Good <insert time of day>, Grand Nudger,
First, new is not always better. Many times, it’s not. Each thing must be judged on its own merit to determine its worth.
Next, I would hesitate to say “truer” here. If someone determines something that is true, then true it is. Another person, then or later, may build on that truth, finding another truth. Someone else, further on up the road, may come up with something that seems true but upon further investigation turns out to not be. There can be “little truths” that would change, sure, such as the best way to get to Canfield. But not the big truths we are talking about in Theology, Why are we here? What created all of this? What is our purpose? And, well, you get the idea.
Maybe, trying to work with your idea, if there is an “arrow of progress” (still not liking the phrase, but let’s use it for now), it would be how much truth we find. It’s like how we grow in our knowledge of mathematics, for example. 2i*2i=-4 is not any truer than 2+2 = 4. It’s an additional truth that expands our knowledge. This arrow is certainly not a linear arrow, always progressing “forward”, since there are mistakes, diversions, and lies.
I don’t mean to be difficult, but I have some questions about parts of what you said.
Maybe I’m reading too much here. Why would it be “a lot of work” for an idea to be required to fit our current understanding in order to be true?
Had who not erred so little? Current theistic religions or past theistic religions? What do you see as current versus past?
If they “erred so little”, then how are there misperceptions that have compounded into such mountains? Maybe I’m missing something here.
Was there a typo here? You say the same thing twice. Did you mean “a god from nature” in the first part? That would make more sense. Natural theology is a branch of theology that explores what can be known about God using reason alone without means such as religious experience.
(November 25, 2023 at 2:38 pm)The Grand Nudger Wrote: You may not believe that an arrow of progress is necessary (or necessarily exists), but it would seem to be the case that you believe it does exist if..say, contemporary christians have it "truer" than pagan greeks, who had it "truer" than animist cave dwellers. That's time and truth (seemingly) flowing in tandem.
First, new is not always better. Many times, it’s not. Each thing must be judged on its own merit to determine its worth.
Next, I would hesitate to say “truer” here. If someone determines something that is true, then true it is. Another person, then or later, may build on that truth, finding another truth. Someone else, further on up the road, may come up with something that seems true but upon further investigation turns out to not be. There can be “little truths” that would change, sure, such as the best way to get to Canfield. But not the big truths we are talking about in Theology, Why are we here? What created all of this? What is our purpose? And, well, you get the idea.
Maybe, trying to work with your idea, if there is an “arrow of progress” (still not liking the phrase, but let’s use it for now), it would be how much truth we find. It’s like how we grow in our knowledge of mathematics, for example. 2i*2i=-4 is not any truer than 2+2 = 4. It’s an additional truth that expands our knowledge. This arrow is certainly not a linear arrow, always progressing “forward”, since there are mistakes, diversions, and lies.
I don’t mean to be difficult, but I have some questions about parts of what you said.
(November 25, 2023 at 2:38 pm)The Grand Nudger Wrote: The proviso that an idea must fit with our current understanding of reality is both doing alot of work..and,
Maybe I’m reading too much here. Why would it be “a lot of work” for an idea to be required to fit our current understanding in order to be true?
(November 25, 2023 at 2:38 pm)The Grand Nudger Wrote: Had they not erred so little, then, we may not be standing on the mountain of their compounded misperceptions today. For better and for worse.
Had who not erred so little? Current theistic religions or past theistic religions? What do you see as current versus past?
If they “erred so little”, then how are there misperceptions that have compounded into such mountains? Maybe I’m missing something here.
(November 25, 2023 at 2:38 pm)The Grand Nudger Wrote: If we're willing to propose natural theology, a god of nature - that is to see what can and cannot be said about what is and is not true of the sacred with respect to only what our senses can directly apprehend, then why not a god of nature...and...are we sure there's a difference?
Was there a typo here? You say the same thing twice. Did you mean “a god from nature” in the first part? That would make more sense. Natural theology is a branch of theology that explores what can be known about God using reason alone without means such as religious experience.
(November 25, 2023 at 2:38 pm)The Grand Nudger Wrote: Or, if we prefer, what is the impetus to go further....or, as would inevitably be the case, to assert something which is demonstrably untrue at least according to our apprehensions of nature - in the face of how things are...as opposed to how we assert or believe they should be?I don’t see a valid reason to assert something which is demonstrably untrue. What do you mean here?
