Extreme rationality and faith

[WishboneDawn]

What I'm saying is that I can't see how reason, as one of the three legs, exists within the framework of religion. The reasons you apply to stories like the creation myth are not religious reasons, they're based on knowledge; no faith required. An example of Christian reason might be something like, it's reasonable to conclude sin explains problematic behavior. What I'm suggesting is that it's not reasonable to make this conclusion. It's not reasonable because the basis of this premise rests on a claim accepted as true by virtue of believing its true (sin exists, and influences behavior).

 

 

You make it sound like atheism is morally equivalent to sociopathy. These are unrelated.

 

 

Aw. I hate when that happens. :(

 

I'll start by saying sorry. Yeah, you're right. Add to that that I'm not convinced of the point I think I was trying to make. I think I was confusing rationality with reason, thinking about rationality as a morally neutral thinking tool. Reason...Not so neutral. Not sure if that helps. Coffee. I need coffee.

 

On the first bit though, "The reasons you apply to stories like the creation myth are not religious reasons, they're based on knowledge; no faith required." Yes, exactly. The CoE doesn't qualify the word reason or place it  within the Christian or religious circle on a Venn diagram. It's reason. That's it. Reason informed by secular knowledge as well as religious. 

[MamaSheep]

With scientific models we are not trying to prove the existence of observable phenomenon, but rather to find an explanation for it. It would indeed be irrational and silly to claim that the physical world does not exist when it is so plainly observable to all. God on the other hand is not. While there may be subjective evidence (personal anecdotes, etc.), there is no objective evidence at all for the claim that God exists.

It is often true that science is not trying to prove the existence of observable phenomena. However, there are times when science is trying to prove the existence of an unobserved, and possibly unobservable (with present tools) but mathematically hypothesized aspect of an observable phenomenon, such as the Higgs boson. In fact, science generally works on the principle of forming a hypothesis and then organizing an experiment to prove or disprove the hypothesis. The hypothesis does not always relate to the existence of a physical item, but sometimes it does. Another example that springs to mind is the existence of a specific combination of genetic and/or environmental factors that can be shown to cause most cases of autism. Or, recently I read about a field study the purpose of which was to prove the existence of fireflies in Utah. But yes, often scientific models are an attempt to find an explanation for why things work the way they observably work.

 

This is also true of religion. Very few religions I've encountered are about "proving" the existence of the spiritual. Most religion takes the existence of spiritually observable phenomena as much for granted as science takes physically observable phenomena for granted. It so obviously exists (unless it's a Higgs boson or a Utah firefly) that there's no point in arguing about it. They tend to focus more on exploring and explaining spiritual observations. 

 

As to whether there is or is not evidence for the claim that God exists, I think that's a whole other ball of wax involving defining what constitutes acceptable evidence, which I don't have time for today (it's my daughter's birthday, I have to go prep a mad scientist party). But I would suggest that sometimes a lack of data does not indicate a lack of the existence of evidence, but rather often merely demonstrates a lack of adequate data collection tools and methods for that type of evidence. You can't clip off a sample of sunlight with a pair of scissors and put it on a microscope slide to look at it under magnification, but that doesn't mean there's no evidence beyond the anecdotal for the existence of sunlight, even if you've lived your whole life in a cave and have never seen it yourself. It just means that the selected sampling method is incompatible with the item being studied. I often wish I could just bring someone a jar of spiritual "sunlight", but it doesn't work that way.

 

Yes, many parts of the physical world are observable to all. However, many parts and aspects are not. For example, very few people have directly observed an atom, let alone a proton or an electron. I certainly have not. However, I understand enough of the theory and research (though not very much, proportianately) that I am sufficiently "certain" of their existence even though I have never directly observed one. (But I also understand that there exists a slim possibility that a future scientific discovery could blow current atomic theory completely to bits.) They are primarily understood to exist based on the effect that they have on things we can observe in some way, such as samples of easily observable elemental substances. Again, I see here a parallel with spiritual phenomena--you can't always observe them directly, but there are observable patterns of effect (in my opinion) that demonstrate their existence. 

 

Until very recently the existence of Utah fireflies was based only on subjective, anecdotal evidence--people claimed to have had the experience of seeing and touching them. But it was scientifically accepted that fireflies don't exist in Utah until someone finally went out and applied a data collection process appropriate to the hypothesis being tested and the nature of the evidence that would support it. Now it is scientifically accepted that there is actually at least one established population of fireflies in Utah (and the debates over why that is begin to rage...lol). But I have still never seen one.  Lots of people say they've seen them, including recognized experts in the field. But at some level I just have to decide whether I'm going to take those other people's word for it or not. Sure there are photos, but what proof do I have, other than the word of the photographer, that they were taken in Utah? Or that they're not just highly sophisticated computer renderings? Or whatever other factor of doubt I might entertain. 

 

But again...that's delving into that discussion about what constitutes adequate evidence that I don't have time for. 

 

While it is true that you and I, as lay persons will not be able to repeat highly technical experiments, it does not mean that scientific experiments and observations are not repeatable at all. That would not be science.

 

Spiritual experiences on the other hand cannot be repeated under controlled conditions. That does not make the experiences false, but you cannot use that data to come up with a reliable explanation for the experience either.

 

I think this is a scientifically untenable assertion, since science has not yet figured out a way to evaluate, measure, or control spiritual conditions. It has no way of even knowing what the conditions are, let alone intentionally replicating or controlling them. They can replicate some of the physical conditions in which someone claims a spiritual experience occurred, but that leaves far, far too many unknown variables for it to have any value as a scientific process. Can you even measure whether or not the claimed spiritual experience was an ACTUAL spiritual experience? The person may be making it up, or mistaking something else for a spiritual experience. (Despite what a scientifically enthusiastic 5yo might claim, seeing a dust mote in the sunlight is not the same thing as seeing an atom.)

 

On the other hand, I have found that internal spiritual conditions can be replicated, and that doing so does indeed produce consistent, repeatable results. No, I can't share the methodology with other people in a precise, scientific manner because of the inadequacy of equipment and standardized measures, methods, and even terminology. But being unable to communicate a result does not mean the result didn't happen, and doesn't happen regularly, it only means that I lack the tools to communicate it adequately to another person. And unfortunately (or perhaps fortunately...but again, that's another subject) it means that other people have to navigate their own way through the internal spiritual experimental milieu.

 

But when it comes to proving the existence of God, there are no data sets, are there?

I think that depends largely on what you consider to be a data set. There is a great amount of data about spiritual things, it's just not organized in an orderly fashion as of yet and is not scientifically useful.

 

But that doesn't mean one can't address it using rational intellectual thought processes, it just means that ONE rational approach, the scientific method, is not particularly helpful in interpreting the data. Which again, does not prove nonexistence of data.

 

Anyway, as I say, I have a birthday party to get ready and if I don't get that cheesecake in the oven it won't have time to bake and cool in time for the party. 

 

Have a lovely day. :)

[WishboneDawn]

This is me, too. Not content to throw out the whole notion of faith, not content to identify as a Christian when I disbelieve nearly everything that is considered essential in that faith system. I am a Deist. That's really the truth of it. So why can't I just be satisfied that that's the end? It isn't hell. I have long since stopped believing in hell; I may not have ever really believed there was a hell to begin with.

 

For me, it's mostly social constructs. I don't want to be an atheist. The atheists I've known well enough to comment on are so angry and hostile and self-centered. I accept that that is anecdotal, but there it is. But, OTOH, when I listen to someone who is a Serious Believer - my mother, say - so many things out of their mouths sound patently absurd. I can't imagine how someone so intelligent can believe such things.

 

*sigh* It's a hard spot to be in, I think.

 

The loud voices get the press. I often see atheists online complain about how liberal Christians don't speak up to Fundamentalists. But we do. But it doesn't get press. Same thing with atheists. The loud ones get the press. The more moderate voices go unheard. 

 

There's a great blog with just those voices at nonprophetstatus.com.

 

ETA: Tell no one but I think those loud voices are half the reason atheism is a no-go for me too. Don't tell Albeto.

[albeto.]

The CoE doesn't qualify the word reason or place it  within the Christian or religious circle on a Venn diagram. It's reason. That's it. Reason informed by secular knowledge as well as religious. 

 

Oh I hope you don't think I'm picking on you, it's just that I find this part the most interesting part of the whole issue.  :nerd:

 

You say reason is informed by secular knowledge as well as religious. What knowledge has religion uncovered?

[WishboneDawn]

Oh I hope you don't think I'm picking on you, it's just that I find this part the most interesting part of the whole issue.  :nerd:

 

You say reason is informed by secular knowledge as well as religious. What knowledge has religion uncovered?

 

Same here. :D

 

But hold on! I said reason within the context of it being used to inform scripture and tradition in the CoE. I wasn't making a wider claim which is sort of what I'd be implying if I went and ahead and answered your question.

 

And I thought on this too long. The baby is awake. I will return!

[albeto.]

I think this is a scientifically untenable assertion, since science has not yet figured out a way to evaluate, measure, or control spiritual conditions.

This is a misunderstanding and misrepresentation of how science explains the nature of the world. As a means of explaining reality, science has in fact figured out ways to evaluate, measure and even control what you might call "spiritual conditions." Evaluation and measuring has given us insight into mental health conditions such as schizophrenia and epilepsy, things at one time understood to be explained by spiritual influences. Check out this video for an illustration of controlling experiences (it's about 7 min long):

 

 

 

 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y02UlkYjSi0

 

 

Can you even measure whether or not the claimed spiritual experience was an ACTUAL spiritual experience?

 

To do so first requires a definition of spirits. Are these spirits physical? Electrical? Do they influence the physical world, and if so, how? Do they manipulate physical surroundings, or just particular neurons in the brain at the precise time and order? Are these spirits sent by the judeo-christian god, or another ancient god, or is it more accurately understood by neo-pagan explanations? Until this can get sorted out, it would be unethical to use these unknown and unexplained variables to try and explain natural phenomenon. However, research has identified other mechanics that influence personal experiences, mechanics that can be defined, identified, isolated, and explored individually. We can evaluate, measure, and control these variables, and their effects on the natural world. To ignore these known facts and impose unknown facts as facts is unreasonable.

 

The person may be making it up, or mistaking something else for a spiritual experience. (Despite what a scientifically enthusiastic 5yo might claim, seeing a dust mote in the sunlight is not the same thing as seeing an atom.)

Your example is fitting. Your 5yo experiences something. This is real. The explanation, however, may not be accurate. The same applies with "spiritual" experiences. An experience is the perception of an event, but the explanation for it may or may not be accurate. That's not to say the experience didn't exist, but to say just because one is sure their explanation works doesn't mean it does. That's part of the value of the scientific method - it allows for objective analysis by removing subjective interpretation.

[albeto.]

Same here. :D

Oh good!   ^_^ 

 

But hold on! I said reason within the context of it being used to inform scripture and tradition in the CoE. I wasn't making a wider claim which is sort of what I'd be implying if I went and ahead and answered your question.

Unless all scripture that reveals unreasonable events and knowledge is interpreted as allegorical (in which case, God is nothing more than an allegory), I can't see how the religious/supernatural aspects of scripture can be supported by reason.

 

And I thought on this too long. The baby is awake. I will return!

My baby is 13. He's still cute when he sleeps (albeit, much more hairy).

[Dicentra]

I've made it through all the posts and, once again, thank you to everyone.  I "liked" everyone's posts because it was important to me to show that I appreciate everyone's input - and I, apparently, haven't run out of "likes" yet! :)

 

I'm going to go back through and make a comprehensive list of all the resources that were mentioned and then include the list in a post so that if anyone was searching for a resource that was mentioned, they'll all be in one place.  (Plus, I just love to organize information - betcha couldn't have guessed that from the big chem thread and the big bio thread on the high school board, huh? ;))

 

I especially appreciate how everyone played nice on the thread. :D  I was worried about posting originally because I know how threads on faith can sometimes take a turn for the worse.

 

So much to think about. :)  I think, deep down, I know where I'll find the most peace but I just felt like I couldn't commit (at least for now) to a particular position until I'd left no stone unturned (or at least made a pretty comprehensive effort to kick over as many as I could ;)).  I hope that I will always find stones to turn over and I appreciate all the advice about new stones and suggestions about possible methods of interpretation for what I find under the stones - past, present, and future. :)

[Dicentra]

If there is no evidence to support such an idea, why would you go ahead and believe such an idea anyway? Why not accept the claims of Scientology, or Jainism, or astrology? If these claims are rejected because there is no evidence, why the double standard with regard to a supernatural entity?

 

 

I thought about this, albeto, and you're right.  If I'm going to consider the existence of a supernatural deity, then I need to also consider the existence of other supernatural things.  I'd like to reword my original two questions so that I (hopefully) take out the double standard:

1.  Does anything supernatural (meaning outside the natural world) exist? (If I did decide "yes", I could then move on to differing aspects of the supernatural, one of which could be the possibility of a supernatural deity.)

2.  Even if I can't find irrefutable proof one way or the other, can I find enough evidence (whatever that might mean to me) to be fairly certain one way or the other?

 

I'd like to clarify, too, that question #1 doesn't refer to things that I can't see or that science hasn't discovered yet.  My meaning of supernatural is "that which does not operate within the physical laws of the universe".

 

And I hope that no one is offended by the way I worded things above.  I know that it sounds as though I'm being flippant and trying to reduce things down too much but understand that that's the way my mind works. :)  I do think that I need to answer the above two questions, for myself, before I can move on to other spiritual/faith/religion questions.

 

Have I removed the double standard, albeto?

[Dicentra]

Here's a list of the collected resources.  I'll re-list the ones that I had mentioned and then add on to the list any suggestions that weren't duplicates.  I'll list specific books and authors where they were given, just author names if that's all that was given, and I'll put YouTube in brackets after any names where the material appears on YouTube.  The list isn't in alphabetical order; it's just in the order that the suggestions appeared in the thread.  Please let me know if I've missed any or made any mistakes! :)

 

The Evolution of Adam by Peter Enns

The Case for the Real Jesus by Lee Strobel

Imagination and Spirit: A Contemporary Quaker Reader edited by J. Brent Bill

The Plain Reader: Essays on Making a Simple Life edited by Scott Savage

Plain Living: A Quaker Path to Simplicity written and collected by Catherine Whitmire

The Quaker Reader selected by Jessamyn West

The Oxford Authorized KJV Bible with Apocrypha

The Case for Christ by Lee Strobel

The God Delusion by Richard Dawkins

The Dawkins Delusion by Alister and Joanna McGrath

The Demon-Haunted World by Carl Sagan

The God Argument: The Case Against Religion and For Humanism by A. C. Grayling

The Language of God by Francis S. Collins

Mere Christianity by C. S. Lewis

The Language of Science and Faith by Karl W. Giberson and Francis S. Collins

I Don't Believe in Atheists by Chris Hedges

Divinity of Doubt by Vincent Bugliosi

The Evolution of God by Robert Wright

God Is Not Great by Christopher Hitchens

Tomorrow's God by Neale Donald Walsch

The World As It Is by Chris Hedges

Readings from St. Thomas Aquinas

Faith and Reason: The Philosophy of Religion by Peter Kreeft

Frances Schaffer

Nancy Pearcey

The Reason for God: Faith in an Age of Skepticism by Timothy Kellar

Precept Upon Precept Bible studies

Bright Evening Star by Madeline L'Engle

Voddie Baucham (YouTube)

Bart Ehrman

The Age of Reason by Thomas Paine

Atheism: The Case Against God by George H. Smith

The Miracle of Theism: Arguments For and Against the Existence of God by J. L. Mackie

What Is Atheism? by Douglas E. Krueger

Spiritual Hunger: Integrating Myth and Ritual into Daily Life by Allan G. Hunter

The God Virus by Darrel W. Ray

Letter to a Christian Nation by Sam Harris

godisimaginary.com

The Believing Brain by Michael Shermer

A Shot of Faith in the Head by Mitch Stokes

Miracles by C. S. Lewis

A Case for Christianity by C. S. Lewis

John Lennox (YouTube)

Letters from a Skeptic by Greg Boyd

http://agnosticmormonmom.blogspot.ca/p/my-story.html

Neil deGrasse Tyson

The Bible by Karen Armstrong

The Battle for God by Karen Armstrong

Marcus Borg

John Dominic Crossan

A Severe Mercy by Sheldon Vanauken

Ravi Zacharias

Brian Cox

http://nonprophetstatus.com/

J. P. Moreland

 

I've included Bucolic's blog since she was kind enough to share it. :)  If anyone else is blogging on struggling with faith, please feel free to share.

[Rosie_0801]

My dh is too rational and intelligent to fall for the 'because everyone else does it' routine. He feels deeply that there is something more and is searching for it even when those who love him are more than okay with his disbelief. It's also not about others being more fortunate, it's very personal.

 

There are so many different kinds of "more." Perhaps he hasn't met the right one yet. Perhaps the people he cares about are more comfortable with him being an atheist than whatever better fit there is out there. I know my mother would be more comfortable if I were a regular atheist, rather than a pagan one. Or maybe he just hasn't met the right terminology. Everything sounds more official with a label.

[melmichigan]

There are so many different kinds of "more." Perhaps he hasn't met the right one yet. Perhaps the people he cares about are more comfortable with him being an atheist than whatever better fit there is out there. I know my mother would be more comfortable if I were a regular atheist, rather than a pagan one. Or maybe he just hasn't met the right terminology. Everything sounds more official with a label.

Terminology, I'm hung up on that myself.

[ElizabethB]

That is quite a list!

 

J.P. Moreland is also good, although your list is already extensive. You can start with few short articles and then read his book if you like him:

 

http://www.jpmoreland.com/articles/answering-the-skeptic/

 

http://www.jpmoreland.com/articles/religionchoice/

[Dicentra]

That is quite a list!

 

J.P. Moreland is also good, although your list is already extensive. You can start with few short articles and then read his book if you like him:

 

http://www.jpmoreland.com/articles/answering-the-skeptic/

 

http://www.jpmoreland.com/articles/religionchoice/

 

Thanks!  I'll add him to the list.

 

I can't say I'll have time to work deeply through the entire list so no one should be too impressed. :D  I like having it as a reference list, though, to give me ideas of where to go next.

[WishboneDawn]

It is often true that science is not trying to prove the existence of observable phenomena. However, there are times when science is trying to prove the existence of an unobserved, and possibly unobservable (with present tools) but mathematically hypothesized aspect of an observable phenomenon, such as the Higgs boson. In fact, science generally works on the principle of forming a hypothesis and then organizing an experiment to prove or disprove the hypothesis. The hypothesis does not always relate to the existence of a physical item, but sometimes it does. Another example that springs to mind is the existence of a specific combination of genetic and/or environmental factors that can be shown to cause most cases of autism. Or, recently I read about a field study the purpose of which was to prove the existence of fireflies in Utah. But yes, often scientific models are an attempt to find an explanation for why things work the way they observably work.

 

This is also true of religion. Very few religions I've encountered are about "proving" the existence of the spiritual. Most religion takes the existence of spiritually observable phenomena as much for granted as science takes physically observable phenomena for granted. It so obviously exists (unless it's a Higgs boson or a Utah firefly) that there's no point in arguing about it. They tend to focus more on exploring and explaining spiritual observations. 

 

As to whether there is or is not evidence for the claim that God exists, I think that's a whole other ball of wax involving defining what constitutes acceptable evidence, which I don't have time for today (it's my daughter's birthday, I have to go prep a mad scientist party). But I would suggest that sometimes a lack of data does not indicate a lack of the existence of evidence, but rather often merely demonstrates a lack of adequate data collection tools and methods for that type of evidence. You can't clip off a sample of sunlight with a pair of scissors and put it on a microscope slide to look at it under magnification, but that doesn't mean there's no evidence beyond the anecdotal for the existence of sunlight, even if you've lived your whole life in a cave and have never seen it yourself. It just means that the selected sampling method is incompatible with the item being studied. I often wish I could just bring someone a jar of spiritual "sunlight", but it doesn't work that way.

 

Yes, many parts of the physical world are observable to all. However, many parts and aspects are not. For example, very few people have directly observed an atom, let alone a proton or an electron. I certainly have not. However, I understand enough of the theory and research (though not very much, proportianately) that I am sufficiently "certain" of their existence even though I have never directly observed one. (But I also understand that there exists a slim possibility that a future scientific discovery could blow current atomic theory completely to bits.) They are primarily understood to exist based on the effect that they have on things we can observe in some way, such as samples of easily observable elemental substances. Again, I see here a parallel with spiritual phenomena--you can't always observe them directly, but there are observable patterns of effect (in my opinion) that demonstrate their existence. 

 

Until very recently the existence of Utah fireflies was based only on subjective, anecdotal evidence--people claimed to have had the experience of seeing and touching them. But it was scientifically accepted that fireflies don't exist in Utah until someone finally went out and applied a data collection process appropriate to the hypothesis being tested and the nature of the evidence that would support it. Now it is scientifically accepted that there is actually at least one established population of fireflies in Utah (and the debates over why that is begin to rage...lol). But I have still never seen one.  Lots of people say they've seen them, including recognized experts in the field. But at some level I just have to decide whether I'm going to take those other people's word for it or not. Sure there are photos, but what proof do I have, other than the word of the photographer, that they were taken in Utah? Or that they're not just highly sophisticated computer renderings? Or whatever other factor of doubt I might entertain. 

 

But again...that's delving into that discussion about what constitutes adequate evidence that I don't have time for. 

What constitutes adequate scientific evidence has been agreed upon by the scientific community for the most part. It's what we can observe and measure using our senses or tools that extend those sense. The Higgs Bozon, sunlight, atoms and Utah fireflies have had their existence confirmed by evidence that falls within that agreement of what constitutes adequate evidence. The computer models and math you mention are based on that evidence. They are not seperate and apart or analogous in some way to religious feelings. There's no wiggle room there. 

 

Yes, the higgs Bozon and the fireflies (and in my neck of the woods, the Eastern Cougar) have all been predicted or expected to be found before being found but they were all found using that same agreement of what constitutes adequate evidence. What could detect God? Will we discover a new sense or build a microscope powerful enough to find God tucked  behind an atom? 

[WishboneDawn]

Oh good!   ^_^ 

 

 

Unless all scripture that reveals unreasonable events and knowledge is interpreted as allegorical (in which case, God is nothing more than an allegory), I can't see how the religious/supernatural aspects of scripture can be supported by reason.

 

 

My baby is 13. He's still cute when he sleeps (albeit, much more hairy).

 

I'm not sure why it follows that God is nothing more then allegory if the Bible is allegory. 1984 didn't render communism nothing more then an allegory. Regardless, I'm not sure I'd argue it's all meant as allegory. I'm quite sure the Ancient Hebrews, while not literal in any modern sense, did believe supernatural events were possible. Heck, the natural world was a much wider place in our imagination before the Greeks and eventually modern science. 

 

But yeah, I have trouble with the supernatural events too. I mumble through parts of the Nicean creed at times. But I should be clear and say I don't know. You ask me these questions and I'm generally sitting at the desk wondering the same thing. I offer answers but more to test them then because I'm firmly convinced of them. The, "it's a journey," thing. So bear that in mind as you read.

 

I think reason probably challenges those supernatural aspects rather then supports them. And I don't think they can all be written off as allegory or metaphor. Some are central to a Christian faith, others were very likely meant as something the author thought possible. So......you choose where you're going to suspend your belief and appeal to faith and, yup, set aside reason. In Anglican lingo I'd say that's where scripture might inform or even subvert reason, tell it to go grab a cup of coffee. Where you do that, probably can't simply be arbitrary. Poo pooing the Resurrection while wholeheartedly embracing a talking donkey might present a problem, even in the CoE, so the tradition can step in. 

 

The rational part of me is thinking the above is not so good. But I never promised that part of me it could have free reign anyway. 

 

And I know none of that is a satisfactory answer if reason and rationality are a person's primary concerns. But it should be clear from many of my other posts that I compartmentalize my thinking quite well when it comes to dealing with certain issues. :D

[Free]

It is often true that science is not trying to prove the existence of observable phenomena. However, there are times when science is trying to prove the existence of an unobserved, and possibly unobservable (with present tools) but mathematically hypothesized aspect of an observable phenomenon, such as the Higgs boson.

Yes, but the prediction of the existence of unobserved phenomena does not originate in the wild imagination of an eccentric scientist somewhere, but is based on scientific models built to explain existing phenomena. There is a carefully worked out basis for such predictions.

 

But I would suggest that sometimes a lack of data does not indicate a lack of the existence of evidence, but rather often merely demonstrates a lack of adequate data collection tools and methods for that type of evidence.

 

The same can be said of any wild theory out there - that it could possibly be true or possibly false. The sensible thing to do in such a case would be to withhold belief until reasonable evidence can be found in support of the theory. Why should belief in God be excluded from such a requirement?

 

On the other hand, I have found that internal spiritual conditions can be replicated, and that doing so does indeed produce consistent, repeatable results. No, I can't share the methodology with other people in a precise, scientific manner because of the inadequacy of equipment and standardized measures, methods, and even terminology. But being unable to communicate a result does not mean the result didn't happen, and doesn't happen regularly, it only means that I lack the tools to communicate it adequately to another person. And unfortunately (or perhaps fortunately...but again, that's another subject) it means that other people have to navigate their own way through the internal spiritual experimental milieu.

 

I am not sure what internal spiritual conditions you are referring to here, but if you are talking about attributes such as peace or joy, these are not inaccessible to the irreligious. Besides there is exciting research being conducted on various aspects of how the mind works. It would not surprise me at all if science comes up with methods to produce consistent, repeatable results in areas previously relegated to religion.

 

[Erin]

 

Have you ever heard Voddie Baucham on Why I Choose to Believe the Bible?

 

You might really love it.

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Km4oBJ9GHc8

 

Honestly, how anyone could watch that and then still come up with the same tired old arguments baffles me...  

 

Dr. Bachaum is an extremely intelligent, Oxford-educated man who makes several very valid points.  For example, why would anyone try to use scientific method to validate a historic document (or rather, collection of documents)?  Or how is the life and teaching of Christ, with dozens of eyewitness accounts, less believable than the teachings of Socrates with a single one (Plato)?

 

 

It's because I'm extremely rational that I believe in Christ, not in spite of it...

[Laura Corin]

Honestly, how anyone could watch that and then still come up with the same tired old arguments baffles me...  

 

Dr. Bachaum is an extremely intelligent, Oxford-educated man who makes several very valid points.  For example, why would anyone try to use scientific method to validate a historic document (or rather, collection of documents)?  Or how is the life and teaching of Christ, with dozens of eyewitness accounts, less believable than the teachings of Socrates with a single one (Plato)?

 

 

It's because I'm extremely rational that I believe in Christ, not in spite of it...

 

That's interesting.  I don't read Plato as a description of particular events - does anyone really think that there was a Symposium in which exactly those interactions took place?  I read Plato for the philosophy described and elucidated (please don't take me into the details of Plato - it's been a while).  

 

Similarly, I look at the New Testament as a story, probably with a lot of elements based on fact, but that is interesting for how it is reported and the philosophy it embodies, even if the accounts were not compiled until a long time after the fact.

 

I don't treat either of them as 'history' - they are texts for a purpose.  

 

On the other hand, by the time you add in contemporary accounts by Xenophon, Aristotle and Aristophanes to Plato, I suspect that we may have reached history.

 

L

[Guest]

INFJ here, with the F being very close to a T. This has been a fascinating discussion.

 

I go through periods of doubt from time to time. When it happens I pray for belief - because i really, really want to believe - and belief comes back. I did have to do a fair amount of searching to find the church (Eastern Orthodox) that's right for me. It's the only one that makes any sense to me at all.

 

I really have to work at it at times because I think it would be easier for me not to believe in anything at all.

 

Probably none of this is very helpful, but I definitely understand where you're coming from.

For myself, though, this has become one more reason to NOT believe. I have prayed for belief. I prayed for wisdom, as instructed in the book of James. I begged and begged God to help my unbelief, to assuage my doubts, to give me a greater portion of faith, to make himself known to me. I repeatedly threw myself into books and Books of the Bible, searching for something, looking for something compelling. Nothing changed. Nothing happened.

 

I had to conclude that if God does relate to humankind, He isn't interested in me. I wanted to believe. I wanted to have faith. But there was a point where it seemed to me that either God doesn't intervene in anyone's life or he isn't going to do that with me for "some mysterious reason." None of that squares with a God who loves me like his precious child and seeks and searches for me like a precious lost lamb. I was the one banging on the door, but it did not open, so...What other conclusion can I come to?

[melmichigan]

For myself, though, this has become one more reason to NOT believe. I have prayed for belief. I prayed for wisdom, as instructed in the book of James. I begged and begged God to help my unbelief, to assuage my doubts, to give me a greater portion of faith, to make himself known to me. I repeatedly threw myself into books and Books of the Bible, searching for something, looking for something compelling. Nothing changed. Nothing happened.

 

I had to conclude that if God does relate to humankind, He isn't interested in me. I wanted to believe. I wanted to have faith. But there was a point where it seemed to me that either God doesn't intervene in anyone's life or he isn't going to do that with me for "some mysterious reason." None of that squares with a God who loves me like his precious child and seeks and searches for me like a precious lost lamb. I was the one banging on the door, but it did not open, so...What other conclusion can I come to?

 

I really, really wanted to honor my Mom's final wishes.  I would have loved to have been able to have found a faith like hers.  It just didn't happen.

[Guest]

BTW, OP, I was just re-reading your original post and I want to comment that I do think there is a difference between proof and certainty. I personally was not looking for "proof." Certainty is what I wanted, but I could not attain that, either.

 

I am 99% certain that my husband has not cheated on me with another person. I have no proof, which would require that something or someone has followed his comings and goings for 20+ years, recorded them, and drawn the conclusion that he could not have ever done so. But I have certainty, because I see his behavior towards me. I don't see evidence of suspicious things - a lot of weird phone calling or e-mailing I can't explain, a lot of absences I can't explain, money spent that can't be tallied - shame/guilt behavior that doesn't link to known causes. I could be incorrect in my faith, but my faith is reasonable because I don't have questionable evidence to the contrary.

 

This is the same type of certainty I wanted about God, but failed to attain.

[melmichigan]

Bart Ehrman

 

Some of his TC lectures are quite interesting.  Misquoting Jesus is on my list. I'm currently reading Jesus: Apocalyptic Prophet of the New Millennium, but I'm waiting for How Jesus Became God: The Exaltation of a Jewish Preacher from Galilee.

[Dicentra]

I tried to watch the Baucham video on YouTube and it says that it's no longer available due to some copyright thing. :(  Does anyone have another link for it?  ( I know - I should just go to YouTube and search for it myself but I'm feeling lazy today. ;))

[Dicentra]

nm....why bother 

 

I did read your post before you changed your mind, WendyK, and I thought it was good. :)

[Erin]

 

 

On the other hand, by the time you add in contemporary accounts by Xenophon, Aristotle and Aristophanes to Plato, I suspect that we may have reached history.

But yet the accounts of the dozens of eyewitnesses to Jesus don't? 

 

Try this one, Dicentra:

http://canthebiblebetrusted.blogspot.com/p/is-bible-reliable-and-accurate-document.html

This one is broken in to 5 parts.

[Laura Corin]

But yet the accounts of the dozens of eyewitnesses to Jesus don't? 

 

 

 

I'm listening to Voddie Baucham.  He says at minute 30 that we only have Plato on Socrates.  This is not correct. The reason that the sources for Socrates that I mention approach history is that they are not all written by disciples.

 

But, back to my point: for me, the New Testament and the works of Plato are equivalent in their aims and each are likely to have been crafted at their very birth in order to give a particular impression.

 

L

 

 

[Erin]

95% of history is nothing more than eyewitness accounts...  what are primary sources, afterall?

For that matter, eyewitnesses are one of the key elements of our judicial system.

 

You are in a distinct minority amongst historians if you don't put much stock in eyewitness accounts.

 

 

 

 He says at minute 30 that we only have Plato on Socrates.  This is not correct.

No, we only have Plato (and to a lesser extent Xenophon, whose name I had to look up because I sure don't keep it in my head! lol) for the philosophies/teachings of Socrates.  

Other sources say he existed.  

[livetoread]

Quill, I had the same experience, except I used to believe. When it was slipping away I held on with all my might, praying, pleading etc. It took years for me to quit trying to revive the corpse that was long dead. Finally calling off the efforts ended up being a relief.

[Erin]

OK, for a baseline, what have you put your faith in?  

 

[Onceuponatime]

Some people would question the "dozens of eyewitness accounts." If we are talking about the gospels, that would be 4 accounts and they could be problematic. They were written decades after the events depicted. The authors are not named, but are assumed by tradition. They are supposedly written by people who would have been insiders, not those with nothing to lose by telling the complete truth. ( This is something you are supposed to consider when looking at primary documents.) Historical studies of the gospels  show knowledge of events that happened in the intervening years may have influenced the stories. I believe Josephus is the next closest person to write about Jesus  and his information was second or third hand.

[Erin]

 They were written decades after the events depicted.

Where were you when the Challenger blew up?  

How about 9/11?

 

My mother can tell you exactly what she was wearing and what people were doing for several days surrounding the assassination of Kennedy.  That was five decades ago, and she was only 14 years old.  Nor had she been hanging out with Kennedy for the few years prior to his assassination.  Shoot, she'd never even met the guy...  

Yet fifty years later, she remembers the day, and most of the week, of a virtual stranger's death with perfect clarity.

 

 

 

Wendy, in reading your recent post, I don't think you understand what faith IS...

For example, because I'll live forever, what I do now is vitally important.  

[Onceuponatime]

Where were you when the Challenger blew up?  

How about 9/11?

 

My mother can tell you exactly what she was wearing and what people were doing for several days surrounding the assassination of Kennedy.  That was five decades ago, and she was only 14 years old.  Nor had she been hanging out with Kennedy for the few years prior to his assassination.  Shoot, she'd never even met the guy...  

Yet fifty years later, she remembers the day, and most of the week, of a virtual stranger's death with perfect clarity.

 

 

 

Wendy, in reading your recent post, I don't think you understand what faith IS...

For example, because I'll live forever, what I do now is vitally important.  

 

Maybe, but does she remember 3 years worth of activities and speeches with perfect clarity, word for word? I'm willing to bet that others around her would have remembered things slightly differently. That tends to be the nature of eyewitness accounts. Now her truth would still be truth, just not absolute truth.  Plus, you have no way of knowing what the intervening years may have done, subtlely perhaps, to that memory.

 

I believe I remember certain events with perfect clarity, but my children beg to differ with me. Some of them even claim I'm making things up because that is not how they remember it.

[Erin]

Actually, all of the historic details you're asking are readily available via Google, so I'll just answer the opinion question.'

 

 

I know you weren't seriously saying that is an important detail, but when that story gets passed down the details will change.

 

No, I was saying that the details I remember in connection to an extremely significant event in my life, will remain the details I remember whether it was last week, or 50 years from now (when I write it down).

 

 

 

Maybe, but does she remember 3 years worth of activities and speeches with perfect clarity, word for word? I'm willing to bet that others around her would have remembered things slightly differently.

:confused:

 

I'm getting the distinct impression you haven't really studied the Bible...  

[Dicentra]

Does anyone have any suggestions for readings on extra-biblical (I think that's the right term) sources on the historicity of the bible?  Particularly on the supernatural events contained in the bible?  I'm on satellite internet so I've managed to watch about 2 1/2 parts of Dr. Baucham's talk but my internet connection has now cut me off from streaming so I'll have to wait to watch the rest. :)  I haven't heard him yet speak about sources other than the bible itself but maybe he does in the last half.  If anyone has any links (preferably to readings as I'm cut off until later from streaming) to extra-biblical sources that I can research, I'd be ever so grateful. :)

[Onceuponatime]

 I'm getting the distinct impression you haven't really studied the Bible...  

 

That would be a wrong impression. I've spent the greater part of my 49 years religiously studying the heck out of my Bible. I've read it from cover to cover, most parts multiple times.

 

Last year I came to the conclusion I could no longer believe it is the literal Word of God.

[Erin]

Precisely.

That's why we like to have multiple accounts.  

And that is just working from a purely human stand point, even before we get into Divine intention.  

[HRAAB]

Where were you when the Challenger blew up?  

How about 9/11?

 

My mother can tell you exactly what she was wearing and what people were doing for several days surrounding the assassination of Kennedy.  That was five decades ago, and she was only 14 years old.  Nor had she been hanging out with Kennedy for the few years prior to his assassination.  Shoot, she'd never even met the guy...  

Yet fifty years later, she remembers the day, and most of the week, of a virtual stranger's death with perfect clarity.

 

 

 

Wendy, in reading your recent post, I don't think you understand what faith IS...

For example, because I'll live forever, what I do now is vitally important.  

 

All those events were recorded live as they were happening, not to mention the thousands and thousands of people that wrote first person accounts of what they actually witnessed with their own eyes.  Where is the first person account of Jesus walking out of the tomb.  Where is the first person account of the Holy Spirit coming over Mary.  Let alone thousands of first person accounts.  

 

Faith is when belief persists without any observable, documentable proof.  Jesus' virgin birth and resurrection cannot be proven.  Isn't that where faith comes in?

[Guest]

Quill, I had the same experience, except I used to believe. When it was slipping away I held on with all my might, praying, pleading etc. It took years for me to quit trying to revive the corpse that was long dead. Finally calling off the efforts ended up being a relief.

I used to believe, too. I was a passionate Christian from 1999 to 2003. Your story is the same as mine, and I can't even say I'm done with it all at this point. My life is still tightly wrapped in the framework of Christianity. Most of this is for my children's sakes.

[Laura Corin]

Here's a story.  Over thirty years ago I was on a drama course led by a charismatic teacher.  She was doing acting exercises with us.  Inadvertently, these led to an episode of mass hysteria in which we cried, screamed, fainted and babbled.

 

I was one of the hysterics.  I remember it quite clearly.  My memory is of a frightening and bizarre event.

 

What if I had been following a religious leader and not a drama teacher?  Would my eye witness account have been different?  What if that religious leader had then been persecuted and then died a horrible death.  Through what lens would I have viewed that event?  What eye witness account would I then have given?

 

L

[albeto.]

 

Have I removed the double standard, albeto?

 

I think so, yes.

 

:)

 

I would just keep in mind the double standard now with respect to that which is offered in support of any claim. For example, Erin suggests there were eyewitnesses to Jesus' death and resurrection. I would wager that the same criteria she uses to justify her belief in an extraordinary claim -  a god-man performed many miracles, cured many illnesses, cast out devils, celebrated a Last Supper with 12 disciples, was sacrificed in atonement for mankind, and was resurrected and ascended into Heaven, understood to be the "light of the world," and the "good shepherd," - is not similarly acceptable for justifying the one-time widespread belief that Mithras was this god-man. In fact, these same extraordinary events and claims have been attributed to both god-men, celebrated by communities of sincere believers for at least a thousand years, promoted as "truth" to those who hadn't heard the "good news." Conveniently, only one story is familiar to us today, so that one sounds plausible. Only, if we apply these same claims to an unfamiliar character, like Mithras, we'll see that these claims really don't sound so plausible after all. 

 

The same will be said for personal feelings, things that cannot be witnessed by others, but experienced individually. These experiences will be offered as evidence that the explanation for the experience is credible. God changed my life. Christ brought me out of alcoholism. The Holy Spirit cured me of anger. These experiences may be very real - euphoric emotions followed by behavioral changes that were met with far less resistance than before. But if we exchange the explanation for a belief system not so popular, will it withstand the scrutiny? Do we believe that fairies changed someone's life, or the stars brought someone out of alcohol, or that aliens implanting special space-aged nano-particles in the brain cured someone of anger? If not, why not? If extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, then look for that evidence. 

 

 That's the kind of double standard you might want to be aware of while you look into such claims of the supernatural.

[Dicentra]

Extra-biblical accounts?  Anyone????

 

As the OP, could I ask a bit of a favour?  Things are getting a bit personal and a bit heated and I was really hoping that this thread wouldn't go the way of so many others.  I realize I have no right to control or direct this thread so I'll just put out a request to keep the thread on a philosophical/intellectual level instead of an emotional one.  I don't want anyone, from any viewpoint, to feel attacked or like they have to defend themselves.  I also don't want anyone to feel as though they MUST prove themselves and their viewpoint right.  That was never my intent with this thread.  I guarantee - I'm stubborn enough that nothing any one person says or doesn't say will sway me in one direction or another. :D

 

So...

 

Any links for me?  Extra-biblical accounts?

[Onceuponatime]

What kind of extra biblical accounts do you want? Primary sources, ancient documents and authors, or something else? What time period should they have been written?

[Dicentra]

What kind of extra biblical accounts do you want? Primary sources, ancient documents and authors, or something else? What time period should they have been written?

 

Any of the above? :)  Primary sources would be great although I'm assuming I'd have to read them in translation since I don't read any ancient languages. ;)  I specifically asked about extra-biblical sources supporting the supernatural events given in the bible because, to me, showing that the people, places, and non-supernatural events can be shown to be historic doesn't then, ipso facto (is that the correct expression?), mean that the supernatural events must also be historic.  Does that make sense?

[HRAAB]

Faith is such an odd thing.  Accepting the unseeable.  Not things that we haven't witnessed yet, but things that are unseeable.  The supernatural.  Then trying to prove this faith by history and reason.  To a point, you can use history and reason.  I find certain parts of belief systems reasonable and historical, but you cannot entirely prove your belief using history and reason.  In the end it comes down to faith.  Faith picks up where reason and proof fail.  Faith isn't a state that can be proven or reasoned.  When people start trying to prove their faith by using historical records or reason, my mind starts to shut down.  That's what faith is: belief in the unprovable.  If it were able to be proved, why would one need faith?

[Dicentra]

Faith is such an odd thing.  Accepting the unseeable.  Not things that we haven't witnessed yet, but things that are unseeable.  The supernatural.  Then trying to prove this faith by history and reason.  To a point, you can use history and reason.  I find certain parts of belief systems reasonable and historical, but you cannot entirely prove your belief using history and reason.  In the end it comes down to faith.  Faith picks up where reason and proof fail.  Faith isn't a state that can be proven or reasoned.  When people start trying to prove their faith by using historical records or reason, my mind starts to shut down.  That's what faith is: belief in the unprovable.  If it were able to be proved, why would one need faith?

 

:)  Please don't think I'm attacking, Ishki!  I'm not looking for proof, though.  I know that's not feasible or reasonable.  I'm looking for a particular degree of certainty.  Does that make sense?

 

(I realize you may have been speaking to others and not me. :)  I just wanted to clarify that I'm not looking for provability, one way or the other.)

[albeto.]

I'm not sure why it follows that God is nothing more then allegory if the Bible is allegory.

What part of the bible isn't allegorical? Did Jesus really die, and rise again? If so, that's not a rational belief because it goes against everything we know about biology, chemistry, physics... heck, life. We know that oxygen is vital for cells to work, and that without breathing, there is no oxygen to the cells. We know that cell decay is permanent. We know how mold and fungus and bacteria grow on decaying meat. We know that if conditions were right to keep a body cool enough to withstand decomposition for three days, cells don't come back to life. That's not how physiology works. 

 

So, if his death was allegorical, was the reason for his death also allegorical? Is the concept of sin and redemption allegorical for the struggle of humanity to get along with each other while simultaneously trying to preserve one's own sense of well-being? That makes sense, but then in what way is the character of God any less allegorical?

 

But yeah, I have trouble with the supernatural events too. I mumble through parts of the Nicean creed at times. But I should be clear and say I don't know. You ask me these questions and I'm generally sitting at the desk wondering the same thing. I offer answers but more to test them then because I'm firmly convinced of them. The, "it's a journey," thing. So bear that in mind as you read.

Will do. :)

 

I think reason probably challenges those supernatural aspects rather then supports them. And I don't think they can all be written off as allegory or metaphor. Some are central to a Christian faith, others were very likely meant as something the author thought possible. So......you choose where you're going to suspend your belief and appeal to faith and, yup, set aside reason. In Anglican lingo I'd say that's where scripture might inform or even subvert reason, tell it to go grab a cup of coffee. Where you do that, probably can't simply be arbitrary. Poo pooing the Resurrection while wholeheartedly embracing a talking donkey might present a problem, even in the CoE, so the tradition can step in.

But this raises the question, for me anyway, if the claims to a supernatural reality are correct, if this Yahweh character really exists, then our deciding what we want to believe about it is irrelevant. After all, we can believe anything we want, but that doesn't make it true. If there really is a God, and he really does have particular criteria (whether it's as simple as believing he exists or as complex as putting all your faith in him), it would make a difference, right? This difference isn't up to us, it's up to him, which means writing something off for our convenience isn't such a good idea, is it?

 

The rational part of me is thinking the above is not so good. But I never promised that part of me it could have free reign anyway.

Why not? What's the downside of a rational methodology? What's the weakness in critical thinking?

 

And I know none of that is a satisfactory answer if reason and rationality are a person's primary concerns. But it should be clear from many of my other posts that I compartmentalize my thinking quite well when it comes to dealing with certain issues. :D

I think we all do that, so I'll consider myself in good company, if you don't mind.

[Onceuponatime]

http://carm.org/non-biblical-accounts-new-testament-events-andor-people

 

This gives a few primary sources of outside information about Jesus and Christianity.

 

As far as info about supernatural events, the eclipse mentioned in one of those sources is said to have possibly happened at Jesus's death. Other than that, I've never heard of any actual outside corroboration of anything supernatural. There are later Christian writings from the 2nd century of people who said they knew people who studied under the apostles. Christianity started out as a very small and insignificant movement in Judaism until the teachings of Paul took hold. It wasn't the only Jewish group with a Messaiah either. I believe Josephus also covers some of that. It should be easy to find his writings in English online.

[albeto.]

Honestly, how anyone could watch that and then still come up with the same tired old arguments baffles me...

Sadly that video is no longer up. Perhaps there's a transcript, or a written explanation to look at?

 

Dr. Bachaum is an extremely intelligent, Oxford-educated man who makes several very valid points.  For example, why would anyone try to use scientific method to validate a historic document (or rather, collection of documents)?  Or how is the life and teaching of Christ, with dozens of eyewitness accounts, less believable than the teachings of Socrates with a single one (Plato)?

The scientific method is used to discern historical accuracy. It simply refers to making observations, collecting data, analyzing that data critically with as much objectivity as possible. I'd be interested in knowing about eyewitness accounts that support any of the claims made about Jesus. As I understand, the earliest writings about him date to some years after his alleged death and resurrection.

 

[Dicentra]

http://carm.org/non-biblical-accounts-new-testament-events-andor-people

 

This gives a few primary sources of outside information about Jesus and Christianity.

 

As far as info about supernatural events, the eclipse mentioned in one of those sources is said to have possibly happened at Jesus's death. Other than that, I've never heard of any actual outside corroboration of anything supernatural. There are later Christian writings from the 2nd century of people who said they knew people who studied under the apostles. Christianity started out as a very small and insignificant movement in Judaism until the teachings of Paul took hold. It wasn't the only Jewish group with a Messaiah either. I believe Josephus also covers some of that. It should be easy to find his writings in English online.

 

Thank you!  I'll do some Googling of Josephus and see what I come up with. :)