According to Ravi Zacharias, a Thought System Requires: 1. Logical Consistency, 2. Emperical Adequacy, 3. Experiential Relevance
By
Jim Ley
on March 02, 2007
4
1
80.0% 20.0%
Embed Claim
Make a related claim
Claims inspired by this one
Similar claims
- 2-24 The 20th century was the bloodiest because large numbers of people adopted worldviews based on faulty definitions of Creation, Fall, and Redemption.
- 10-8 Every belief system has to account for war, conflict, and oppression.
- 3-1 Redemption seeks a solution, a fix to the evil and suffering of the world.
- 2-2 Rousseau said, we must strip away everything that has developed through culture and history, and imagine a "state of nature" that is pre-social, pre-political, even pre-moral.
- 23-13 A coherent worldview can answer the following questions.
Discussion (8)
When you make claims like this it's unclear if the voting is on the attribution or the quote.
I agree with Rorek.
Empirical would be the correct spelling. Jim Ley has problems with spelling.
Rorek: Good point, thank you.
In this instance would it make a difference?
A big difference. Even if I was just being awkward, when I see a quote like that, I want to know if the thought system he used to come up with those requirements was 1. Logical Consistent, 2. Empirically Adequate, and 3. Experiential Relevant.
And if it was, that just means that at least he was consistent - it doesn't give me any reason to agree with it except gut feel, which, although experientially relevant, wouldn't be empirically adequate for me (maybe other peoples gut feel has a better record), let alone logically consistent.
A though system is an information system with enough negative entropy.
The third criterion is "Experiential" (i.e to do with one's EXPERIENCE) not "Experimental". The notion here is that it not only needs to be logically (and internally) consistent (1), be backed by some form of evidence (2), but also somehow apply meaningfully to one's life (experientially relevant).
Worded as "Experimentally" Relevant - item three almost duplicates the intent of (2).
Check the original source at: http://www.rzim.org/slice/slicetran.php?sliceid=70
djembe35:
Welcome to Jyte. I hope you stick around and continue to contribute. Thank you for your link.
My original source is a lecture where Ravi discusses this claim about 7 minutes into the talk.
Who is Jesus and Why Does it Matter?
Harvard University, 1991