Amongst several options on how to find 'truth', 'reality', 'ultimate absolutes' (or however it's labelled), I will take a look at two
methods/methodologies relevant to this thread (notice that I didn't say SYSTEMATIC methodologies, as this wouldn't include all 'truth-finding/seeking'
In the present context mundane/trans-mundane perspectives are ofcourse important, though controversial, components, ranging from exclusive extremist
positions (e.g. 'scientism'/absolute theism) to 'grey' zones where mundane/trans-mundane perspectives overlap.
a/ (without a b/ for now): A theist position, encompassing a specified trans-mundane deity (in the present case also being the 'origin' of mundane
existence), eventually centering on the ineffable and mysterious ways of this deity; 'ways' which are beyond mundane comprehension. Nonetheless there
is a need for SOME kind of 'explanation', selling-point or justification for this SPECIFIC deity, allegedly being THE deity. There will be sceptics on
the whole idea of theism amongst non-theists, and there will be competing theistic models to meet.
So some kind of 'arguments' have developed as an 'explanation'. A reference to authoritative scripture, which at the end of the day by critics is
considered a circle-argument. 'Experiental' arguments, such as 'gut-feelings', 'talking' with a manifestation of the 'divine' in one's heart etc, even
anomalous perception of 'divine' beings such as 'voices', angels, demons, Jesus, 'satan'. Mundane oriented sceptics often call this 'delusions', while
competing religionists say: "But we have this also".
"We have this also" including the 'faith' concept.
So what's left, when the alleged 'explanations' and the 'methodology' around them are exposed to mundane scepticism and competing religious models,
trying to reduce the 'explanation' and its 'methdology' to being FICTIVE; just a tale.
It's my distinct impression, that christian evangelists in this situation resort to the maybe most self-defeating attitude of all: What's accused of
being a fiction, a tale, is embellished with FURTHER fictions, eventually packaged in endless allegories of more or less convincing relevance and
credibility or, what I see on this thread, efforts of adapting to mundane scepticism-requests by taking over parts of mundane methodology such as
logic, reasoning, rational approaches, scientific methods/procedure and other more or less correctly named mundane methods.
To anyone familiar with the formally self-defined parameters of the methodologies of science/logic and e.g. general semantics, it doesn't function AT
ALL. Such an adaption of 'rational', mundane methods always end with being evangelist embellishments in a new direction. When this is pointed out to
evangelists, peculiar answers will add still another level to the already existing embellishments: "You may have a formal scientific education, and I
may have none. But I still claim, that you have misunderstood your formal scientific education concerning its basic parameters, its procedure and the
'answers' from it". (I have been exposed to this myself on ATS on some occasions).
When pressed harder on this another addition can sometimes emerge: "I know this, because my own 'absolutes' are superior to anything you can produce".
Thus back to square one. Or still plodding on in this direction: An embellishment of adopted science/logic methodology leading to semantic excesses,
where language itself is used (allegorically) on a 'no rules' street-fight level (at its lowest level with character defamation used as a last
When the evangelist position is threatened, no 'inductive category' sweeping generalizations are too broad. Alternatively a single word can be pursued
into endless regressive 'definitions', where an egg ofcourse isn't a golf-ball, but where it's size, species-origin, colour and even the name of the
hen producing it suddenly is of outmost importance in a situation, where evangelist use of 'truth', 'god' and 'theology' defintions SIMULTANEOUSLY
float imprecisely around.
There should be a point b/ in this post, but it's too long and 'ivory-towered' already, so that'll be a bit later.
For those wanting to discard my stilted language in this post, its irrelevance to topic or whatever shortcomings my character have, I can un-egghead
and compress the whole thing to: Hijacked science/logic, twisted semantics. And this little 'lecture' is necessary to understand the basics of this
thread, boring as this post of mine appears to be (and probably is).
A possible later point b/ post will concentrate on the applied methodology of the rational approach on 'truth' and its sub-categories.
9-3-2011 by bogomil because: clarification