is_isnot

Jesus is/is not God

Posted by Douglas Edward Cowan on December 13, 1997 at 16:07:47:

Much of the debate which has ensued since Bill's comments to the Ottawa
Citizen has been carried on at levels varying from the rather sterilely doctrinal
("Are we or are we not a confessional church? The line to vote forms on the
left.") to the farthest reaches of emotion ("Set phasers on ‘Orthodoxy,' Cap'n, the
heretics from Planet Ten have landed and we're goin' in..." Director's Note: to be
read with an appropriate Scottish accent). None of these I find actually very
helpful. They amount to little more than turf defence and encourage no more
informed debate than "Did not!" "Did too!" "Did NOT!" Did TO!" Etc. Etc. Etc.
I wonder if we might, instead, frame the question a little more existentially. That
is to say, what are the ramifications of what we believe? What are the actual
possibilities of behaviour which are the natural and logical consequences of the
particular set of beliefs to which we adhere?

Part of my work apart from the Church (but directly related) has to do with
questions not unlike these, and I think they are appropriately asked here. If we
say, for example, "Jesus is God," are we aware of the existential possibilities
implicit in that statement? Likewise, for its converse: Jesus is not God. Three
interrelated concepts from that work seem applicable here: the notion of exclusive
versus non-exclusive religious claims, the construction of cognitive boundary
markers on the basis of those claims, and the establishment and reification of
primary groups whose topography is defined by those boundary markers.

I offer a few propositions based on these concepts for possible discussion:

1. Exclusive religious claims are those which do not allow for the validity of
similar, but competing religious claims. "Jesus is God" is an example of an
exclusive religious claim. ("The Bible is the only Word of God" is another.)

2. This religious claim erects what, in the symbolic universe of the Christian
believer, is a cognitive boundary marker by which inclusion in a particular
primary group is established, and against which behaviour in the larger society is
measured.

3. A primary group is that which is defined best by self-reflective words like "we"
and "us" versus "they" and "them," where the "we" is determined by adherence
to the boundary marker in a particular fashion.

4. "Jesus is God" is an exclusive religious claim which erects a cognitive boundary
marker, which marker in turn establishes the existence of a primary group, a
"We" (that is, "We who say Jesus is God, as opposed to "they" who don't, or
"they" who say it differently than "we" do).

5. Inhabitance within this primary group is incompatible with much of what might
be called reasonable social interaction. No matter how one tries to soften the
language, couching harsh concepts in white bread dialect, adherence to an
exclusive religious claim quite simply precludes much of what the United Church,
at least, since its inception.

Posted by Jim Love on December 18, 1997 at 00:23:36:

In Reply to: Jesus is/is not God. posted by Douglas Edward Cowan on December
13, 1997 at 16:07:47:

: 4. "Jesus is God" is an exclusive religious claim which erects a cognitive
boundary marker, which marker in turn establishes the existence of a primary
group, a "We" (that is, "We who say Jesus is God, as opposed to "they" who
don't, or "they" who say it differently than "we" do).

Exactly ... and this boundary is called the Church ... without some sort of
boundary ... be they propositional statements or a common authoritative narrative
there can not be community ... we need a certain amount of exclusion in order to
function as a community that is "In the world but not of it". Without boundaries
and some exclusions we can not challenge culture with the Good News we have
been shown in Jesus Christ.

If we do not have some common creedal statements then what is the glue that
keeps us together?

: 5. Inhabitance within this primary group is incompatible with much of what
might be called reasonable social interaction. No matter how one tries to soften
the language, couching harsh concepts in white bread dialect, adherence to an
exclusive religious claim quite simply precludes much of what the United Church,
at least, since its inception.

At Union the UCC was a conservative Church ... some presbyterians who did not
join, did so because it was not liberal enough. Friends of mine are doing a study
of the time of union and they believe that clearly the UCC was conservative in
it's understanding of the faith. Let us not read more liberalism back into the UCC
union than was really there.

Funny thing happened a few weeks ago ... I preached a sermon against Bill
Phipp's Christology and an afterwards an old man who was 18 at the Basis of
Union patted me on the back and said, "Good theology, Jim".

Posted by Douglas Edward Cowan on December 18, 1997 at 16:15:52:

In Reply to: What is the glue that binds the community then? posted by Jim Love
on December 18, 1997 at 00:23:36:

: : 4. "Jesus is God" is an exclusive religious claim which erects a cognitive
boundary marker, which marker in turn establishes the existence of a primary
group, a "We" (that is, "We who say Jesus is God, as opposed to "they" who
don't, or "they" who say it differently than "we" do).

: Exactly ... and this boundary is called the Church ... without some sort of
boundary ... be they propositional statements or a common authoritative narrative
there can not be community ... we need a certain amount of exclusion in order to
function as a community that is "In the world but not of it". Without boundaries
and some exclusions we can not challenge culture with the Good News we have
been shown in Jesus Christ.

This is a particular understanding of "community," Jim, certainly not the only
one, and certainly not one which is at all self-evidentiary. However, bear in mind
that the proposition above is one of a complex, the complective intention of
which was to illustrate some of the larger issues involved in the discussion. I am
in complete agreement that there are many claims made by the church which are
exclusive. And they are the boundary markers by which primary groups are
established and realised on an ongoing basis. We are in agreement here as to the
function of claim and boundary; I rather suspect where we would disagree is with
respect to the nature of the claim content and its consequent legitimacy as an
exclusive boundary marker.

: If we do not have some common creedal statements then what is the glue that
keeps us together?

The way this is framed is the fallacy of limited alternatives: either we have
common credal statements or we fly apart (i.e., there is no glue to hold us
together). Why must the "glue" be credal, doctrinal, dogmatic, what-have-you?
Why not experiential? Aesthetic? Mystical? What makes you think glue is even
required? Why must that glue be a tired reiteration of glue used by people whose
insights we rely on in very few other areas? Why, even, do we attach our fear to
the need for a grounded statement? Everything is in flux, all the time, nothing is
permanent, so why on earth would we think a statement even a hundred minutes
old (let alone over a hundred years) is somehow normative if our existential
dialectic has introduced data which requires us to rethink our position?

: : 5. Inhabitance within this primary group is incompatible with much of what
might be called reasonable social interaction. No matter how one tries to soften
the language, couching harsh concepts in white bread dialect, adherence to an
exclusive religious claim quite simply precludes much of what the United Church,
at least, since its inception.

: At Union the UCC was a conservative Church ... some presbyterians who did
not join, did so because it was not liberal enough. Friends of mine are doing a
study of the time of union and they believe that clearly the UCC was
conservative in it's understanding of the faith. Let us not read more liberalism
back into the UCC union than was really there.

I'm afraid that this simply is an incorrect reading of union history. See, for
example, N. Keith Clifford's book on the discussions around union (the title
escapes me and the book's at my office), as well as E. Lloyd Morrow and Claris
Edwin Silcox.

: Funny thing happened a few weeks ago ... I preached a sermon against Bill
Phipp's Christology and an afterwards an old man who was 18 at the Basis of
Union patted me on the back and said, "Good theology, Jim".

Well, good for you. What this anecdote proves, though, is absolutely nothing
beyond the fact that you were able to make an old man happy–which feat alone
should win you a place in the Reign of God (I'm perfectly serious about that).
However, to offer the other side of the coin, in a similarly meaningless anecdote,
I too preached about Phipps (a good friend, by the way, who is theologically
about three steps to the right of myself). I spoke about the fact that in every age
heresy is the herald of freedom, and when orthodoxy becomes an entrenched
Athanasianism ("This you must believe..." as opposed to "This I do believe..."),
then heresy becomes not only the right but the responsibility of faithfully-minded
people. A member of my congregation told me how long he'd been waiting to
hear those words in church. You see how easily this devolves into the "Did not!"
"Did to!" kind of thing (My anecdote can beat up your anecdote)? Doug

Posted by John Maich on December 18, 1997 at 12:10:22:

In Reply to: What is the glue that binds the community then? posted by Jim Love
on December 18, 1997 at 00:23:36:

: At Union the UCC was a conservative Church ... some presbyterians who did
not join, did so because it was not liberal enough.

Hello Jim,

Rev. Keith Clifford (United Church of Canada) provides an interesting treatment
about "union".

Clearly the church at union was more 'conservative' than the current incarnation
but the majority of Presbyterians who refused to enter did so because they felt
that the doctrinal statements were too 'liberal'.

Many of my Reformed aquaintances continue to be amazed that the
Presbyterians (who are somewhat calvinistic) would even discuss union with the
Methodists (who are more arminian).

In the fall-out of 'Union' the governmental courts ruled in favour of the
Presbyterian remnant in wills contested by the UCC and the PCC. Ten years
after 'Union' the courts of Canada declared that the Presbyterians who joined at
union were dissenters and that the remnant was the true Presbyterian presence in
Canada, the Presbyterian remnant was then allowed to use the title of
Presbyterian Church in Canada legally. Just for the record the United Church of
Canada fought strongly against allowing the presbyterian remnant to identify itself
as the same church which apparently disappeared into the United Church of
Canada.

Posted by David Shearman on December 24, 1997 at 06:40:11:

In Reply to: Re: What is the glue that binds the community then? posted by
John Maich on December 18, 1997 at 12:10:22:

When one looks at Union, one must also include the Congregationalists. It is that
group which defined the "doctrine" of "Essential Agreement", which is, I believe,
the glue wich binds us together. I would comment to you a reading of the brief
biograpghy of Dr. Hugh Pedley, written by my father, John Shearman. In that
paper, he quotes Pedley:

There are creeds circumferential and there are creeds central: creeds that draw a
circle around a man, and say, "Outside this you must not go!" and creeds that
drive a stake in God's eternal truth, and say, "Let this be the centre around which
you move; and then your circles may be as wide as your heart and intellect can
make them, even to the farthest shore....

The day is not far distant when our churches will take this position: if a man has
accepted Christ as his Saviour, and has received the Holy Spirit, we can trust him
in regard to all else - trust him as to the Scriptures, for he will never touch with
other than a reverent hand the Book that has given him his Lord - trust him as to
feeling for the wicked, for he who has looked upon the sorrows of the Crucified,
will never take a trivial view of the destiny of the soul - trust him with the
Constitution of the Church, for he who is loyal to Christ will never be really
treasonable to His Church. (3)

3. The Congregational Year Book, 1891-92, 103.

If Pedley's words are to be taken seriously, then it is our confession of Jesus
Christ as Saviour which defines us as a church and not some etherial "general
agreement". If there are central truths for us, then the rest is fair game. But if
there are no central truths for us as a church, then we cease to be a church of
Jesus Christ and become the Rotary Club at prayer.

Posted by Iain Macdonald on December 27, 1997 at 19:54:59:

In Reply to: Re: What is the glue that binds the community then? posted by
David Shearman on December 24, 1997 at 06:40:11:

And just what's wrong with Rotary Club?

As past president, Rotary Club of Gore Bay, I may admit they were a hard bunch
to set to praying, but they were a great bunch to set about some of the social
causes dear to the Moderator's heart...

Or does that prove some other point?

Theologically yours, notwithstanding

Iain

Posted by Douglas Edward Cowan on December 25, 1997 at 14:07:49:

In Reply to: Re: What is the glue that binds the community then? posted by
David Shearman on December 24, 1997 at 06:40:11:

: If Pedley's words are to be taken seriously, then it is our confession of Jesus
Christ as Saviour which defines us as a church and not some etherial "general
agreement". If there are central truths for us, then the rest is fair game. But if
there are no central truths for us as a church, then we cease to be a church of
Jesus Christ and become the Rotary Club at prayer.

David,

It ought to be born in mind that "saviour" is not as simple as it sounds. A
confession of Jesus as Saviour does not imply "Jesus is God" (Fearnall et al's
"Confession" notwithstanding) unless, and only unless, one accepts a whole
complex of other beliefs which both predicate it and are consequent from it. It's
not nearly so simple (or simplistic) as your quoting Pedley would make it appear.

As well, the fallacy of limited alternatives (either we believe this particular
complex holus bolus or we become some sort of holier-than-thou Rotarians) is a
red herring often thrown up in these kinds of debates, yet no more valid now
than the first time it raised its pointy little head. Why, pray, are these the only
alternatives? Have we no more spiritual imagination than this? Does the image of
God reflected in us shine no more brightly than that? And, finally, coming back to
the interest which prompted this thread: What are the implications for us if we
*do* believe it just this way? What is our understanding of the implications for
those who do not believe as we? Remember that there is also an article in the
Basis of Union about the finally impenitent going away into a place of eternal
punishment. It's not about "Oh, that's for God to judge," as though we won't
even say what we believe; it's right there in the highly vaunted Articles about
which everyone seems to be so concerned.

Question: Does the "central truth" of the Church have to be sacrifice? Why could
it not be compassion (God's working through us, rather than God's working on
our behalf)? Doug

Posted by Peter VanderKam on December 25, 1997 at 11:52:42:

In Reply to: Re: What is the glue that binds the community then? posted by
David Shearman on December 24, 1997 at 06:40:11:

: When one looks at Union, one must also include the Congregationalists. It is
: that group which defined the "doctrine" of "Essential Agreement", which is, I
: believe, the glue which binds us together. I would comment to you a reading of : the brief biography of Dr. Hugh Pedley, written by my father, John Shearman. In : that paper, he quotes Pedley:

" There are creeds circumferential and there are creeds central: creeds that draw
a circle around a man, and say, "Outside this you must not go!" and creeds that
drive a stake in God's eternal truth, and say, "Let this be the center around which you move; and then your circles may be as wide as your heart and intellect can make them, even to the farthest shore...."

"The day is not far distant when our churches will take this position: if a man has
accepted Christ as his Saviour, and has received the Holy Spirit, we can trust him
in regard to all else - trust him as to the Scriptures, for he will never touch with
other than a reverent hand the Book that has given him his Lord - trust him as to
feeling for the wicked, for he who has looked upon the sorrows of the Crucified, will never take a trivial view of the destiny of the soul - trust him with the Constitution of the Church, for he who is loyal to Christ will never be really treasonable to His Church." (3)

3. The Congregational Year Book, 1891-92, 103.

: If Pedley's words are to be taken seriously, then it is our confession of Jesus
: Christ as Saviour which defines us as a church and not some etherial "general
: agreement".
: If there are central truths for us, then the rest is fair game. But if there are no
: central truths for us as a church, then we cease to be a church of Jesus Christ
: and become the Rotary Club at prayer.

Followed this conversation and was mighty intrigued by your reference to Pedley
and his explanation of "circumferential and central creeds." I’ll have to really
think about this some more, but my immediate reaction to your closing remark
was that most UC clergy as well as most adherents want it both ways. They want
the freedom to roam, but insist on Jesus being central. (meaning exclusive!?)

From your closing comment I seem to read approval of the "Central Creed"
position, but you then follow that up with a big BUT…. This BUT being that,
*unless* we "confess Jesus Christ as saviour", we are a Rotary club at prayer. I
can only come to one conclusion when I read those words, and that is that
Rotary members are not going to get into heaven any time soon. The obvious
question to follows is: What about the Jew, the Muslim, the Buddhist, the Hindu
and the ………..!? None of them need apply for the Kingdom of God either, is
that it?

If I have misunderstood your position, I would appreciate your clarification
and/or correction.

Thanks and shalom, Peter.

Posted by Dave Ellis on December 17, 1997 at 15:52:11:

In Reply to: Jesus is/is not God. posted by Douglas Edward Cowan on December
13, 1997 at 16:07:47:

I'm not sure that you finished your thoughts on number five here.
Are you suggesting here that those who came into unionin 1925 would not have
believed that Jesus was the only way to God?
If you are I would appreciate your citing some references.

I cannot fathom how one might suggest that.

If your just saying something like
"They were trying to be inclusive in 1925 and we still are today."
Well I could probably agree with that.

It is however too big a leap of logic to jump to the conclusion that those in 1925
would support anyone questioning the divinity of Jesus
or to question that they would believe that there was some other way to God than
through Jesus.

So please correct me if I'm wrong here - but give me something to read.
I think it also too big a leap of logic to suggest that what we are disucssing today
follows in the very tradition of our church since its inception.
It is incomprehensible to me how you can make that claim with a straight face.

Please hear these comments as coming with genuine sincerity. Dave Ellis

Posted by Douglas Edward Cowan on December 13, 1997 at 16:35:19:

In Reply to: Jesus is/is not God. posted by Douglas Edward Cowan on December
13, 1997 at 16:07:47:

Sorry, had a minor computer "thingie" (is that the technical word?): the final
sentence should read "much of what the United Church, at least, *has believed
and actualised* since its inception."

Posted by Mark Fearnall on December 14, 1997 at 14:00:11:

In Reply to: Re: Jesus is/is not God. posted by Douglas Edward Cowan on
December 13, 1997 at 16:35:19:

I will respond to this post since I think I agree with your other 4 propositions.

In proposition 5 do I understand you correctly? Are you saying that when one
holds to *any* exclusive claims it goes contrary to what the United Church
believes?

Sometimes a hypothetical quesiton helps me to understand things better. So... If
you are correct then one couldn't even insist (as part of the United Church) that
another believe "God exists" since this would be an exclusive claim? Correct?

Mark

Posted by Douglas Edward Cowan on December 14, 1997 at 14:44:45:

In Reply to: Re: Jesus is/is not God. posted by Mark Fearnall on December 14,
1997 at 14:00:11:

: In proposition 5 do I understand you correctly? Are you saying that when one
holds to *any* exclusive claims it goes contrary to what the United Church
believes?

No, I am simply asking if we are aware of what the existential implications are
when we *do* hold to religious claims which are exclusive. I have, for example,
heard folks talk about "Jesus as the only way to God," which is an exclusive
religious claim (a pretty self-explanatory one); however, when pushed on what
implications that claim has for their interaction with neighbours of a different
faith, with eschatology relative to those other people, etc., etc., they very often
retreat into a vague "Well, that's up to God to decide; it's not my place to judge."
A response like this is quite simply and quite often a sanctimonious cop-out. If
Jesus is the only way to God (and the whole complex of other claims which
constellate around that then come into play), then there are very definite
implications for people whose faith is located somewhere else. I am simply
interested in how bluntly people are willing to recognise and acknowledge what
those implications are. And how honestly they are willing to state them.

As for the United Church, since subscription was an issue I thought we had
settled prior to ‘25, my position is that there are certain religious claims the
exclusive nature of which is at odds with United Church history, polity, and
theology.

: Sometimes a hypothetical quesiton helps me to understand things better. So... If
you are correct then one couldn't even insist (as part of the United Church) that
another believe "God exists" since this would be an exclusive claim? Correct?

No. You would have to spell out how that constitutes an exclusive claim.
Buddhists, for example, believe God exists, even though their faith tradition does
not acknowledge the kind of God a Christian might worship. Their attitude would
be, "Got a God? Great, bring him along, we'll put him on the altar, burn some
incense, and get all kinds of great merit!" You would need to demonstrate how
"God exists" is exclusive. Doug

Posted by Dave Ellis on December 17, 1997 at 18:06:04:

In Reply to: Re: Jesus is/is not God. posted by Douglas Edward Cowan on
December 14, 1997 at 14:44:45:

To Mark Fearnalls example you replied

"No. You would have to spell out how that constitutes an exclusive claim"

Probably this simple example won't work either but here goes.

The athiests I dialogue with claim "There is NO God."
To them the statement "God exists" is exclusive.
Is it exclusive for your system of thinking?

Posted by Douglas Edward Cowan on December 18, 1997 at 16:18:30:

In Reply to: Exclusive Claim - God Exists posted by Dave Ellis on December 17,
1997 at 18:06:04:

: Probably this simple example won't work either but here goes.

: The athiests I dialogue with claim "There is NO God."
: To them the statement "God exists" is exclusive.
: Is it exclusive for your system of thinking?

Bear in mind the function of the propositions above. They operate as, among
other things, a descriptive platform from which the varied topography of religious
movements may be surveyed. They are tools of analysis to investigate how
certain claims operate in certain communities, not gobbets of objective truth.
However, in answer to your question, can you be an atheist and still believe in
God (some Unitarian Universalists excepted)? If no, then the claim "There is no
God" is an exclusive one. It marks a cognitive boundary which delineates for a
certain community the border between "Us which know better!" and "Them
which don't!" then it's an exclusive claim. But, so what? The exclusive or
inclusive nature of a religious claim has absolutely nothing to do with its truth
value. People believe, quite fervently, the strangest things. But, then, that's the
point with statements of belief: they are not, by definition, statements of fact.

Doug

Posted by Mark Fearnall on December 20, 1997 at 07:23:24:

In Reply to: Re: Exclusive Claim - God Exists posted by Douglas Edward Cowan
on December 18, 1997 at 16:18:30:

: But, then, that's the point with statements of belief: they are not, by definition,
statements of fact.

What do you mean by "fact"? Perhaps you could give me an example of a
"statement of fact"?

The reason I ask this is because I find many people use the term fact to refer to
something that is taken on faith. Much of science is based on faith assumptions,
but perhaps you are not talking about science. Mark.

Posted by Douglas Edward Cowan on December 20, 1997 at 08:32:33:

In Reply to: Re: What is a "statement of fact"? posted by Mark Fearnall on
December 20, 1997 at 07:23:24:

: What do you mean by "fact"? Perhaps you could give me an example of a
"statement of fact"?

That's an easy one, Bishop Berkeley notwithstanding. A "fact" is something
which demonstrably occurs or exists apart from any particular individual's
observation or experience of it, or his or her will for it to be true. Gravity is an
example. As long as I am standing on a planetary body with a certain positive
gravity, as many times as I drop my keys they will fall to the floor. It's
independent of my observation, my belief, or my will. A statement like "God
exists" or "The Bible is the only Word of God' or "Jesus is the only way to God"
clearly falls outside those criteria. I agree with you, though, that we often make
factual claims for faith statements. That's precisely my point. Doug

Posted by Mark Fearnall on December 20, 1997 at 10:24:59:

In Reply to: Re: What is a "statement of fact"? posted by
Douglas Edward Cowan on December 20, 1997 at 08:32:33:

: : What do you mean by "fact"? Perhaps you could give me an example of a
"statement of fact"?

: That's an easy one, Bishop Berkeley notwithstanding. A "fact" is something
which demonstrably occurs or exists apart from any particular individual's
observation or experience of it, or his or her will for it to be true. Gravity is an
example. As long as I am standing on a planetary body with a certain positive
gravity, as many times as I drop my keys they will fall to the floor. It's
independent of my observation, my belief, or my will. A statement like "God
exists" or "The Bible is the only Word of God' or "Jesus is the only way to God"
clearly falls outside those criteria. I agree with you, though, that we often make
factual claims for faith statements. That's precisely my point. Doug

I'm sorry but the statement that because my keys dropped they will do so again is
not a fact. Or rather it thought to be a fact, but it is based on a unprovable
position (an axiom taken on faith). You are upholding the position that inductive
logic gives us "facts". Unfortunately no one has been able to prove inductive
logic. Indeed there are many who have shown that it is not a "fact". Bertrand
Russell and David Hume come to mind.

Just because your keys fall a million times doesn't mean they will fall the next.
We may act on the belief that they will, but that is a belief, not a fact. This is a
simplified explanation but Russell gives a more detailed one in the book "The
problems of philosophy". See chapter 6.

I mention all of this because there is much more faith involved in all aspects of
our lives than most are willing to acknowledge. Your example is one case in
point. It is not a statement of fact. Indeed, who knows, there may be some who
have experienced "key levitation" though I am not one of them :-)

Mark - who just loves philosophy!

Posted by Douglas Edward Cowan on December 20, 1997 at 11:35:14:

In Reply to: Re: What is a "statement of fact"? posted by Mark Fearnall on
December 20, 1997 at 10:24:59:

: :
: : : What do you mean by "fact"? Perhaps you could give me an example of a
"statement of fact"?

: : That's an easy one, Bishop Berkeley notwithstanding. A "fact" is something
which demonstrably occurs or exists apart from any particular individual's
observation or experience of it, or his or her will for it to be true. Gravity is an
example. As long as I am standing on a planetary body with a certain positive
gravity, as many times as I drop my keys they will fall to the floor. It's
independent of my observation, my belief, or my will. A statement like "God
exists" or "The Bible is the only Word of God' or "Jesus is the only way to God"
clearly falls outside those criteria. I agree with you, though, that we often make
factual claims for faith statements. That's precisely my point. Doug

: I'm sorry but the statement that because my keys dropped they will do so again
is not a fact. Or rather it thought to be a fact, but it is based on a unprovable
position (an axiom taken on faith). You are upholding the position that inductive
logic gives us "facts". Unfortunately no one has been able to prove inductive
logic. Indeed there are many who have shown that it is not a "fact". Bertrand
Russell and David Hume come to mind.

: Just because your keys fall a million times doesn't mean they will fall the next.
We may act on the belief that they will, but that is a belief, not a fact. This is a
simplified explanation but Russell gives a more detailed one in the book "The
problems of philosophy". See chapter 6.

: I mention all of this because there is much more faith involved in all aspects of
our lives than most are willing to acknowledge. Your example is one case in
point. It is not a statement of fact. Indeed, who knows, there may be some who
have experienced "key levitation" though I am not one of them :-)

Before I take the above on, which I will do as soon as several Christmas week
services conclude, let's level the playing field a little. What's your definition of a
fact? (P.S. Who's to say Russell was right? Nagarjuna certainly wouldn't agree
with him!) Doug

Posted by Mark Fearnall on December 20, 1997 at 12:23:43:

In Reply to: Re: What is a "statement of fact"? posted by
Douglas Edward Cowan on December 20, 1997 at 11:35:14:

: Before I take the above on, which I will do as soon as several Christmas week
services conclude, let's level the playing field a little. What's your definition of a
fact? (P.S. Who's to say Russell was right? Nagarjuna certainly wouldn't agree
with him!)

Fair enough question.
My definition of a fact is something that accords with reality. For me this means
that I can say that Jesus rose from the dead is a fact, while it would also be a fact
that my keys fall to the ground.

You would be right in pointing out that I just said this (the keys falling) wasn't a
fact, but my point was that it is not a fact if we use the idea of "no belief
involved" (your definition). Under that definition neither "Jesus rose from the
dead" nor "the keys will fall to the ground" can be facts. Under my definition
they both could be facts.

As to Russell being right... well Russell was wrong in other areas--like the
existence of God :-)-- so he might be wrong here as well. However, your original
comment was that a fact was something that was true regardless of belief etc. It
is evident that inductive logic (the keys will fall) is not considered to be universally fact. So who will we believe? :-) Russell or Nagarjuna?

If strict observation (and assuming observation was never in error) could answer
that question it wouldn't be a question of believing one over the other. Mark.