attempted to sidestep vicious circularity...?

chobalsim

Banned
India-Hindi
... some of us go to church "to love God instead of our neighbor."
But if some of us run to religion to escape our neighbors, many of us hide in our faith to avoid thinking about it or the problems we

face. It is true that one of the vicious consequences of pride is that human reason threatens to replace divine revelation in the
religious worldview. Such a claim, however, is subject to reason. (1)Articulate defenders of faith have rightly attempted to
sidestep vicious circularity by contending that conceptions of truth are a species of the good; what we know as true is in part a
product of what we think is good to know. The value of knowledge is made clear when we define the moral properties of the world we
live in and seek to understand. That doesn't completely solve the problem; for instance, some seekers limit the quest for truth to
what their religion says is good while ignoring the common good. But at least it offers a reasonable way to hold to faith while
honoring the mind God gave us.

I posted this thread before but I couldn't get an answer so I'm posting once more.
What I'm wondering is when you contend that conceptions of truth are a species of the good, how could that contending be a right
cause of sidestepping vicious circularity? "what we know as true... good to know" is also the defenders' voice, not the author's voice?
I think it sounds the latter's voice in terms of meaning but it does the former's voice in terms of structure, the semicolon.
Would you please paraphrase the bold part in easier way?
 
  • Nunty

    Modified
    Hebrew-US English (bilingual)
    (1)Articulate defenders of faith have rightly attempted to sidestep vicious circularity by contending that conceptions of truth are a species of the good; what we know as true is in part a product of what we think is good to know.

    Would you please paraphrase the bold part in easier way?
    Hello, chobalsim.

    Here is an attempt at paraphrasing the part in bold:

    People who are skilled in verbally defending their faith behave correctly when they avoid expressing themselves tautologically, and instead claim that ideas of the nature of truth are actually a type of good in themselves, claiming that we define things as truth, partly in function of what we thing is good to know.

    It's a difficult passage, and I'm not sure I made it any easier...
     

    chobalsim

    Banned
    India-Hindi
    Thank you so much, Nun-Translator. But your paraphrased sentence is more difficult than the orginal. :eek:
    It's hard to explain exactly what I want to know. :confused: Hmm... I understand the whole structure and its meaning literally. But... I don't know the correlation between sidestepping vicious circularity and contending truth are the good.
    I think I have to make clear one by one. Well, then first, what does "vicious circularity" refer to here?
     

    Nunty

    Modified
    Hebrew-US English (bilingual)
    I'm sorry, Chobalsim. I was afraid of that. :(

    "Vicious circularity" is not a standard phrase. We do speak of a "vicious circle", though, meaning a repetitive set of events.
     

    cuchuflete

    Senior Member
    EEUU-inglés
    Articulate defenders of faith have rightly attempted to sidestep vicious circularity by contending that conceptions of truth are a species of the good; what we know as true is in part a product of what we think is good to know.
    Let's see if breaking it into pieces will help.

    What we know to be true is, in part, a product of what we think is good to know. Therefore, articulate defenders of faith have rightly attempted to avoid circular reasoning by contending that
    conceptions of truth are a subset of that which is good.
     
    < Previous | Next >
    Top