[Serious] The Trinity

[The Grand Nudger]

Again, is that in theory, or in practice? If the trinity is our example it seems like a religious belief is granted exemption and privilege in both cases - but this is pretty much expected of a religious belief. It's one of the things that provide them with a recognizable character with respect to other kinds of beliefs.

"Jesus is lord" and "my shirt is green" are not equivalent types of statements, or, at least, they don't seem to be. Would you disagree?

[John 6IX Breezy]

Both statements are equivalent insofar as both are propositions. Beyond that they are ambiguous (is it a belief or observation). Only statements of belief apply to my conversation.

[The Grand Nudger]

-and any two sentences are both sentences.........?

Do you believe, then, that a statement about the belief that your shirt is green and the belief that jesus is lord are ambiguous and meaningfully interchangeable in type or kind or set? It's commonly held that a religious proposition differs primarily in that it describes content which we arrive truth from by faith in the proposition. It is what we forcefully believe is true, and so what other truths will be and must be based upon - not the other way around.

For example, when a person says "I know that x y and z are bad because god said/did.....[insert here]". The item of whether or not god is or god said [????] is non negotiable. A belief that your shirt is green is, to put it mildly, very negotiable.

Is this unrepresentative of your own beliefs, or the beliefs of those around you? Are you as set on the issue of the color of your shirt as you are on the existence of god or any particular item of christian belief? Do you believe that you can never be in a position where you would have to logically reject or abandon a belief about the color of your shirt, in the way that you believe this about items of christian dogma..and, for flavor, scientific theory?

[John 6IX Breezy]

Summarize what you're saying in a coherent manner. I don't follow what you're arguing nor why.

[The Grand Nudger]

I'm trying to get some clarity on your comments.

Are the two statements equivalent in the ways you've explicitly mentioned? Are you as set on the issue of the color of shirt as you are on the articles of your faith - and do you believe that, like your faith in christ - and what you believe about scientific theories.....you could never find yourself in a position where you would be logically forced to abandon or reject a belief about the color of your shirt?

[John 6IX Breezy]

...you could never find yourself in a position where you would be logically forced to abandon or reject a belief about the color of your shirt?

"For Quine, all changes made to our belief system, whether large or small, involve the same kind of holistic tinkering with the web of belief. We accommodate experience by making as few changes as possible and keeping our worldview as simple as we can. There is no distinction between changes within and changes between frameworks" (Godfrey, p. 118).

There's a distinction between statements of beliefs and those of observation, and your shirt analogy is vague in this regard. But if you're going to treat it as a belief, then Quine's arguments apply.

Every little child has asked whether the color red you see is the color red I see. If you're going to treat the color of your shirt as a belief, then you can logically prevent yourself from abandoning this belief in the face of observation by altering any of the auxiliary hypothesis upon which it is based. Look no further than the famous internet dress meme for examples of how our beliefs about color differ inspite of observation.

Reference: Godfrey, Peter. (2003). Theory and reality: An introduction to the philosophy of science. Chicago: Chicago University Press.

[The Grand Nudger]

I think that it's unclear and arguable the extent to which such effort is considered logical, but ultimately I was only wondering whether this was an accurate description of how you conceived of your own beliefs. I'm going to proceed on the assumption that this was a yes. That christian truth and shirt truth are, to you, the same kinds of truth.

For many people, that's not the case - and that might explain why we get things like a trinity. While we may negotiate over the issue of the color of our shirts, we negotiate from those things we call religious truths. Religious facts can't be contradicted by any shirt facts, even if that shirt fact would or could contradict another shirt fact or force us to reject or abandon a shirt belief. This was explicitly the case with trinitarian doctrine as a paradoxical mystery.

They understood that other facts (or, if we prefer, asserted facts) like shirt facts might compellingly lead to a rejection of the belief, and it very much has. Nevertheless, they believed those god facts to be true and those shirt facts to be incapable of assailing them. Thus, we have a paradox and an article of the faith declared to be true if indecipherable to human reason.

Consider the belief that human life is precious. Is that a religious fact or a shirt fact?

[John 6IX Breezy]

I said your statements are ambiguous in what they express, and you concluded that I believe "christian truth" and "shirt truth" are the same kinds of truth.

That's the kind of obfuscation that makes dialogue impossible.

[The Grand Nudger]

Then I'll take it as a no, and proceed on the assumption that you don't think that they're equivalent?

Moving forward on that assumption, would you consider the belief that human life is precious a religious fact or a shirt fact? Do we think that a person who believed that statement and asserted it would be swayed by our finding a person for sale for 30 cents? OFC not, they'd think it was wrong, not that they were wrong.

This is the relationship between trinitarian belief and rational thought as the doctrine self describes. The set of shirt facts we refer to in our rational deliberation is not the same kind of fact as revealed theology - and no shirt fact can compel us to reject a religious fact - even if shirt facts can compel us to reject other shirt facts. Just as many of us believe (in a manner lumped right in with your religious beliefs) in the value of the life of man regardless of any fact of the price of a man on open market.

From here, we can return to your comments about science progressing because some people died off. There are people who assert trinitarian belief in the same manner that there are people who assert a belief in the value of human life. Perhaps these beliefs do change (or progress) based on people who assert the inviolable articles just dying off. Is that what happened with christianity? Trinitarianism was true because anti-trinitarians died out and now non-trinitarianism is true because the trinitarians are dying out?

[John 6IX Breezy]

Then I'll take it as a no, and proceed on the assumption that you don't think that they're equivalent?

Ambiguity means you cannot draw a conclusion. Taking it as a no is as incorrect as taking it as a yes. I'm not interested in dishonesty. I'll save the remainder of my conversation for Five's respose.