[enat]

“What do you believe is your basis for ultimate truth and how do you know it is trustworthy?”

“First rule of effective communication: define your terms...”

From what I’ve witnessed on this and other threads, you all don’t seem to have a problem understanding “ultimate truth”, saying each other is wrong in some of their theology or the basis of their theology or calling each other heretics or worse. How can one suggest that another is wrong or a heretic unless one makes the claim that he or she possesses ultimate truth?

I can appreciate the fact that one might not want to be pinned down by stating a position and cutting off a fluid avenue of evasion. But when you ridicule another’s position or make the claim that he or she is in error you must know what the truth is.

It might help those of us who are watching this and trying to make sense of what is going on if you all just state what you believe is your basis for ultimate truth and how you know it is trustworthy.

[Mad Dawg]

How can one suggest that another is wrong or a heretic unless one makes the claim that he or she possesses ultimate truth?

I think the term heretic is over-used here. "In error" would be more precise.

Also, in sort of internal argumentative structures, I think the reductio ad absurdum works effectively to show something wrong without an explicit appeal to external axiomata and postulates.

Alamo-girl eschews the principle of non-contradiction, so reductios wouldn't work with her.

I do think there is a serious question about the nature and utility of reason, as is implied with someone's rejecting the principle of non-contradiction.

Then there's the whole problem of religious certainty. Paul says, "I know Him whom I have believed." And I say, "Oh yeah? And what exactly is THAT supposed to mean?"

But I don't do it too loudly because I think I know, experientially, what he means.

But when it comes down to identifying first principles, I think it'll be difficult and murky. Sola Scriptura SEEMS like it might work, but it is not notable for producing unity. And the indeterminate body of "infallible" Catholic "definitions" requires a sometimes apparently legalistic approach.

I think your question good, but I bet it won't be answered. Discussing it might be fun though.

[Judith Anne]

I can appreciate the fact that one might not want to be pinned down by stating a position and cutting off a fluid avenue of evasion.

Who is your "boss" that you referenced in your first post? Who are you? What is your bias?

[Petronski]

I can appreciate the fact that one might not want to be pinned down by stating a position and cutting off a fluid avenue of evasion.

Ooooh, snap!