A Trophy-Worthy Assumption

My first four main posts mostly discussed the existence of objective truth. Why focus on this topic so much? My aim with this blog is to establish basic assumptions, and from there build up to other claims to truth. In this post, I am going to attempt to explain what I mean by "From the Ground Up".  

When someone makes a statement, that statement is based off certain assumptions. For example, a person, let's say Fred, who goes to the Packer Hall of Fame, makes the statement "The Super Bowl 45 trophy is in front of me". When making this statement, Fred is assuming several things:

1. He can use his mind and reason to come to a truthful conclusion

2. He can trust his senses (sight in this case) to come to a conclusion

3. Objective truth exists

4. He is not deceived; this trophy is the actual Super Bowl 45 trophy

Fred may be assuming these things to a certain degree of confidence for various reasons. Here are examples of some potential reasons. The numbers are matching the numbers of the assumptions above:

1. Fred has made many correct conclusions in the past using his mind. Using logic, he knows that 2+2 does equal 4. He did make a wrong decision when he invested into Facebook stock when it was released, since the stock plummeted. However, he used reason to come to the conclusion that he had made an incorrect decision. Also, he has very little reason to accept the idea that he cannot use his mind to draw conclusions. Because of these experiences, Fred has a very high degree of confidence that he can make this assumption. 

2. Fred realizes that his senses have been trustworthy in the past. He knew that he was cold before he entered the Hall of Fame based on his sense of touch. He found the location the Hall of Fame by following road signs with his sense of sight. He generally trusts the area of science (forming a hypothesis and making observations with the use of the five senses to come to a conclusion). Science seems to lead to truthful conclusions about his surroundings. Again, based on experience, Fred has a very high degree of confidence that he can trust his senses.

3. This is explained more in my first post. Fred is making an assertion that is true for everyone, everywhere, at any time (that the trophy is in front of him right now). In order to make that assertion, he needs to assume that there is objective truth. He has a high degree of confidence in this assumption. 

4. Fred trusts that the Packer organization would not put a fake trophy in the Hall of Fame. He finds that the theory that this is the real trophy is way more reasonable than competing "conspiracy theories." If he does not want to depend only on his trust in the Packers, he could inspect the trophy more closely to see if there are signs that the trophy is, for example, plastic.  Because of his trust and also because no other theories are more reasonable than the theory that this trophy is the real thing, Fred has a high degree of confidence in this assumption

All of these assumptions lead to Fred's conclusion that he is standing in front of the real Super Bowl 45 trophy. These assumptions can "build off" each other. For example, Fred cannot make the assumption that the trophy is real if he does not make the assumption that he can use his mind to come to a conclusion.

I notice a few things about this example. First, Fred has reasons behind the assumptions that he makes. He may not think of those reasons as he makes his claim about standing in front of the trophy, but they are still present. 

Second, Fred has a certain degree of confidence behind his assumptions. For example, he does not know with 100% certainty that the Packers did not replace the trophy with a fake. He did not personally watch the trophy go from production to the induction into the Hall of Fame. But he still finds it very reasonable that the trophy is real. This level of confidence applies to the other assumptions as well.

Third, his conclusion is based off his trust in a third party, the Packers organization. He may not have empirical evidence that this is the real trophy. In this case his trust, along with comparison to competing theories, is enough for him to form a reasonable conclusion.

I used this example as a starter point to explain ways we can discover truth. I think there are at least three important things to consider regarding the ability to know truth:

1. You can rarely (if ever) have 100% confidence about a claim to truth

2. A person who makes a claim to truth always has reasons behind that claim (that doesn't mean that those reasons are good)

3. There are different areas we can consider to discover truth

I am likely going to write several posts on point #3, but may write about #1 and #2 as well. So, continuing my "From The Ground Up" theme, I am going to build off the basic (i.e. “ground”) assumption that truth is objective in order to make my next assertion: It is possible to have knowledge about that objective truth. 

Religiously Different - Part 2

In my previous post, I laid a foundation for the central beliefs of 3 religions: Judaism, Islam, and Christianity. I made these lists in preparation to give an example showing that the "religious beliefs are relative" view is illogical. In this post, I will discuss one specific example explaining my viewpoint. Also, i will replace "relative" with "subjective" from now on because I think that is a better word to use.

As I mentioned before, Islam and Christianity both build off the beliefs of Judaism, so I am going to dismiss discussion on Judaism in this post. Since Islam was founded a few centuries after Christianity, it will be more practical to start with a basic Christian claim and then compare it to Islam. The early followers of Christianity had no foreknowledge of Islam, unless prophetic knowledge (knowledge of what would happen in the future) was involved. The writings in the New Testament at most contain subtle prophetic hints pointing to Islam (i.e. some people have interpreted John 1:19-23 to be referring to Mohammad, "The Prophet").

The early followers of Islam, however, had at least some understanding of Christianity. Jesus and Mary, figures in the New Testament, appear multiple times in the Quran. So, it is more likely that Islam will discuss the central claims of Christianity than Christianity will for Islam.

With that rationale, I turn to one specific claim of Christianity: the death of Jesus Christ. There are two reasons for using this example. For one, the death of Christ is essential to Christianity. By essential, I mean that that without the belief in that event, a person cannot believe in the claims Christianity as a whole. 

The death of Jesus is essential because the early Christians believed that Jesus' death resulted in a full atonement (reconciliation) for sins (Romans 3:21-24) and that the Jewish sacrificial system is no longer necessary for that atonement (Hebrews 9:12-15). Also, without the death of Jesus, there is no potential for him to rise from the dead. I discussed the importance of this event (the resurrection) to Christians in a side post.

What does the Quran, the directly revealed words of God (who Muslims call Allah) in Islam, say about the death of Jesus? There is one key passage discussing this event - Sura 4:[155-159]: 

"And [We cursed them] for their breaking of the covenant and their disbelief in the signs of Allah and their killing of the prophets without right and their saying, ‘Our hearts are wrapped’. Rather, Allah has sealed them because of their disbelief, so they believe not, except for a few. And [We cursed them] for their disbelief and their saying against Mary a great slander, and [for] their saying, "Indeed, we have killed the Messiah, Jesus, the son of Mary, the messenger of Allah ." And they did not kill him, nor did they crucify him; but [another] was made to resemble him to them. And indeed, those who differ over it are in doubt about it. They have no knowledge of it except the following of assumption. And they did not kill him, for certain. Rather, Allah raised him to Himself. And ever is Allah Exalted in Might and Wise. And there is none from the People of the Scripture but that he will surely believe in Jesus before his death. And on the Day of Resurrection he will be against them a witness." (emphasis mine)

In summary of this passage:

1. People who say they have killed Jesus have committed slander

2. "They" did not kill him, nor crucify him. If you read above this section, "they" is referring to the "People of the Book", which typically refers to Jews and Christians in the Quran. However, based on the context of this specific section (Sura 4:[153-154]), the "People of the Book" refers to the Jews under God's covenant, or promise, with Israel.

3. Those who oppose this claim are in doubt and do not have knowledge about the truth.

4. Jesus wasn't killed. Instead, Allah raised him to himself (but not from the dead!)

Based on this passage, it is very likely that the Quran denies that Jesus died at all. Instead, God/Allah raised Jesus to himself before any crucifixion occurred. This claim directly conflicts with that of Christianity: that Jesus did die. Since the death of Jesus is an essential claim of Christianity, a person who thinks the above four points are true by default does not believe that Christianity is true. 

Using logic, we can determine that two different and contradictory claims about the same topic cannot both be true, which I discussed here. Christianity and Islam both make a claim to the entire reality of how the world and life operates. Only taking the example in this post into consideration, Islam denies Christianity. Hence, the two are making different claims about reality. If we assume logic can be used, the religions Christianity and Islam cannot both be true.

This was a specific example involving a comparison of two religions. There can be plenty more essential contrasts found between these two religions and between other religions. However, I think this example is sufficient to show that the "religious belief is subjective" view is illogical. Because a person thinks Islam is true and another believes Christianity is true does not mean that they correct. In fact, there is no possibility of them both being correct, unless there is some sort of spiritual truth beyond our human understanding that allows them both to be correct. In conclusion, the view that "all religions claim the same thing" and the view that religious beliefs are subjective are both incorrect.

So far in the main thread of this blog, I have discussed the following views that I hold:

1. Truth is objective

2. There is objective morality

3. All belief systems exclude people who do not hold the same belief

4. Religious belief is not subjective

That should conclude my posts about objective/subjective truth. My plan now is to look at how we can find truth, focusing on various areas of truth we can consider. Naturally, the next few posts will have few or no references to passages from the Bible or Quran.