While reading In the Wake Of the Plague, a fascinating book about the great plagues which hit Europe, I came across a reference to two conflicting ideas which were stirring up theologians in the 14th century. Apparently, a group of theologians centered in Oxford believed in a “double truth” which held that science and religion were two different forms of truth which were not inherently connected. The opposing view, held by St. Thomas Aquinas, among others, apparently held there could only be one truth.
The notion of “double truth” appeals to me. I’ve always been fascinated by science, and I believe that there are firm, provable rules which govern the way our world works, including this computer. I trust those rule to operate in a particular fashion, and believe science must be based on logic and reason. Thus evolution makes sense to me as a way of explaining how mankind came to be given the evidence we have. At the same time, as a devout Christian, I believe there are spiritual truths which are not subject to logic and reason and which cannot and should not be proven. Basically, I don’t want to believe in a god who’s so small he can be completely defined by man.
Now, it seems to me that the people who are objecting to evolution are operating from a single truth model in which science and the Word of God must be compatible or one of them must be wrong. Therefore, since the Word of God is right by (their) definition, science must be wrong.
I’m out of lunch break, but I’ve read some fascinating discussions of religion and rationality on this board, so I wanted to put this out there and see what people around here think of these two notions.
If you’re interested in this idea, you might look into the sociological notion of “frame analysis”. IIRC, it was originated by Goffman, but you should also be able to find decent introductory material on the web.
I have to agree with badchad. You appear to be trying to redefine truth so you can say that something that you really, really want to believe is true is true. Word games won’t make it any truer, however. Also I find this to be rather disturbing :
I would need to know more about what you mean by “spiritual truths which are not subject to logic and reason and which cannot and should not be proven” (i.e. a definition and/or some clarifying examples). Would you include in this category things statements like[ul]
[li]That sunset/woman/puppy is beautiful[/li][li]Child abuse is morally horrifying[/li][li]I love my SO/child/parent[/li][/ul] ?
I read Gould’s Rocks of Ages a while back, but I thought his argument had some pretty big holes. The problem is that Christianity has never really confined itself to a “magisterium” limited to ethical or metaphysical claims:
If Christianity were simply a philosophical school of thought, questions about the historicity of Jesus might not matter much; the validity of the Parable of the Good Samaritan is not only not dependant on there being an actual Samaritan (and an actual traveler, actual robbers, an actual priest and an actual Levite), it isn’t really dependant on being told by a man named Jesus in response to a question from an expert in the law, either. If the story were an old folktale with no way to assign a specific author, it would still mean the same; and of course the story can also be “translated” and a variety of groups substituted for “Samaritan” (Israeli, Palestinian, Russian, Pole, German, Frenchman, Greek, Turk, Japanese, Korean, African-American, conservative, liberal, white evangelical Protestant, tofu-eating vegan, homosexual, etc., etc.)
But Christianity isn’t just a collection of moral teachings or even claims about the ultimate nature of reality; it’s grounded in a claim that a particular set of historical (but extraordinary) events happening to a specific actual person redeemed all of humanity from sin. If that historical person didn’t exist; or if some person named Jesus of Nazareth did exist, and said he was the Son of God, but wasn’t who he claimed to be (and was crucified but not resurrected), then that’s a fundamental problem for Christianity as it has historically existed.
Yes, you can find self-identified Christians who will disagree with that definition of Christianty, but that’s the view of Christianity–that Jesus was a real person, really the Son of God, really crucified and resurrected, and the truth of all those statements matters–held by the vast majority of Christians throughout the world and throughout history.
I’ve begun looking at these issues in depth during the last few months and I’m still a long way from finding answers that satisfy myself, but here’s a brief summary of the thoughts I have.
Firstly, there is a physical world around us, which we sense through sight, hearing, smell, taste, and touch. Statements about this physical world can be classified as true or false. For instance, I am typing this message on a black keyboard, and I can confirm that by sight; so can the other people in this computer lab if they look at my keyboard. I am not typing on a hot pink keyboard.
At the same time, we know that the senses sometimes report information not in accord with physical truth. Humans dream or hallucinate upon occasion.
So the search for truth at the physical level involves using the senses. If we have a proposition, such as “panda bears exist”, we can determine the answer by findind actual panda bears. Once you’ve got a live one in a cage at the zoo, the debate is settled: panda bears do exist.
On the other hand, spiritual propositions are not so easily settled because the terms are defined in murky ways relative to the senses. So if we’re debating, “do angels exist?”, it’s more difficult than “Do pandas exist?” Everyone agrees that in a panda we’re looking for a large, black-and-white animal with a certain shape. For angels, the definitions are more various. Some might define angels as physicals beings with defining characteristics such as halos and wings. If we go long enough without seeing (and hearing, smelling, etc…) such a being, then we have to conclude there are none. However, other people might put the definition in other terms, in which case disproving their existence becomes difficult.
So how could something exist in truth, but not be sensed by humans. I see three possibilities.
1: The thing exists at locations where human senses don’t reach. It’s either too far away, too small, or is simply in a place where no one has looked.
2: The thing does not have characteristics apparent to human senses. In other words, the thing exists without reflecting light waves, producing sounds waves, emiting any chemicals that trigger smell, etc…
3: The thing exists, but humans are typically not equiped to notice it.
Cases 1 and 2 are not very challenging. In case 1, we’ll find the thing once our vision expands to the location where it is, if we ever do. Otherwise it’s out of our range forever. Anything in case 2 is a lost cause.
Case 3 is the interesting one, because any rational person must acknowledge that wide variation in what people are equiped to sense. For instance, most people in the USA don’t speak Chinese, so to them Chinese writing looks like gibberish. Likewise, most people in China can’t handle English writing. So if you printed out a profound, thoughtful, moving eassy in Chinese and posted it on a wall in America, probably no one would notice or care. A man might walk right past it and ten minutes later, if asked whether he’d seen any profound essays lately, he would reply “no”. The importance of this example is that both groups (Americans and Chinese) include intelligent, educated, rational people. Yet what one group sees in that situation is entirely different from what the other sees. We have a case where what’s observed depends heavily on the training of the observer.
Badchad, is there some particular reason you wish to be deliberately, consistently, invariantly insulting when it comes to religion?
You’re an atheist. Fine. You want to participate in discussions on the SDMB; fine. But what you’re doing in this thread, in the Torah Errors thread, and in the Old Testament historicity thread isn’t debate. It seems nothing less than being vexatious and cruel for its own purpose. It would be like me going into a thread on the Return of the King movie (as I’m on record as hating that movie) and repeatedly saying, “Peter Jackson sucks and anyone who thinks otherwise is a self-deceived moron who needs either intensive therapy or electroshock.” Once in a while is fine; but repeatedly, in the same threads, in a very brief period of time, is neither necessary nor courteous.
There was no such thing as science in the 14th century. There was natural philosophy however for the study of nature.
I’n curious as to what prompted the need to hypothesize a “double truth” at Oxford in the 14th century
So far I see no discrepancy in your faith in science and in faith in God. The notion of "double truth " might be useful when talking to atheists about scientific subjects and keeping mum about your faith or talking to fundamentalist Christians about your faith in Jesus while keeping mum about your belief in evolution.
Absolutely, but this surely isn’t something new to you. They made a choice between “God’s Word” and the scientific community. You on the other hand have accepted science as the prime authority and used your intellect to interpret biblical concepts and events so that they do not conflict with science. It would shatter you, (me too of little faith) if it could be scientifically proven that Jesus’s bones were found in Jerusalem.
Because people deliberately, consistently, and invariantly say very complementary things about religion that aren’t true. As Nietzsche put it, sometimes one remains devoted to a cause only because his opponents will not cease to be insipid.
You bet it’s fine.
It’s debate, I bring up many points, facts and reasoning, I just don’t go out of my way to pander to my opponents feelings. Why? First, because I don’t they deserve it. As much as they want to think that they and their god is loving, it is quite apparent that said god intends to slow roast me and most of humanity over an open flame. I am not fine with such selfishness. Second, their arguments are weak and not in themselves deserving of the semblance of respect. Here we are in the 21st century and these people still believe in Christianity simply because their mommy and daddy told them too, and because they fear death.
As for Siege in particular, I had a discussion with her years ago and she admitted no rational evidence for her beliefs and did say she used them as a crutch. Her words not mine. Having admitted such I don’t know where she gets off with this double truth talk. It’s one thing to hold an irrational belief on your own, and it’s another to promote it on a message board designed to debate such things. What was she expecting anyway? She knew I was back.
In your example you are making an opinion statement only. I can back up my argument with facts and sound logic. Also, I’ll be more than happy to cease responding to irrational claims the very second my cease making them.
Hmmm… Surely if there are genuine ‘double truths’ that actually apply to the universe in which we humans live, then what we’re really saying is that there is a single, underlying truth that manifests itself in different, perhaps apparently contradictory ways.
A real-world example of this would be the wave-particle duality of photons (actually, applying to more than just photons, but photons are convenient for study); certain experiments demonstrate light to be composed of discrete particles, other experiments demonstrate it to be composed of continuous waves. What this actually means is not that light is a wave and a particle, but rather, it’s something else that is a lot more difficult to understand.
If the two truths were truly unconnected, then we should only be able to comprehend one of them at the most, otherwise we ourselves would be a point of connection.
I think that the hangup might be the way the word “truth” is used in the OP. Science is one way of discovering truth. It is not the only way, however. It is certainly, as an epistemology, not in opposition to faith. They explore different realms.
I would go further: the truth of science is a radically different thing from the truth of religion. The concept of truth in science is humble, provisional, pragmatic, and directly applicable to the plane of existence in which we all interact with each other. The Truth of religion is grandiose, arrogantly certain, irrelevant to pretty much every functional cause and effect in our common plane of existence, and of dubious universality.
And then you have the Catholic Church’s official position, which is that: “there is only one Truth; we know some parts of it through experimental science, some through revelation, some through inspiration; neither form of knowledge is higher and all can be misunderstood”.
So, no, that bit about “stopping the Sun” doesn’t mean that the Sun revolves around the Earth or that it’s got a plug somewhere… (it’s generally translated by priests hereabouts as “they hadn’t realized it was Midsummer’s Eve”).