03-25-2004, 04:20 PM
Hi,
"The Bible contains metaphorical truths" is *not* an axiom.
The only thing I don't get from your post however, is the first quoted paragraph.
How is that not an axiom?
We may be getting into semantics here. If we're using the word "axiom" in its colloquial sense (supposition), then the statement in question is indeed an axiom. However, if we're using "axiom" in its more technical sense (postulate), then I don't think it is. And, given the nature of this sub-thread, I think only the second (technical) sense would apply since we are discussing logical systems.
The reason I don't think the second statement is an axiom can be seen from the definition of "postulate": a hypothesis advanced as an essential presupposition, condition, or premise of a train of reasoning -- Merriam-Webster online. The part that I'm sticking at is the "train of reasoning" phrase. The statement "The Bible contains metaphorical truths" does not seem to lead anywhere in a discussion of religion because of its vagueness and generality.
The vagueness makes it impossible to determine which parts of the Bible, if any, are to be considered true and under what interpretation. Every particular passage could be considered true by one reader and false by another, and yet the two could be in complete agreement as to everything but the interpretation. That is, both could agree that "if passage P contains message M1, then it is true; else if it contains message M2 it is false". They simply disagree on which message it contains. Thus the vagueness makes the statement "The Bible contains metaphorical truths" useless as an "internal" axiom, it tells us nothing that allows us to judge the content of the Bible.
The generality of the statement makes it pretty well useless in a religious discussion "external" to the Bible. After all, if something contains "metaphorical truths", then the extraction of those truths is as much (or more) in the mind of the extractor than it is in the material from which the truths are to be extracted (the I Ching is an excellent example of this). One can say "_______ contains metaphorical truths" of nearly any man-made work (and probably of many natural phenomena). Then, to support that argument, one simply needs to pronounce some "truth" and any tenuous connection to the work in question. That the connection resides chiefly in the arguer's mind does not invalidate the argument. The use of "metaphorical truths" implies an interpretation and interpretations are exterior to the message.
So, in the colloquial sense, the statement may indeed be a supposition. But it is not a useful or meaningful postulate. And so, for the purposes of this discussion, I don't think it qualifies as an "axiom".
--Pete
"The Bible contains metaphorical truths" is *not* an axiom.
The only thing I don't get from your post however, is the first quoted paragraph.
How is that not an axiom?
We may be getting into semantics here. If we're using the word "axiom" in its colloquial sense (supposition), then the statement in question is indeed an axiom. However, if we're using "axiom" in its more technical sense (postulate), then I don't think it is. And, given the nature of this sub-thread, I think only the second (technical) sense would apply since we are discussing logical systems.
The reason I don't think the second statement is an axiom can be seen from the definition of "postulate": a hypothesis advanced as an essential presupposition, condition, or premise of a train of reasoning -- Merriam-Webster online. The part that I'm sticking at is the "train of reasoning" phrase. The statement "The Bible contains metaphorical truths" does not seem to lead anywhere in a discussion of religion because of its vagueness and generality.
The vagueness makes it impossible to determine which parts of the Bible, if any, are to be considered true and under what interpretation. Every particular passage could be considered true by one reader and false by another, and yet the two could be in complete agreement as to everything but the interpretation. That is, both could agree that "if passage P contains message M1, then it is true; else if it contains message M2 it is false". They simply disagree on which message it contains. Thus the vagueness makes the statement "The Bible contains metaphorical truths" useless as an "internal" axiom, it tells us nothing that allows us to judge the content of the Bible.
The generality of the statement makes it pretty well useless in a religious discussion "external" to the Bible. After all, if something contains "metaphorical truths", then the extraction of those truths is as much (or more) in the mind of the extractor than it is in the material from which the truths are to be extracted (the I Ching is an excellent example of this). One can say "_______ contains metaphorical truths" of nearly any man-made work (and probably of many natural phenomena). Then, to support that argument, one simply needs to pronounce some "truth" and any tenuous connection to the work in question. That the connection resides chiefly in the arguer's mind does not invalidate the argument. The use of "metaphorical truths" implies an interpretation and interpretations are exterior to the message.
So, in the colloquial sense, the statement may indeed be a supposition. But it is not a useful or meaningful postulate. And so, for the purposes of this discussion, I don't think it qualifies as an "axiom".
--Pete
How big was the aquarium in Noah's ark?