
Can I join in a class-action and get the cost of previous lost comments returned?
Speaking of comments, thank you very much for experimenting with the “recent comments” and taking a poll. Was mine the deciding vote?
Ladies and gentlemen, the West is on the verge of collapse because it has lost its power to reason.
Ravi Zacharias
Tom,
I’ve learned the hard way. Now I always copy my comment before clicking “submit”
Good advice, Steve! Good outtake quote, Charlie! The balloting was secret
.
So far you have said you have a different assumption. You have provided no reason for me to suppose that your assumption has merit. So far you have only suggested that there really isn’t any way to do that.
Do you agree that our interpretations are always informed by presuppositions? Would you agree that there is no such thing as a presuppositionless interpretation?
Presuppositions are by definition not empirically testable. They are prior to the evidence. We all start from presuppositions.
Your presupposition is that we live in a universe.
(The universe idea has at least this going for it: it’s what we observe. It is also consistent with Biblical revelation. It also involves no philosophical contradictions, which at least some forms of multiverse theory involve.)
Have you observed a universe? How? I’m not so sure that we observe the “universe idea.” Rather, I think it is that you presuppose we live in a universe and so your interpretations of the empirical world are colored by that presupposition.
How is the universe idea consistent with Biblical revelation? Again, I think that you presuppose that we live in a universe and so your interpretation of the Bible is colored by that presupposition.
You have not defined your multi-path, multi-goal assumption in terms of the pluriverse, at least not adequately. An adequate definition would answer most of the questions I asked in my last (real) comment. You have said some of the questions cannot be answered. I’ll be eager to hear the answers to the rest.
I’m not exactly sure what definitions you want.
Beginning from the presupposition that we live in a pluriverse and not a universe, it follows that there are many paths to many goals. There are Christian paths and Christian goals; Buddhist paths and Buddhist goals; etc. Fundamentally, the paths and goals are distinct. Buddhists do not seek salvation and Christians do not seek zen.
In a pluriverse, contradiction isn’t so much a problem. The problem for a pluriverse is less abstract and more practical–how can all these different people following different paths toward different goals live together and still walk on their own paths and seek their own goals? How can a zealous Christian live next door to a devout Buddhist or Muslim? How can we love our neighbors as we love ourselves and still let our neightbors be our neighbors and not compel them to be us?
Jacob,
The bible was directed toward humans - on earth - in this universe. If God created other beings in other universes then I imagine God will take care of them in whatever way he sees fit to take care of them. What goes on in other universes is of no consequence to humans here on earth so your claim of ‘other paths to God’ are meaningless because, even if they exist, they don’t apply to us. Regardless, biblically revealed truths such as: “there is one, eternal God” and “Jesus died for the sins of mankind” are still subject to the law of non-contradiction.
Did Jesus die for the sins of all beings living in Universe K38 of Sector G? I kinda doubt it, however I don’t doubt that God the Son must be the same one, true, eternal God who create them too, and anyone in K38 that says otherwise is wrong (by non-contradiction, of course). That means the pantheists of K38 are just as wrong in that universe as they are on earth.
This is another example of why I’m ready to give up on this discussion. (This kind of thing happens often.) I wrote what I was looking for here, and I’ve referred you back to that post in subsequent comments. I’ve repeated it often enough.
a
Then the law of noncontradiction applies.
Noncontradiction applies only to cases of a shared relation to some object. Here I am arguing that in terms of God, there is no shared relationship. Buddhists and Christians are walking different paths toward different goals. So the law of noncontradiction does not apply.
Then you do not trust in the God of the Holy Bible, as you said you do. You trust in some other God, who is just one God out of some larger set of gods, and you deceive yourself if you think you are trusting the God of the Bible. How emphatically does he have to say there is but one God?
I can distinguish between my trust in my God and between the apparent fact that other people trust in other Gods. I do not feel compelled to deny their claim to worship whom ever they choose to trust and revere. I don’t share their trust, for I have faith in another God. I say look in the Bible. There are many references to gods other than the God of Abraham. I mean, the point of proclaiming that we shall have no other God before the God of Abraham is to say we don’t want to follow in the path of the Buddhist because we don’t agree with or trust in that goal. When I hear you saying that Christians and Buddhists are walking the same path and seeking the same goal, it sounds like you deny what is plainly in the Bible. There are many possible gods out there.
I hope that was a typo at the end: I have never thought that Christians and Buddhists were walking the same path. As to seeking the same goal, I think that they are both seeking some kind of fulfillment, but defined in very different terms.
As to this:
<blockquote>Noncontradiction applies only to cases of a shared relation to some object. Here I am arguing that in terms of God, there is no shared relationship. Buddhists and Christians are walking different paths toward different goals. So the law of noncontradiction does not apply.</blockquote>
Jacob, you have lost your place in the discussion again. You said the reason there is no fallacy of contradiction among different religions is because of the pluriverse. I asked you to define the term, and *poof*, it went away.
I almost wrote, “let’s just forget it,” when I read this last comment of yours. You’re not engaging in the discussion. Remember me saying that before? Here’s another example.
I think I could construct your last post by copying and pasting out of previous ones. You’re repeating yourself, but it’s not because I’m missing what you said, or ignoring it (as you did with a point that I have had to reiterate at least five times). I am trying to make some progress by asking you for explanations so that I can understand you better. I will not understand you better if you just say the same things over and over again.
I actually have said that I was pulling out of this discussion with you, Jacob, at least one or two times already, and then I came back in. I’ll stay in it if you offer substance, but I won’t stay in it in order to keep cajoling you to do so.
Putting it bluntly: your ideas are seriously lacking in substance.
I didn’t say they are without merit (although I do disagree with you). This is not about the merit or worth of your ideas, but about whether there’s anything there in them, any weight or mass to them. Agree or disagree, I like an idea to feel solid when I push at it.
I said they are seriously lacking in substance. By this I mean that when you are pressed to explain, you resort to repeating yourself instead. Frequently you do not respond to questions or challenges to your ideas.
Jacob, from my perspective I would love to see you make a commitment to the exclusive and glorious truth of Jesus Christ. I’m sticking with this conversation (so far), but no longer with anything like that kind of goal in mind. At this stage I see my purpose as finding out whether you can develop your ideas and carry them forward. That’s all. I am just trying to see if you can put substance on an idea, present explanations when needed, respond to challenges, and support the basis for your ideas. I would see this discussion as having done good if we at least accomplish that.
But I’m not going to try to persuade you or coach you on this much longer, because I have other purposes in family, job, and blog to carry forward as well, and I haven’t seen this one making progress.
Hi Tom,
I think Stump is hanging his objection on the fact that Buddhism does not contradict Christianity in the sense that NASA doesn’t: they are different systems in different spheres with different purposes.
I think the only way to satisfy this objection is to show specifically where the two systems are making explicitly contradictory claims.
I was typing up such a list, but decided that on your blog the description of Christianity’s claims might better come from you.
Then again, if I have properly discerned Stump’s objection and what he is trying to say it would be a new first for me.
We’ll have to resume our ongoing conversation after Memorial Day. Enjoy your holiday. I’ll try to think about what substance I could add to my wrong and meaningless argument
I ignore most of Charlie’s comments because I don’t want to get drug into smaller side skirmishes, but when he says
I think Stump is hanging his objection on the fact that Buddhism does not contradict Christianity in the sense that NASA doesn’t: they are different systems in different spheres with different purposes.
I think Charlie is hitting on something here. But his remedy of showing explicit points of contradiction, presupposes that they share a relation. They don’t, or at least that is what I presuppose. You are using universal criticisms to argue against pluriversal ideas. There is a difference between an external critique and an immanent critique–they yield two different kinds of fruit.
One of the big problems that I’ve had in conveying my ideas, as far as I’m can see, is there seems to be a refusal to follow the logic of a pluriverse to its conclusion and so many of the criticisms and remedies offered to me are relevant for a universe and not so much for a pluriverse. I’m sure you disagree with my assessment.
Onward and upward.
How could I refuse to follow the logic of a pluriverse when you haven’t told us what it is? I have freely admitted, more than once, that I don’t know what you’re talking about. Last time I asked about it you changed the subject and went back to repeating earlier statements instead.
So it’s not a matter of our refusal to follow the logic, it’s your not explaining it.
Have a nice weekend, at any rate!
Hi Tom,
And Stump continues to ignore the question while continuing to wave “pluriverse” around. He presupposes whatever a pluriverse is, presupposes that in this something he calls a pluriverse that Buddhism and Christianity cannot speak of the same things in the same relation, and concludes from this that they are not contradictory. This isn’t even circularity but a restatement of the presumption and then presenting that presumption as an argument. Stump says, in effect, “you can’t say two world views are contradictory because I presuppose that they are not. If they can’t be contradictory because of my presupposition then neither can you say one is wrong. I presuppose neither can be wrong and, therefore, neither is logically wrong”
Notice his continued evasion: “Charlie may have sussed out my strategy, but somehow he has not found the solution. In fact, I presuppose there can be no solution. But it is up to you guys to prove to me there is one.”
His very presupposition demands that we cannot speak on these matters - and yet here we are …again.
===
Stump is not actually ignoring me - just refusing to respond directly to my comments.
The big problem Stump has with conveying his ideas is that he has no intention of conveying them.
I think Stump is conducting a sociological experiment on exercising power through words and this blog is his test subject.
Ahh, the old ‘you can’t know it because you can’t prove it’ trick. Can someone presuppose that Jacob doesn’t exist and can Jacob know that they are wrong?
Hi Steve,
This is why I long ago deduced that Stump is just another proponent of scientism - albeit with the shoe on his other foot. Unlike the usual proponent, however, because he recognizes the tentative nature of science and relying upon observation undergirded by presuppositions, he realizes that science does not give us full and complete knowledge: therefore, we can have no knowledge and cannot speak about truth.
The one gives us multi-verses, the other pluri-verses. One ends as a brain in a vat, the other as a world in a brain. Neither can escape the practical solipsism we continually encounter.