A book I recommend...

[Iryssa]

To any of those who enjoy discussing religious philosophy, I highly recommend C.S. Lewis' book "Mere Christianity"...I know, a lot of you will probably want to toss the idea of reading it out the window, just because it has "Christianity" in the title, but don't let that stop you. Lewis has some excellent points about a great many things, and quite a few of his arguments touch on or deal directly with the subject of modern vs. post-modern philosophy (though he never does name them that..."post-modern" is quite a new term). Anyway, just thought it might interest you guys, having read a bunch of the threads here...

[Edinburghemma]

I would be interested to know the relationship between po-mo and philosophy (as terms anyway, as opposed to purely post-modern philosophy-whatever that is). I am studying modernism and po-mo at the moment (for my sins). You are right about C.S. Lewis' work. There is much to be garnered from reading his stuff in depth. He wrote a very interesting piece on money as an entity and socio-economic growth in relation to voluntary labour. I too highly recommend him as a thinker. Good point. His novels are also great.

[Iryssa]

*grin* I dunno if dissecting my terminology is very worthwhile...the way I named it is probably pretty inaccurate at best (the only education I have in this sort of thing is what I've gleaned from this book and a book called "A New Kind of Christian," and a couple discussions held in a Sociology class)...basically, what I'm referring to when I say "post-modern philosophy" is the way many people now see truths as subjective (i.e. "that's your truth not mine" etc.), rather than absolute...especially, in the case of this book, where "right" and "wrong" are involved. *shrug* let me know if I've got everything backwards or something...

don't worry, C.S. Lewis has his act together far more than I do

I think I should say, too, that that's not the only thing this book talks about (reading that post, I guess I kinda made it sound like that was the focus of it...I don't think very well at 3am, apparently)...in fact, it's a very small part....but, in typical Lewis fashion, he has many other excellent and well thought out points that definitely make it worth the read.

[Edinburghemma]

That sounds really interesting Iryssa. I shall look into it, thanks. Where do you stand on the truth question? Are you a believer in absolutes?

[Bucky OHare]

the whole truth thing is very interesting. Descartes said the only apriori self evident truths are maths (2+2=4 will always be correct) and also the statement "I think therefore I am". He used this statement to build a whole philosophy and also to prove the existence of God. Everything else is aposteriori truths, that is truths based on experience, eg 'London is the capital of England'.

However, Sartre thought that the only truth is in maths, and the statement "I am therefore I think", from which nothing else can be extrapolated, as it is tautological.

[Iryssa]

That sounds really interesting Iryssa. I shall look into it, thanks. Where do you stand on the truth question? Are you a believer in absolutes?

Sorry it's taken me so long to answer this!! In the time that I was without an internet connection I totally forgot that I'd even posted anything in here....sorry!
Anyway, personally, I do believe that truth is absolute...I was going to go into this more, but I just realized I have a class in about ten minutes that I should be going to...I'll come back to this sometime this evening or tomorrow...and I promise I won't forget *smile*

[Avatar]

Have you tried The Screwtape Letters and Surprised by Joy? Two more "Lewis & Christianity" books.

I'm wary of "absolute" Truths. If each thing is not evaluated on it's specific individual merits, we run the risk of missing, or ignoring, crucial information that could alter the outcome.

To use precedent in determining answers is inherently dangerous.

And re: Descartes, and the truth of maths, I think it's more accurately applied to arithmetic. If you speak to an advanced mathematician, they're usually the first to admit that it's not real. Just a working hypothesis that will last until disproved.

--Avatar

[Nathan]

Have you tried The Screwtape Letters and Surprised by Joy?

I've read the screwtape letters, a very interesting read, if I remember rightly it was a satirical picture of Christianity viewed from down below, but it was a long time ago so I'm not sure. I do remember enjoying it very much though

[Avatar]

Thats the one. It's been a long time since I read it myself, so I can't remember what his result was, but I'm sure it was positive for christianity.

The other one, if I recall, is about how he became a christian himself.

Later
--Avatar

[Edge]

'Surprised By Joy' is mostly the account of his marriage, late in life, to his wife (named, uh... Joy), and their brief time together until her death from cancer. CS Lewis was brilliantly portrayed by Anthony Hopkins in the movie 'Shadowlands', based on the book.

[Avatar]

Ah well, there you go. As I said, it's been a long time, and I'm not sure I ever read it properly at that.

Thanks
--Avatar

[Iryssa]

Ok...sorry for the delay (again)...I've been having computer issues (of course, it would happen the day before an essay is due *grimace*), and this is the first time I've managed to wrestle the home computer from my brother

I LOVED the Screwtape Letters...it's an amazing book...gives a person a great look into spiritual warfare, of sorts. It's been a long time since I've read Surprised by Joy too, but I do remember his spiritual crisis described in it...though you're right, it is a lot about his wife. Mere Christianity contains a lot of his reasons for becoming a Christian...

Anyway, I'll try to explain the way I see truth...
I believe that truth is, in and of itself, absolute. The only thing that is subjective is how it is seen etc...some say that that means truth is subjective, however, I would argue that no matter how we see truth, or twist it, or interpret it, our opinion does not change the nature of the truth itself.
For example, if I were to say "My school is forty kilometers from home," friend "A" might say "that's a long way" and friend "B" "that's not too far," but neither of their opinions would change the fact that the school is forty kilometers away from my home. Even if I wrongly said, and believed, that "my school is fifty kilometers from home," it would not make the fact that the school is really forty kilometers away from home change in the least.

[Avatar]

...I would argue that no matter how we see truth, or twist it, or interpret it, our opinion does not change the nature of the truth itself.

For example, if I were to say "My school is forty kilometers from home," friend "A" might say "that's a long way" and friend "B" "that's not too far," but neither of their opinions would change the fact that the school is forty kilometers away from my home. Even if I wrongly said, and believed, that "my school is fifty kilometers from home," it would not make the fact that the school is really forty kilometers away from home change in the least.

This is perfectly true for your example. But perhaps then we need to draw a distinction between "Factual" or "Objective" truths, such as distance, or geometry, which relate to my earlier comment about arithmetic, and "Subjective" Truths such as the nature of the universe, or whether god exists.

I think that there is a difference between "truth" which is independantly verifiable, and "Truth" which relies on a persons interpretation or perception of the world.

--Avatar

[Iryssa]

Whether or not we can verify a truth or belief doesn't change the fact that there has to be something that is true, though. For instance, maybe, when we die, we find out that the Atheists were right and there is no such thing as God. That would make Christians and every other sort of Theist wrong, and them right. If we die and find out that the Wiccans are right, and it is their Lord and Lady that hold the universe, everyone else is wrong and they are right. Let's say we die and nothing happens, we just cease to exists. Well, we wouldn't be conscious of it, but that would still make the people who hold that belief right and everyone else wrong. Or, we die and find out that Christians are right, and the only way into heaven is belief in Jesus Christ and acceptance of Him and his sacrifice, that makes Christians right, and everyone else wrong. *shrug* maybe there is no way to scientifically prove anyone right now, but that doesn't mean there is no real answer.

[Avatar]

I agree on this score, just because we can't prove it, doesn't mean there is no answer.

However, it's practically the same as if there wasn't, at least for our purposes. There is no way to prove the "unprovable".

However, again for our purposes, there are some "truths" which can be proved. If it can be proved, it is an objective, factual truth.

I know I quote old Neils Bohr a lot, but sometimes he said it so well:

"There are trivial truths & there are great truths. The opposite of a
trivial truth is plainly false. The opposite of a great truth is also true."
-Neils Bohr

[Iryssa]

I like the way you distinguished between two kinds of truths, Av...it makes sense...I still don't quite believe in the opposite of any kind o truth being truth as well (isn't that what makes a truth what it is? being the opposite of a lie?)...but I definitely understand that world view a lot better.

Another book I was thinking about is Lee Strobel's "The Case for Christ"...I still haven't read the whole thing (it's kinda dry for my liking), but it may interest the logicians here...I'll post a description of it later, but I gotta run! I have to be at choir in 30min and I still need to blow my hair dry and take the 15min drive into town *laugh*
bye!!

[Avatar]

...I still don't quite believe in the opposite of any kind o truth being truth as well (isn't that what makes a truth what it is? being the opposite of a lie?)...

I think that on the whole, Bohr was referring to Quantum Theory, which is filled with things that happen when they couldn't possibly. However, I like to apply it philosophically as well.

Think about it...For you it's True that god exists. For me it's True that god doesn't. (At least as far as organised religion would have it). These two things are clearly diametrically opposed. Yet for each of us, they are True.

One of us may turn out to be right in a factual sense, but that doesn't make either of our beliefs UnTrue, in the here and now. We each live and act as if they were True, which, to all intents and purposes makes it so. At least for each of us.

If you want a logical argument against god, and against any inherent knowledge of god, I can strongly recommend a book (already mentioned it in another thread) called Knowledge of Angels by Jill Paton Walsh.

Don't read this unless you're up for a serious logical challenge. It's not disparaging in any way, and apart from anything else, it's an awesome story, but it's arguments are hell of a tough. The sort of thing one can only overcome through Faith.

--Avatar

[Iryssa]

Thanks I'll take a look when I'm done wading through this one...my brother's reading Hey Nostradamus right now...he says it's kinda "a look at Christians from a non-Christian's perspective." I haven't read it myself, but he seems pretty thrilled by it. I'll prolly read that one too. *grin* my reading list keeps growing...

[Avatar]

*grin* my reading list keeps growing...

And will for your whole life .

So many books...So little time.

--Avatar

[Iryssa]

*grin* no kidding...If there's a career out there where you do nothing but read interesting books, sign me up