The Veritas Forum: Belief in an Age of Skepticism?
Back"Belief in an Age of Skepticism?"
March 4, 2008, at The University of California, Berkeley
Noted pastor and author Dr. Tim Keller discusses the place of exclusive truth in a pluralistic society in Wheeler Auditorium, followed by a Q&A session.
Hosted by Reformed University Fellowship, Dr. Keller's talk is part of The Veritas Forum at Cal, following Francis Collins' lecture in February on Christianity and science.
For more Veritas Forum recordings, visit:
Channel: Education
Uploaded: March 7, 2008 at 8:36 pm
Author: ucberkeleyevents
Length: 01:34:18
Rating: 4.61
Views: 33598
Tags: uc ucberkeley university california berkeley veritas religion keller
Video Comments:
frankie6092 (November 16, 2008 at 3:58 pm)
"2nd, how do you know 3+9=12, or that someone loves you, or that murder is wrong, or that China exists? Would you (1) regard these as true, and if so, (2) is it the scientific method that leads you to these truths? If not, then there are other ways to know truth."
What are these other ways to know truth are you trying to propose?
What are these other ways to know truth are you trying to propose?
shane137 (November 16, 2008 at 4:13 pm)
I can answer, but first, are you in agreement that some true things are not known by the scientific method?
frankie6092 (November 16, 2008 at 4:58 pm)
I'm not sure. If we're going to use common sense as an alternative method to the truth, it could, but sometimes common sense aren't reliable as the subject at hand gets deeper. There are evidences that are self-proofing than the others. I believe if we doubt a claim and want to confirm that, we go through scientific process or logical proofing through mathematical models to confirm its closeness to the truth. I don't know any other means. Let's assume a yes answer, what are you proposing?
shane137 (November 16, 2008 at 10:23 pm)
I agree that common sense is sometimes not very reliable (or common :)
What I would consider alternate methods of learning truth aren't really proposals of anything new, they've been known for millennia, e.g., rational intuition and reflection which gives us things like logic and math; moral intuition (i.e., murder is wrong); credible authorities, from which we probably learn most of our truth, like China's existence or other news; and even observation, like what you saw on the way to work
What I would consider alternate methods of learning truth aren't really proposals of anything new, they've been known for millennia, e.g., rational intuition and reflection which gives us things like logic and math; moral intuition (i.e., murder is wrong); credible authorities, from which we probably learn most of our truth, like China's existence or other news; and even observation, like what you saw on the way to work
shane137 (November 16, 2008 at 10:32 pm)
"I believe if we doubt a claim and want to confirm that, we go through scientific process or logical proofing through mathematical models to confirm its closeness to the truth."
This is one example of where trust of credible authorities comes in as a way of knowing truth. When you say "we" you don't mean you or me, you mean some (hopefully) trustworthy scientists will use the scientific method to come to some answer. Those of us not doing the testing must decide if we can trust those who do.
This is one example of where trust of credible authorities comes in as a way of knowing truth. When you say "we" you don't mean you or me, you mean some (hopefully) trustworthy scientists will use the scientific method to come to some answer. Those of us not doing the testing must decide if we can trust those who do.
frankie6092 (November 17, 2008 at 9:32 am)
"This is one example of where trust of credible authorities comes in as a way of knowing truth."
Yes, though if we doubt to those authorities, they could just prove to us how did they come to conclusion or near to conclusion. However, sadly, if we are in doubt of claims of other authorities like the church I was in, it's a different story. I've been there. At least science could somehow present a substantial evidence.
Yes, though if we doubt to those authorities, they could just prove to us how did they come to conclusion or near to conclusion. However, sadly, if we are in doubt of claims of other authorities like the church I was in, it's a different story. I've been there. At least science could somehow present a substantial evidence.
shane137 (November 17, 2008 at 10:42 am)
I can sympathize with your concern. As a scientist, I want solid foundations for what I believe about the world, and to be open to revising that in light of new evidence.
It's intellectually dishonest when any church dismisses healthy skepticism about its extraordinary claims. If the church wants someone to believe, e.g., Jesus' resurrection, they need to provide persuasive evidence, not just confident claims. Sounds like the church let you down, but it hasn't stopped your pursuit of truth.
It's intellectually dishonest when any church dismisses healthy skepticism about its extraordinary claims. If the church wants someone to believe, e.g., Jesus' resurrection, they need to provide persuasive evidence, not just confident claims. Sounds like the church let you down, but it hasn't stopped your pursuit of truth.
shane137 (November 16, 2008 at 2:37 pm)
"I hope that's the case but reading on the bible, it says otherwise"
frankie, I'm not sure what you mean by this. The Bible *does* teach this: people are condemned for wrong behavior, not wrong belief (see Revelations ch. 20 or James ch. 2, Matthew chs 5 & 12).
God only punishes the guilty. The problem is, we are all guilty. That's what Jesus being the "Savior" is about. The name implies one is "saved from" something. And in fact, Jesus saves one from the consequences of one's own wrongdoing.
frankie, I'm not sure what you mean by this. The Bible *does* teach this: people are condemned for wrong behavior, not wrong belief (see Revelations ch. 20 or James ch. 2, Matthew chs 5 & 12).
God only punishes the guilty. The problem is, we are all guilty. That's what Jesus being the "Savior" is about. The name implies one is "saved from" something. And in fact, Jesus saves one from the consequences of one's own wrongdoing.
plakey2001 (November 14, 2008 at 1:23 am)
Hey frankie6092, how did you go man, did you get a copy of Keller's book?
1st, even with the word "yet", the statement is still a philosophical claim, not a scientific one (i.e., it's not in the category of a testable scientific hypothesis like "humans are made of carbon"; it's a worldview claim.)
2nd, how do you know 3+9=12, or that someone loves you, or that murder is wrong, or that China exists? Would you (1) regard these as true, and if so, (2) is it the scientific method that leads you to these truths? If not, then there are other ways to know truth.