Fact and Truth

[Fist and Faith]

rus, there's just no pleasing you. I started this thread for two reasons. First, to say I don't think there is any conflict between the things you believe and the things I believe; between the methods you use to learn the things that are important to you and the methods I use to learn the things that are important to me.

Second, to try to establish working definitions. You frequently tell us that we are using words incorrectly, and generally being ambiguous. Is this important when discussing facts and truth? When discussing all the stuff we usually discuss here? I believe so. Not because it will help one of us "win" any given debate, but because it will help us communicate.

But you're not offering anything. You're just telling me I'm wrong, or limited, about everything. I'm just making suggestions. If you have any, that would be great.

1) Is there a difference between fact and truth, or can they be used interchangeably?

2) Does it matter that some facts are verifiable/demonstratable/measurable and some are not?

3) Can historical facts, all of which are taken on faith to at least some degree, be divided into different categories?


My answers:
1) Yes. Although I fully admit I may not be using the official definitions. But I don't know how else to say what I'm thinking. Yes, facts are true. It is true that the strength of gravity on earth is 9.8m/sec/sec. But not all truths are facts. Or, rather, some truths are unverifiable, so we don't know which are facts. My worldview is true. For me. As yours is true for you. There is no way to establish which (if either) is actually a fact. (But that goes back to the first reason I started this thread.)

2) It depends on the conversation. Gravity is verifiable/demonstratable/measurable. Love is known as much through direct experience as gravity is, and none question its existence. (It might be said that love is only chemical reactions within us, but we can simply say that is love.) But it is surely not verifiable/demonstratable/measurable in the specific ways gravity is; in ways that cannot be debated.

3) Yes. Did the American Revolution take place? Did George Washington, Ben Franklin, Thomas Jefferson, Paul Revere, etc, exist? Well, I sure didn't witness any of it. And we didn't have video back then, so... But we see such things happen today throughout the world, so there's no particular reason to argue that it didn't happen. And it is said to have happened less than three hundred years ago, and it might be expected that information passed down orally about relatively recent events is more accurate than information passed down orally about relatively old events. Plus, there's tons of documents passed down to us that were actually written by these guys. Supposedly. And lots of stuff, both oral and written, from many other parts of the world, all describing the same basic events.

Other historical facts are less certain. For various reasons. Are the events things we see happen today throughout the world? Are they from a distant past, making oral transmission of information less reliable? Is there any written information that we can be relatively sure is from the time of the events? Are there sources of information from other parts of the world that corroborate?

For me, these are important questions. They help me decide which historical events I believe to be facts, and which I believe are not. Again, I refer you back to my first reason for starting this thread.

[Zahir]

For the record, Fist, I pretty much agree with you.

Facts are things about which there is such a high degree of certainty from the evidence that denying them partakes to some degree of delusion. Very judgmental, I know, and let us face it, a rather large number of folks do indulge in denial of such facts. Most often this is a matter of ignorance than anything else. I have a dear friend who cannot wrap her head around chaos theory, so refuses to believe it true. On the other hand, there's this notorious guy on YouTube with the handle of NephilimFree whose videos expound upon such ideas as Creationism, his belief that water can exceed the speed of sound yet remain in solid form (i.e. ice) for a journey from the Earth to the Moon, and how the heliocentric model of the solar system is just plain false. Really.

Then there are truths, which are not quantifiable in any objective way hence are inappropriate to judge along scientific lines. Did my late fiancee love me? Have I genuinely experienced the presence of something we call God?

I freely admit these are somewhat vague definitions, but then most words in English have more than one. These are workable, at least for me and I suspect for you as well.

At heart I simply don't believe that belief in Faith and in Science are irreconcilable. Or the spiritual and the temporal, if you like. When it comes to personal truths, I offer them to others when it seems appropriate--which in my case seems kinda often but then I have a big mouth.

[rusmeister]

For the record, Fist, I pretty much agree with you.

Facts are things about which there is such a high degree of certainty from the evidence that denying them partakes to some degree of delusion. Very judgmental, I know, and let us face it, a rather large number of folks do indulge in denial of such facts. Most often this is a matter of ignorance than anything else. I have a dear friend who cannot wrap her head around chaos theory, so refuses to believe it true. On the other hand, there's this notorious guy on YouTube with the handle of NephilimFree whose videos expound upon such ideas as Creationism, his belief that water can exceed the speed of sound yet remain in solid form (i.e. ice) for a journey from the Earth to the Moon, and how the heliocentric model of the solar system is just plain false. Really.

Then there are truths, which are not quantifiable in any objective way hence are inappropriate to judge along scientific lines. Did my late fiancee love me? Have I genuinely experienced the presence of something we call God?

I freely admit these are somewhat vague definitions, but then most words in English have more than one. These are workable, at least for me and I suspect for you as well.

At heart I simply don't believe that belief in Faith and in Science are irreconcilable. Or the spiritual and the temporal, if you like. When it comes to personal truths, I offer them to others when it seems appropriate--which in my case seems kinda often but then I have a big mouth.

Hi, Zahir,
Your definition of "fact" is pretty well denied in the common definition accepted by English speakers for at least the past couple of centuries posted above. Your own argument is disproved by your own words:
If

Facts are things about which there is such a high degree of certainty from the evidence that denying them partakes to some degree of delusion.

then it becomes a fact that your mother loves you (or at least that mine loves me) - for it depends on what we accept as evidence.
Yes, you speak about "quantifiable" and "objective" but since when must the concept behind a fact be countable? And if it is true that your mother loves you, does it not become objective via the evidence, so that other people (at least those with common sense) could, via that evidence (or at least what THEY can accept as evidence), agree that she does. For to suggest otherwise is to say that there is nothing objective at all; to make the word "objective" meaningless. Anybody can accept or deny any evidence, and can sometimes find reasonable grounds for doing so.

You seem to imply that chaos theory is TRUE. Is that the case? (If so, on what basis? Theory is not itself fact, but a body of theorems that seems to offer a working explanation for phenomenon.) Your friend, therefore, seems quite reasonable in not accepting it as true.

It is a fact, for example, that the Orthodox Church requires that its members accept its teachings (if they want to be members), and to consult the Church, its Holy Tradition and living representatives in seeking truth. The evidence for this is indeed overwhelming. Since it IS a fact, I refer you to your own definition and leave you to draw the conclusions.

I freely admit these are somewhat vague definitions, but then most words in English have more than one. These are workable, at least for me and I suspect for you as well.

This is the problem. This is why you cannot discuss or debate anything, except with people who happen to agree with you. If you do NOT establish clear definitions and understandings, then your arguments can only convince those who are inclined to agree, anyway - who hold a similar worldview from the get-go. Disagreement on language itself means end of discussion - or of apples-and-oranges discussions using the same words with different and vague definitions. (This touches on Fist's complaint of my insistence on meaning of words. I hope to get to that.)

[Zahir]

Rus, this is a debating trick. A fairly subtle one, but in purpose and effect it is a trick. Whether you realize it or not.

You insist upon establishing "clear defintions and understandings" but rather than even trying to understand what other people mean you keep insisting everyone agree with your definitions, your understandings, your preconditions to any discussion of any idea. The rest of us discuss things, try to understand each other, hammer out some kind of notion what we're talking about. You simply go tsk-tsk and tell everyone they're wrong and nothing they say makes sense unless they start by agreeing with you.

I'd be frankly a whole lot more likely to even consider your POV if you weren't trying to ram it down my throat (and the throat of everyone who seems to converse with you, at least on this board).

Rather than share ideas or viewpoints, you lecture the rest of us as if you were somehow our superior. Since we don't accept any such premise, every word you say runs up against a brick wall. Quite rightfully.

You are also picking and choosing data to fit your argument. Chaos Theory is like Gravity Theory or Germ Theory. Yes, all of those are theories because in science any explanation is regarded as a theory even if no sane doubt exists about it in any way, manner or form. So for all practical terms--in view of the way people actually use language outside scientific papers and the like--Chaos Theory is a fact. Like evolution, gravity, germs, atoms, etc. (As I mentioned--words also have more than one meaning--and in terms of normal human speech there's an enormous amount of nuance conveyed by context).

As for your argument that I am somehow not Orthodox because I dare to agree with part of Church doctrine--namely that the Church is not infallible--well, I'll come out and say that is one stupid argument. Your claims of not being a fundamentalist frankly ring hollow when you adamantly refuse to look at anyone else's point of view (save to criticize it), refuse to acknowledge your POV could be mistaken at all, and openly promote the idea that obedience to the Church must be absolute. These are the very hallmarks of fundamentalism, the motto that "the individual is always wrong" coupled with nonsense about there always being one answer to any question. Not in this universe there isn't! (Sometimes there is, but not always--not by a long shot.)

Another point--you've misunderstood what I said about my friend. She didn't reject Chaos Theory because she saw flaws in it. She rejected it because she didn't understand it, hence assumed it had to be wrong. Whether Chaos Theory best explains current data (which from what I gather from real scientists is a statement of fact) or not, her basis for rejecting it had nothing to do with that question. She simply assumed that if she couldn't understand it then it could not be true (a not uncommon assumption, in my personal experience).

As for whether my mother loved me--no, I cannot prove it because she never did anything that could be viewed as conclusive proof of same. She never for example shielded me with her body from a gunshot (although since people do that for strangers all the time, not sure that is a good example). Likewise she did plenty of negative, even harmful things to me. How could she not? Human beings are complex, paradoxical creatures and sometimes driven by error and/or emotional drives they may neither understand nor control. My mother was an alcoholic as well as a survivor of child abuse. She was a complicated, talented, addicted, loving, lonely, angry person. Trying to quantify her feelings essentially comes down to opinion--which does not make that opinion wrong. But in the strictest terms it is unprovable, at least as opposed to the degree that DNA evidence or engineering problems are provable.

Frankly, I think that kind of distinction is vital for us to keep ourselves grounded, rather than go around thinking our personal answers apply to everyone. Because sometimes they don't.

[rusmeister]

rus, there's just no pleasing you.

Guess not. :wry grin & shrug:

I started this thread for two reasons. First, to say I don't think there is any conflict between the things you believe and the things I believe; between the methods you use to learn the things that are important to you and the methods I use to learn the things that are important to me.

Second, to try to establish working definitions. You frequently tell us that we are using words incorrectly, and generally being ambiguous. Is this important when discussing facts and truth? When discussing all the stuff we usually discuss here? I believe so. Not because it will help one of us "win" any given debate, but because it will help us communicate.

But you're not offering anything. You're just telling me I'm wrong, or limited, about everything. I'm just making suggestions. If you have any, that would be great.

As to the first, it is evident to me that there IS conflict regarding the beliefs themselves. If the first principle is that, a certain proposition is actually true, and other propositions thereby false, is true, then your own belief system, while containing truths, is not true.
We are dealing with mutual exclusivity. That IS conflict. There is no compatibility.
As to the methods we use: possibly.

I do have things to offer - but they may involve referring to what a 5th-century theologian, or a 20th century journalist, an Oxford don, or a Russian-American Orthodox priest have said. If you won't consider those things, then indeed, I have nothing to offer. Ask a physicist to prove his theory without referring to the results of others on which he bases his own work and see what you get. For example, was that snippet by Lewis on hell hellpful in clarifying that what you have perceived as confusing may in fact be reconcilable? It boots nothing to speak of me not offering anything if you don't respond to what I do offer. I think I may simply have been guilty of talking 'over your head' in not expounding on the thirty or whatever understandings that precede some of my statements, and thus, perceived confusion. But if a "small step" has been made in understanding what we see eternal damnation to mean, then that will be progress in understanding.

1) Is there a difference between fact and truth, or can they be used interchangeably?

2) Does it matter that some facts are verifiable/demonstratable/measurable and some are not?

3) Can historical facts, all of which are taken on faith to at least some degree, be divided into different categories?

A fourth question popped into my head last night, that I think modifies the positing of yours, but I've gone and forgotten it. (My memory is like a sieve, and that's why I prefer writing to oral speech in expounding arguments. I can go back and see if my ducks are all lined up better. So for now, I'll play it your way:
My answers:
1) Yes there is a difference. Facts can be completely misleading regarding truth. The absence of one fact can falsify an entire understanding of a plethora of facts. That's how mystery stories generally work - by giving us all (or practically all) of the facts, and then transforming the understanding of a fact in the end.) And "truths" (like "murder is evil" or "Pop-Tarts are yummy") are only elements in the larger Truth - the answer to the questions "Where did we come from?" "Why are we here?" and "Where are we going?"

2) First, I think "verifiable" different from "demonstrable". Historical facts can be verifiable - if we accept the evidence and authority presenting it, but are notoriously difficult to demonstrate. So I'll say on"verifiable" a qualified "yes", and on "demonstrable" "no".
Does it matter? Well, if you are trying to build a better mousetrap or moon lander I guess it does matter one way (in the natural sciences). If you are trying to answer the questions I posed (philosophical) it doesn't. Since the stuff we talk about here is the latter, the assumption that it does matter - that facts be measurable in the sense of the natural sciences, via the scientific method - is false.

3) Yes, of course. Facts do not in themselves reveal truth - they are very often used to obscure truth - or to promote another idea as true. They are included or excluded according to the views one holds - and many are not available to us, even though they were actually accomplished. But again (mutual exclusivity, darnit!) if one idea excludes the other, they cannot both be true, and so at least one of the understandings must be false/inaccurate. Modern feminist views promote the importance of Emmeline Pankhurst, Susan B Anthony and Margaret Sanger and so they are shoved into the modern school books, (and other things summarily excluded). What is reported is certainly fact(s). But the view such emphasis underpins - that women were oppressed creatures throughout human history until some daring pioneer women began to wake them up and call upon them to claim their birthright of power and equality - is simply false. They have some facts on their side. They leave other facts out. And while some facts are held, the truth is obscured. That’s why I think even the discovery of factual errors that Ali claims in TEM, even granting the errors – and I am prepared to grant that there could be some, although not as many as she claims – to be irrelevant in the face of the thesis and the mass of other facts that are correct.

My answers:
1) Yes. Although I fully admit I may not be using the official definitions. But I don't know how else to say what I'm thinking. Yes, facts are true. It is true that the strength of gravity on earth is 9.8m/sec/sec. But not all truths are facts. Or, rather, some truths are unverifiable, so we don't know which are facts. My worldview is true. For me. As yours is true for you. There is no way to establish which (if either) is actually a fact. (But that goes back to the first reason I started this thread.)

It’s not that definitions be “official” I don’t give a darn about “officialism” either. It’s that they express clearly what has generally been agreed upon in the English language to be what the words mean. If they fail to be either clear or connected to what the words have been understood to mean, then they cannot be said to express clear thought. If the thought is fuzzy, it is suspicious; it is much more likely to result in error.

Facts may be true – if they are facts. But they are not, on their own, equal to what is true. Facts may easily deceive, both regarding what is true in the overarching sense (“Truth”) as well as particular “truths”). Facts about Saddam Hussein’s activities may easily be used to create a false report. Your thought goes wrong (as expressed) when you speak of “personal truths” (mine is true “for me”, etc). It implies that there is no objective view. Yet we live practically every waking moment under assumptions of objectivity. We behave as if life were actually objectively real, not as if it were only my subjective opinion. We believe/know that the world came about in a definite way, not in many different subjective ways. There is no reason to treat the overarching Truth – the answers to where we came from and where we are going - as somehow subjective when we treat everything in between as quite objective.

2) It depends on the conversation. Gravity is verifiable/demonstratable/measurable. Love is known as much through direct experience as gravity is, and none question its existence. (It might be said that love is only chemical reactions within us, but we can simply say that is love.) But it is surely not verifiable/demonstratable/measurable in the specific ways gravity is; in ways that cannot be debated.

All that says is that the scientific method cannot be applied to questions outside the realm of natural science. So then the underlying dogma seems to be that only the natural world is real – this is materialism, however well hidden. Yet there are both facts (things accomplished) and truths that cannot be measured. If you actually kissed Judy Graber in tenth grade, then this is an objective fact, known (at the very least) to you and Judy, even though it cannot be verified or measured. And if you say “verified by Judy” then we admit eyewitness reports as valid verification (excuse the tautology).

3) Yes. Did the American Revolution take place? Did George Washington, Ben Franklin, Thomas Jefferson, Paul Revere, etc, exist? Well, I sure didn't witness any of it. And we didn't have video back then, so... But we see such things happen today throughout the world, so there's no particular reason to argue that it didn't happen. And it is said to have happened less than three hundred years ago, and it might be expected that information passed down orally about relatively recent events is more accurate than information passed down orally about relatively old events. Plus, there's tons of documents passed down to us that were actually written by these guys. Supposedly. And lots of stuff, both oral and written, from many other parts of the world, all describing the same basic events.

Other historical facts are less certain. For various reasons. Are the events things we see happen today throughout the world? Are they from a distant past, making oral transmission of information less reliable? Is there any written information that we can be relatively sure is from the time of the events? Are there sources of information from other parts of the world that corroborate?

What this comes down to is that we know things by accepting authority. We know that the American Revolution took place because we accept this from authority we consider reliable – and the authority shows such evidence that we also accept as valid on the basis of authority. We either accept authority – or we can know nothing beyond our own sensational experience (if we accept THAT authority). Just because politicians can produce “Wag the Dog” scenarios does not mean there is therefore no truth about what is happening on the other side of the world (whose existence I accept as objective on the basis of authority). Either we accept authority and therefore know things (something that all of the (genuine) sciences are based on, or we know nothing at all and reason itself is invalid, and our intellect useless. The latter is decidedly subjective, for some “free-thinkers” do indeed invalidate their own reason and nullify their own intellect – but that only means that we should determine who they are and not listen to them.

For me, these are important questions. They help me decide which historical events I believe to be facts, and which I believe are not. Again, I refer you back to my first reason for starting this thread.

Which is…?

I think history (what is really True – a True picture of the story of the world) is much better revealed through primary sources and period literature, rather than through history books, which suffer from the problem of being written by historians, who not only select and exclude facts – decide which are important, but how to understand them – they interpret the history according to the prism of their worldview. It’s interesting, when I read histories now, how much of them I find to be interpretation of the historian.
Interpretation is far more important than fact. Like I said, the suffrage movement is a fact. It is the interpretations that get it wrong, and THAT is the problem with holding facts up on a pedestal.

[Vraith]

Some points in there worthy of discussion, Rus...but I'm on my way to sleep, and the thread may get elsewhere before I'm up to a lengthy response.

One thing I think you've made a mistake with [and part of the root of the whole problem, to boot, and not just for "your" side]

When you say "facts can mislead" [roughly], the real "truth"...which you imply other places, but don't examine...is that no, they do NOT.
When they appear to mislead, something else is at work.
"Using" the facts to mislead about S. Hussein was 2 other things at work: some of the supposed "facts" were [in 'fact'] intentional lies. Those, and some of the actual facts primary function was: to hide/disguise OTHER facts.
The entirety of actual facts about the situation wouldn't have mislead anyone who didn't want to be mislead.

[aliantha]

The assumption of the universe "having always been here" can work for a believing neo-pagan - or atheist, or whoever, of course, but it has a serious objection - everything we observe in the universe is not self-existent. Furthermore, while there is no certainty about the ultimate origin or fate of the universe, most scientific theories work on a definite beginning and posit a definite end. I think that most scientists would therefore reject the idea that this universe has always been here stretching into infinity. Natural science clashing with pagan theology, at least regarding those who hold that view (as it equally would with Buddhist or Hindu views that see an uncaused infinite earth/universe).

Now *there's* something you don't see every day: An adherent of a religion whose Holy Book starts with not one, not two, but *three* creation myths -- none of which is particularly scientifically based -- rejecting another religion's creation myth because scientists would disagree.

And actually, I'm not sure they *would* totally disagree. Our scientists have observed that the universe, in our time, is expanding from a central mass of highly-dense matter (if I'm current on Big Bang theory, which I may not be). But how did the highly-dense matter get so highly dense? Maybe it got all packed in there thanks to a contraction of the *previous* universe. Maybe what scientists today are seeing isn't so much expansion as it is oscillation. And if that's so, there could very well have been a universe before this one that was created and destroyed. And someday, our own universe may contract and be destroyed, and the cycle begin all over again.

Anyway, I think most of us understand, at this point in human development, that creation myths don't explain how the world began, per se -- but instead are one way of explaining how that culture's people came to be, and how they (are supposed to) view the world. They are truth but not necessarily fact (hey, back on topic! ). In that sense, these stories work very well: The Christian mythos shows that God is all-powerful and that doing what He tells you is important to your well-being. And the Neopagan mythos* shows that Pagans are confident that the universe will keep rolling along.

*I need to make it clear that there is no unity among Pagans in believing this creation myth, or any other. Some Wiccans, for example, believe the world is renewed every year with the turning of the seasons. At Yule, the new God is born of the Goddess. By Ostara (spring equinox), he is beginning to mature. At Beltane, the Goddess is impregnated by the God. At the summer solstice, the God is at the height of his powers -- but immediately afterward, as the days become shorter, his power begins to wane. At the harvest festivals of Lughnasa and Mabon (fall equinox), he is failing; his time is growing short as the daylight grows short. At the same time, the Goddess's pregnancy advances. Samhain (Halloween) marks the death of the God; the Goddess then rules alone until she is delivered of the new God at Yule. And so on.

Other Wiccans don't worship a God at all. For them, there is only the Goddess. I haven't looked into what their creation myth would be.

I'd also like to make it clear that I don't necessarily believe in either the creation/destruction creation myth, or the Goddess/God birth/mating/death/birth cycle. And I'm on the fence about reincarnation. I'm just trying to illustrate that there are a lot of truths out there, and a lot more ways of looking at the universe than the Christian way.

[Zahir]

One of the more interesting recent models about the origins of our current universe is M Theory, which posits that our entire cosmos is only one of many branes (from "membrane") which vibrate in infinitesimal frequencies. One aspect of this theory is that other branes exist at super-tiny distances from our own--but are either moving away or moving closer based on the expenditure of dark energy. When the branes touch, the release of energy (that sends them away from each other) is what we call The Big Bang. This has happened, according to the theory, an infinite number of times and will happen an infinity number of times more.

Intuitively, I suspect the universe is actually weirder than that. This btw in no way contradicts any religion I know of--unless you take everything literally.

[aliantha]

You mean I'm right?

[Vraith]

You mean I'm right?

NOOO!
oh, I mean...m-theory, looked at certain ways could resemble some of the things you say...but the actual/physical results mightn't be as similar.
BUT...have you ever looked Nietzsche's 'eternal return?' It has a number of features/implications/connections you might find interesting, especially from they guy who allegedly ruined the world and doomed us all to meaninglessness...or even to Satan's slaves from some viewpoints.

[aliantha]

Hey, I'm happy with being closer to correct than "God created the heaven and the earth in seven days."

I hadn't heard of Nietsche's "eternal return" theory before, but after reading up on it a *very* little (Wikipedia to the rescue!), I think I agree with him that living the same life over and over again, with everything happening exactly the same way, would be a huge burden. One would hope *some* things would change. (There's a quote in the article from Woody Allen in Hannah and Her Sisters: "Great. That means I'll have to sit through the Ice Capades again." )

The article also notes that Battlestar Galactica's religions posit a cyclical universe: "All this has happened before, and will happen again." Which I myself had noticed with some satisfaction.

And I've wondered whether this isn't where SRD is going with the Last Chrons: a Neverending Story-style reboot....

[Cambo]

There's a fable I heard somewhere about a King who commanded some philosophers to come up with a sentence that would be true and applicable at every moment, in history, now, and into the future. They returned to him with "And this, too, shall pass away."

[Avatar]

Intuitively, I suspect the universe is actually weirder than that.

Hahahaha, I suspect you may be right.

They returned to him with "And this, too, shall pass away."

The epitaph of every civilisation could be "We thought we were here forever. We were wrong."



--A

[rusmeister]

Rus, this is a debating trick. A fairly subtle one, but in purpose and effect it is a trick. Whether you realize it or not.

You insist upon establishing "clear defintions and understandings" but rather than even trying to understand what other people mean you keep insisting everyone agree with your definitions, your understandings, your preconditions to any discussion of any idea. The rest of us discuss things, try to understand each other, hammer out some kind of notion what we're talking about. You simply go tsk-tsk and tell everyone they're wrong and nothing they say makes sense unless they start by agreeing with you.

I'd be frankly a whole lot more likely to even consider your POV if you weren't trying to ram it down my throat (and the throat of everyone who seems to converse with you, at least on this board).

Rather than share ideas or viewpoints, you lecture the rest of us as if you were somehow our superior. Since we don't accept any such premise, every word you say runs up against a brick wall. Quite rightfully.

You are also picking and choosing data to fit your argument. Chaos Theory is like Gravity Theory or Germ Theory. Yes, all of those are theories because in science any explanation is regarded as a theory even if no sane doubt exists about it in any way, manner or form. So for all practical terms--in view of the way people actually use language outside scientific papers and the like--Chaos Theory is a fact. Like evolution, gravity, germs, atoms, etc. (As I mentioned--words also have more than one meaning--and in terms of normal human speech there's an enormous amount of nuance conveyed by context).

As for your argument that I am somehow not Orthodox because I dare to agree with part of Church doctrine--namely that the Church is not infallible--well, I'll come out and say that is one stupid argument. Your claims of not being a fundamentalist frankly ring hollow when you adamantly refuse to look at anyone else's point of view (save to criticize it), refuse to acknowledge your POV could be mistaken at all, and openly promote the idea that obedience to the Church must be absolute. These are the very hallmarks of fundamentalism, the motto that "the individual is always wrong" coupled with nonsense about there always being one answer to any question. Not in this universe there isn't! (Sometimes there is, but not always--not by a long shot.)

Another point--you've misunderstood what I said about my friend. She didn't reject Chaos Theory because she saw flaws in it. She rejected it because she didn't understand it, hence assumed it had to be wrong. Whether Chaos Theory best explains current data (which from what I gather from real scientists is a statement of fact) or not, her basis for rejecting it had nothing to do with that question. She simply assumed that if she couldn't understand it then it could not be true (a not uncommon assumption, in my personal experience).

As for whether my mother loved me--no, I cannot prove it because she never did anything that could be viewed as conclusive proof of same. She never for example shielded me with her body from a gunshot (although since people do that for strangers all the time, not sure that is a good example). Likewise she did plenty of negative, even harmful things to me. How could she not? Human beings are complex, paradoxical creatures and sometimes driven by error and/or emotional drives they may neither understand nor control. My mother was an alcoholic as well as a survivor of child abuse. She was a complicated, talented, addicted, loving, lonely, angry person. Trying to quantify her feelings essentially comes down to opinion--which does not make that opinion wrong. But in the strictest terms it is unprovable, at least as opposed to the degree that DNA evidence or engineering problems are provable.

Frankly, I think that kind of distinction is vital for us to keep ourselves grounded, rather than go around thinking our personal answers apply to everyone. Because sometimes they don't.

Hi Zahir,

The cliche of "ramming something down one's throat" is subjective here. I'll accept it if we accept a teacher ramming evolutionary (or Chaos or M) theory down our throats in science class - or any situation where one person is right, the other is wrong and the one in the right is insisting that what he expounds on is true. Is the one who is right simply explaining while the other is "ramming"? The difference between us is that I deny being the authority, the origin of the claims. Yes, I discovered that it was true - but mostly in spite of me, my conscience, etc.

I don't think it spiritually beneficial to talk to you - for me or you. What I think I should say first and foremost - about 'who is Orthodox' and who isn't, I'll appeal to general audiences to ask what the Orthodox Church has to say about that, and who is in agreement with what the Church itself teaches - who can be said to represent what Orthodox Christianity really is. And part of it is darned unpleasant. Part of it is very much 'what we teach is true, and you're not going to like some of it'. No one wants to hear that a comet/asteroid/solar flare/whatever will wipe out the earth soon (thinking of Cambo's "And this, too, shall pass"), and that it affects our lives in a concrete manner. But you never ever reference the Church on the issue of authority; you appear to have set yourself up (in the name of your "conscience" - which, as I pointed out, could be genuinely mistaken - is decidedly fallible (the operating table analogy) - as your own authority for deciding what IS Orthodox and what is not. Certainly, your personalized version of Orthodoxy can appeal to people here, because it fits with the individual desire to determine what truth is purely on its own - to be the ultimate arbiter of truth. People here will cheer you when you say that truth cannot be known, or is only subjective.

But the Orthodox Church does NOT teach that its teachings are subjective or fallible. Certainly it teaches that individuals are subjective and fallible. Certainly there was one time - very brief, when Maximus the Confessor was right and the leaders of the Church were wrong. But being guided by the Holy Spirit, the Church really did correct the error of its leaders in fairly short order. The Church has always corrected itself, and has successfully accomplished the paradosis - handing down of the faith once delivered to the saints, even when it was pulled by the winds of the world. Your entire thesis - as stated - suggests that it has not, and that it has been critically wrong on major teaching - sin and what it is, for example, and has never been corrected. That is just plain un-Orthodox.

The Church does not accept the authority of the individual at all. That's a truth that anyone who goes from your excellent words in your videos to actually approach the Church will discover, sooner or later. It's an unwitting bait-and-switch on your part. You yourself are deeply unhappy that that is what the Church teaches, which is why I'd guess you do not refer to the Church on the issue of authority, or of homosexuality, or anything else that you don't like.

Me, I've said that if there is a conflict between me and the Church, then it is I who am wrong. I only need to learn why I am wrong. The easiest thing now is to realize that I, on my own, am most definitely fallible. What I think of as my conscience could be wrong - but what I have found consistently is that there is nowhere where I am right and the Church is wrong. I am not a fundamentalist. I simply accept the authority of the Church over what really are merely my opinions. I don't consider myself superior at all (nor do I make ludicrous claims like 'there is always one answer to any question'). But I do consider the Church to be superior to both of us and say that we should listen to it. I am not right - the Church is - so what does it say? I say don't listen to me at all. I say listen to the Church. Which is just what you don't do on these issues.

5

But if I tarry long, that thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth.

1 Tim 3:15

The Church - not only the Bible, not only the Seven Councils, but the Church - which existed before either the Bible OR the Seven Councils.

It is the Church which is the source of Truth - not us, and not even our conscience - which, insofar as it may be our own voice, it is therefore not the voice of God within us, and so is fallible. The Church, in its members, is fallible and imperfect. In its mind - and hence its teachings, it IS infallible, and paradosis helps us distinguish between the errors made by its individuals, and its eternal Truth as the bride of Christ, to bring us to Him.

I don't think you can keep up the harmony in the self-contradiction of accepting and rejecting Church authority - which you have admittedly done on the topic of homosexuality. Anyone who refers to what the Church says can see that the Church agrees with me and not with you. Sooner or later you will cease to be Orthodox - because it's not Orthodox to cast Church authority as something made up by men, or limited only to the seven Councils, and that the Church can be consistently wrong on its teachings throughout history until you and a few like-minded people think to correct it. That's not being Orthodox - just schismatic.

For a corporate body to BE corporate, it has to accept an authority over its members. A body can't function as a unified thing if the leg rejects the authority of the mind. The beauty of this body, though, is that we retain our own minds and we can learn why it is that we need to accept that authority, and not be mindless in doing so - and it can do things because its members are of one mind.

www.gkc.org.uk/gkc/books/TheDisadvantag ... oheads.pdf

(an amusing little illustrated story - takes less than three minutes)

Anyway, I've said it, privately and publicly, and am not going to repeat it. Others can decide whose views are in accordance with what official sources say - you can say otherwise, and be brave and daring by the local lights, I suppose. But you'll be in a universal church of which you are the only member. Again, if you will not raise these issues - above all the one of authority (which you see as your conscience vs the Church) - with a priest or bishop - you will soon cease to even see yourself as Orthodox. Only by opening your mind to listen to and think about the responses of the Church - of both the living and past Tradition - to your deepest objections can you escape the trap you are in - that of trying to profess the Church and yet deny its authority when it crosses your opinion.

[rusmeister]

Some points in there worthy of discussion, Rus...but I'm on my way to sleep, and the thread may get elsewhere before I'm up to a lengthy response.

One thing I think you've made a mistake with [and part of the root of the whole problem, to boot, and not just for "your" side]

When you say "facts can mislead" [roughly], the real "truth"...which you imply other places, but don't examine...is that no, they do NOT.
When they appear to mislead, something else is at work.
"Using" the facts to mislead about S. Hussein was 2 other things at work: some of the supposed "facts" were [in 'fact'] intentional lies. Those, and some of the actual facts primary function was: to hide/disguise OTHER facts.
The entirety of actual facts about the situation wouldn't have mislead anyone who didn't want to be mislead.

I'm not sure we actually disagree here, Vraith. WE DO use facts, and if we use them wrongly, by either not having enough of them, not having the correct interpretation, or whatever, we can indeed be mislead (especially if the authority we accept deliberately misleads us, as you pointed out.

Where we MAY still disagree is on the interpretation of facts. Even if we have ALL the facts, we view them through a particular lens, a prism - our worldview.

[Fist and Faith]

rus, there's just no pleasing you.

Guess not. :wry grin & shrug:

I started this thread for two reasons. First, to say I don't think there is any conflict between the things you believe and the things I believe; between the methods you use to learn the things that are important to you and the methods I use to learn the things that are important to me.

Second, to try to establish working definitions. You frequently tell us that we are using words incorrectly, and generally being ambiguous. Is this important when discussing facts and truth? When discussing all the stuff we usually discuss here? I believe so. Not because it will help one of us "win" any given debate, but because it will help us communicate.

But you're not offering anything. You're just telling me I'm wrong, or limited, about everything. I'm just making suggestions. If you have any, that would be great.

As to the first, it is evident to me that there IS conflict regarding the beliefs themselves. If the first principle is that, a certain proposition is actually true, and other propositions thereby false, is true, then your own belief system, while containing truths, is not true.
We are dealing with mutual exclusivity. That IS conflict. There is no compatibility.

That is the first principle of your proposition. It is not the first, or any other, principle of mine. There is no mutual exclusivity. No conflict. At least not where my worldview is concerned. Until there is any way to confirm whether or not either of our worldviews (or any other worldview) is, in fact (if we can ever agree on a definition of that word), accurate (or that word), I will believe my worldview is accurate. And my worldview says that we all find (at least those of us fortunate enough) the worldview that gives us what we need. We all need certain things. One of the things you need is to find the absolute, one-and-only answers to things. You have found a worldview that gives you this. Great news for you! The fact that it says my worldview is false is not a problem in the eyes of my worldview.

I do have things to offer - but they may involve referring to what a 5th-century theologian, or a 20th century journalist, an Oxford don, or a Russian-American Orthodox priest have said. If you won't consider those things, then indeed, I have nothing to offer. Ask a physicist to prove his theory without referring to the results of others on which he bases his own work and see what you get.

The difference is that the physicist will give me a "nutshell" of the theory. I asked Xar about genome stuff. He told me some basics. I asked questions, and he answered. And he told me where I could find more information.

You, otoh, often refuse to give "nutshells." Instead, you tell us that we must read thousands, or tens of thousands, of pages of various people, at which point we will understand your position. And when you do give us nutshells, if we disagree, you tell us we must read those thousands of pages, because we don't know with what we disagree. And if we try to read any of it, but find them to be lacking in any qualities that would inspire us to finish the thousands of pages that would, surely, convince us, you tell us that we are stubborn, or unwillng to embrace the Truth because it would require us to put a lot of effort into changing our lives (as though any of us would not be willing to put in any required effort for the sake of the Truth of existence), or whatever other things you tell us.

The fact is, we do not agree on the most basic principles of... pretty much anything. That's all there is to it. I will not read books, and books, and books, simply because you cannot find a way to communicate ideas that are based on principles I do not agree with in ways that convince me that I should agree with them.

For example, was that snippet by Lewis on hell hellpful in clarifying that what you have perceived as confusing may in fact be reconcilable? It boots nothing to speak of me not offering anything if you don't respond to what I do offer. I think I may simply have been guilty of talking 'over your head' in not expounding on the thirty or whatever understandings that precede some of my statements, and thus, perceived confusion. But if a "small step" has been made in understanding what we see eternal damnation to mean, then that will be progress in understanding.

Yes, I read it. And I've long understood what it says. But, in the one sense, it doesn't matter. I don't reject the possibility of your faith because of it. I do not see the existence of Hell as evidence that your worldview is not, in fact, accurate. It is entirely possible that the Creator (if there is one) allows Hell to exist.

1) Is there a difference between fact and truth, or can they be used interchangeably?

2) Does it matter that some facts are verifiable/demonstratable/measurable and some are not?

3) Can historical facts, all of which are taken on faith to at least some degree, be divided into different categories?

A fourth question popped into my head last night, that I think modifies the positing of yours, but I've gone and forgotten it. (My memory is like a sieve, and that's why I prefer writing to oral speech in expounding arguments. I can go back and see if my ducks are all lined up better. So for now, I'll play it your way:
My answers:
1) Yes there is a difference. Facts can be completely misleading regarding truth. The absence of one fact can falsify an entire understanding of a plethora of facts. That's how mystery stories generally work - by giving us all (or practically all) of the facts, and then transforming the understanding of a fact in the end.) And "truths" (like "murder is evil" or "Pop-Tarts are yummy") are only elements in the larger Truth - the answer to the questions "Where did we come from?" "Why are we here?" and "Where are we going?"

2) First, I think "verifiable" different from "demonstrable". Historical facts can be verifiable - if we accept the evidence and authority presenting it, but are notoriously difficult to demonstrate. So I'll say on"verifiable" a qualified "yes", and on "demonstrable" "no".
Does it matter? Well, if you are trying to build a better mousetrap or moon lander I guess it does matter one way (in the natural sciences). If you are trying to answer the questions I posed (philosophical) it doesn't. Since the stuff we talk about here is the latter, the assumption that it does matter - that facts be measurable in the sense of the natural sciences, via the scientific method - is false.

But you keep telling us that we do not know how to use words correctly. That our definitions are vague. And we can't discuss the kinds of things we usually discuss here without good definitions of words like "fact." "Christ is risen from the dead" is not, afaik, a fact. It may have been an actual historical event - a fact. But it may not have been. We have no way of verifying such a thing. We can't verify that he was a historical figure of any sort. (I believe he was, because I think it likely that the most influential figure in human history did, indeed, exist.) And if we can't conclusively prove that, we certainly can't prove that he was anything other or more than human. Yet another step - that he rose from the dead - is well beyond impossible to prove as an actual historical event.

My answers:
1) Yes. Although I fully admit I may not be using the official definitions. But I don't know how else to say what I'm thinking. Yes, facts are true. It is true that the strength of gravity on earth is 9.8m/sec/sec. But not all truths are facts. Or, rather, some truths are unverifiable, so we don't know which are facts. My worldview is true. For me. As yours is true for you. There is no way to establish which (if either) is actually a fact. (But that goes back to the first reason I started this thread.)

It’s not that definitions be “official” I don’t give a darn about “officialism” either. It’s that they express clearly what has generally been agreed upon in the English language to be what the words mean. If they fail to be either clear or connected to what the words have been understood to mean, then they cannot be said to express clear thought. If the thought is fuzzy, it is suspicious; it is much more likely to result in error.

Facts may be true – if they are facts. But they are not, on their own, equal to what is true. Facts may easily deceive, both regarding what is true in the overarching sense (“Truth”) as well as particular “truths”). Facts about Saddam Hussein’s activities may easily be used to create a false report. Your thought goes wrong (as expressed) when you speak of “personal truths” (mine is true “for me”, etc). It implies that there is no objective view. Yet we live practically every waking moment under assumptions of objectivity. We behave as if life were actually objectively real, not as if it were only my subjective opinion. We believe/know that the world came about in a definite way, not in many different subjective ways. There is no reason to treat the overarching Truth – the answers to where we came from and where we are going - as somehow subjective when we treat everything in between as quite objective.

We live practically where practical, objective, factual things are concerned. Matters of life and death. We agree on the facts that keep us alive. We agree that jumping off of a skyscraper without a parachute will kill us. We agree that eating arsenic will kill us. We agree that food will keep us alive. We agree that water is necessary for our lives. In the objective areas, we agree on more things than we can possibly name.

Where we disagree is in how things like inner peace, contentment, fulfillment, and happiness - the things that make us more than robots or animals; the things that make us want to live - are achieved. But we both achieve it. There is every reason to treat this as subjective, because what makes you want to live doesn't much interest me. It cannot be objective if we don't all agree.

2) It depends on the conversation. Gravity is verifiable/demonstratable/measurable. Love is known as much through direct experience as gravity is, and none question its existence. (It might be said that love is only chemical reactions within us, but we can simply say that is love.) But it is surely not verifiable/demonstratable/measurable in the specific ways gravity is; in ways that cannot be debated.

All that says is that the scientific method cannot be applied to questions outside the realm of natural science. So then the underlying dogma seems to be that only the natural world is real – this is materialism, however well hidden. Yet there are both facts (things accomplished) and truths that cannot be measured. If you actually kissed Judy Graber in tenth grade, then this is an objective fact, known (at the very least) to you and Judy, even though it cannot be verified or measured. And if you say “verified by Judy” then we admit eyewitness reports as valid verification (excuse the tautology).

Not every thing within the realm of natural science can be perceived, studied, measured, reproduced, etc, as every other thing within the realm of natural science can be. Love is in the natural world. But its strength cannot be measured as the strength of an iron bar can be. Nor is its strength the same from marriage to marriage, from parent/child to parent/child, from friendship to friendship, as it is from iron bar to identical iron bar. Yet, in its way, love is surely stronger than an iron bar. (If you don't believe me, raise an iron bar to one of my children.)

3) Yes. Did the American Revolution take place? Did George Washington, Ben Franklin, Thomas Jefferson, Paul Revere, etc, exist? Well, I sure didn't witness any of it. And we didn't have video back then, so... But we see such things happen today throughout the world, so there's no particular reason to argue that it didn't happen. And it is said to have happened less than three hundred years ago, and it might be expected that information passed down orally about relatively recent events is more accurate than information passed down orally about relatively old events. Plus, there's tons of documents passed down to us that were actually written by these guys. Supposedly. And lots of stuff, both oral and written, from many other parts of the world, all describing the same basic events.

Other historical facts are less certain. For various reasons. Are the events things we see happen today throughout the world? Are they from a distant past, making oral transmission of information less reliable? Is there any written information that we can be relatively sure is from the time of the events? Are there sources of information from other parts of the world that corroborate?

What this comes down to is that we know things by accepting authority. We know that the American Revolution took place because we accept this from authority we consider reliable – and the authority shows such evidence that we also accept as valid on the basis of authority. We either accept authority – or we can know nothing beyond our own sensational experience (if we accept THAT authority). Just because politicians can produce “Wag the Dog” scenarios does not mean there is therefore no truth about what is happening on the other side of the world (whose existence I accept as objective on the basis of authority). Either we accept authority and therefore know things (something that all of the (genuine) sciences are based on, or we know nothing at all and reason itself is invalid, and our intellect useless. The latter is decidedly subjective, for some “free-thinkers” do indeed invalidate their own reason and nullify their own intellect – but that only means that we should determine who they are and not listen to them.

The amount of evidence, the types of evidence, and the authorities that you accept in some cases would be, to put it mildly, appallingly insufficient for you in other cases. If you had the same amount and types of evidence for the American Revolution that you have for the belief that Christ is risen from the dead, you would not believe the American Revolution took place. Or, at least, you would not have reason to believe it did. Maybe yes, maybe no. Surely SOMETHING happened back then. But very possibly something other than the American Revolution.

For me, these are important questions. They help me decide which historical events I believe to be facts, and which I believe are not. Again, I refer you back to my first reason for starting this thread.

Which is…?

"First, to say I don't think there is any conflict between the things you believe and the things I believe; between the methods you use to learn the things that are important to you and the methods I use to learn the things that are important to me." What I call "facts" and what you call "facts" are often as different as can be. As I said above, we agree on the ones that keep us alive. Where we disagree is not important, as long as we both find our place in life.

3) Yes, of course. Facts do not in themselves reveal truth - they are very often used to obscure truth - or to promote another idea as true. They are included or excluded according to the views one holds - and many are not available to us, even though they were actually accomplished. But again (mutual exclusivity, darnit!) if one idea excludes the other, they cannot both be true, and so at least one of the understandings must be false/inaccurate. Modern feminist views promote the importance of Emmeline Pankhurst, Susan B Anthony and Margaret Sanger and so they are shoved into the modern school books, (and other things summarily excluded). What is reported is certainly fact(s). But the view such emphasis underpins - that women were oppressed creatures throughout human history until some daring pioneer women began to wake them up and call upon them to claim their birthright of power and equality - is simply false. They have some facts on their side. They leave other facts out. And while some facts are held, the truth is obscured. That’s why I think even the discovery of factual errors that Ali claims in TEM, even granting the errors – and I am prepared to grant that there could be some, although not as many as she claims – to be irrelevant in the face of the thesis and the mass of other facts that are correct.

...

I think history (what is really True – a True picture of the story of the world) is much better revealed through primary sources and period literature, rather than through history books, which suffer from the problem of being written by historians, who not only select and exclude facts – decide which are important, but how to understand them – they interpret the history according to the prism of their worldview. It’s interesting, when I read histories now, how much of them I find to be interpretation of the historian.
Interpretation is far more important than fact. Like I said, the suffrage movement is a fact. It is the interpretations that get it wrong, and THAT is the problem with holding facts up on a pedestal.

What is truly amazing is that you have somehow managed to become perfectly unbiased. Only you have not had your understanding of history formed with the help of others. Only you have read all of the primary sources and period literature of history; without interpreting them; without basing the overall picture on some facts, while leaving others out - and seen the True history of humanity. I can only imagine this is made even more difficult when primary sources conflict with each other.

I must admit, I cannot see how a battle that lead to an Ammendment to the US Constitution that allows women the right to vote is not absolute proof that women were not allowed to vote before the Ammendment. Nor can I see how women were not oppressed when men did not allow them to vote.

[Zahir]

The cliche of "ramming something down one's throat" is subjective here. I'll accept it if we accept a teacher ramming evolutionary (or Chaos or M) theory down our throats in science class - or any situation where one person is right, the other is wrong and the one in the right is insisting that what he expounds on is true. Is the one who is right simply explaining while the other is "ramming"? The difference between us is that I deny being the authority, the origin of the claims. Yes, I discovered that it was true - but mostly in spite of me, my conscience, etc.

You use the most un-useful analogies, all in the name of banishing nuance from any conversation. You insist on defining everything in terms of a specific world-view with (and this is CRUCIAL point) zero effort to even consider one iota of any viewpoint than your own. You analyze arguments to tear them apart, rather than listening to try and understand.

Case in point--"Ramming down the throat." You are actually equating this with a science teacher teaching science! The mind boggles!

Allow me to explain. A teacher is hired to teach. The whole premise behind a teacher/student relationship is that the former knows something that the latter does not but wishes to learn. This is an understood part of the context of those two words especially in a school.

We on the other hand are not your students, nor you our teacher. We are equals, at least in terms of this forum and this discussion. You have zero authority over any of us, and your treatment of us as if we were errant schoolchildren is insulting, counter-productive and inherently inaccurate. Does this mean all of us have the same knowledge? No. It means we do not have the kind of teacher/student relationship that allows or even encourages the way you seem to treat everyone with whom you disagree. You are not better than us. We have not given you the role of teacher. It is presumptuous of you to take on that role, not least because it is a transparent attempt to turn a discussion into a lecture.

You honestly cannot seem to grasp the nuances of difference between these things. Which is, quite frankly, as sad as it is repulsive in actual practice.

For the record, it does seem as if Rus and I represent two very diametric extremes of how people live their lives as members of the Orthodox Church. Rus functions along a strict interpretation of every word the Church utters, sublimating his own opinions and emotions to that authority and seeing every other opinion as inherently wrong to be corrected. I on the other hand adhere to the bedrock of the Faith but see a large "gray" area when it comes to actual practice, recognizing the collective fallibility of the priests and bishops amidst their great wisdom. My guess is that Rus thinks you must be baptized in the Orthodox Church to be saved. I don't think you even need to have heard of Jesus (although that would make things much, much, much easier). All hand-waving aside, Rus clearly feels the Church to be infallible and without error. This seems mind-bogglingly stupid and a denial of facts to me. I am a person of the modern world, with its pluralism and the mind-expanding wonders (and problems) created by science. He frankly comes across as a believer in some kind of idealized past where certain questions are never asked, while separation of (his) church and state is simply unconsidered. That is how it seems to me.

But I would most like to point out that Orthodox Christians actually run the gamut. We are but two samples, and taking either one of us as typical is misleading.

[Fist and Faith]

We on the other hand are not your students, nor you our teacher. We are equals, at least in terms of this forum and this discussion. You have zero authority over any of us, and your treatment of us as if we were errant schoolchildren is insulting, counter-productive and inherently inaccurate. Does this mean all of us have the same knowledge? No. It means we do not have the kind of teacher/student relationship that allows or even encourages the way you seem to treat everyone with whom you disagree. You are not better than us. We have not given you the role of teacher. It is presumptuous of you to take on that role, not least because it is a transparent attempt to turn a discussion into a lecture.

This is a brilliant paragraph.

It would be better, rus, to tell all what you believe, rather than tell all of us what is wrong with what we believe. I suggested a thread along the lines of "The joy of rusmeister's faith." You said that's not the type of attitude you work with. And that's fine. Not all are the type to sing and dance in church, and not all are the type to take a vow of silence and live in a monastery for a year. Neither is wrong. So give us a thread that isn't going for a joyous feel. Just tell us what you believe.

[DukkhaWaynhim]

I am willing to take Rus' word at face value when he says he is not claiming to be better than the rest of us.
I do, however, believe that he is firmly and unequivocally insisting that his Church *is* better than the rest of us. His didactic tactics reinforce this feeling at the same time that it has very little convincing power.
It does seem as if Zahir and Rus are speaking about two different Churches -- Rus would say that is because Zahir is behaving in a most un-Orthodox way. I'm not convinced of that. I'm no philosopher, and I'm not much of an academic, but I can recognize zealotry when I see it. Earnest, for certain, honestly well-intentioned, and conducted with a strong sense of internal-reasoning (based on a series of faith-assumptions that I do not share) but zealotry nonetheless.

dw

[aliantha]

We on the other hand are not your students, nor you our teacher. We are equals, at least in terms of this forum and this discussion. You have zero authority over any of us, and your treatment of us as if we were errant schoolchildren is insulting, counter-productive and inherently inaccurate. Does this mean all of us have the same knowledge? No. It means we do not have the kind of teacher/student relationship that allows or even encourages the way you seem to treat everyone with whom you disagree. You are not better than us. We have not given you the role of teacher. It is presumptuous of you to take on that role, not least because it is a transparent attempt to turn a discussion into a lecture.

This is a brilliant paragraph.

I agree. And I have to tell you, rus, that Zahir's point occurred to me, too, when I read your analogy. Here at the Watch, you're not a teacher, lecturing to students. The Close is not a classroom. It's more like a pub where we're sitting around a table, sharing our thoughts with friends.

And now I realize why you've been so upset with the folks who won't read GKC: you've given us all homework and we've refused to do it.