Board index ‹ Faith and Knowledge
18 posts
• Page 1 of 2 • 1, 2
belief VS knowledge
by youdontknowwhothisis » Tue Nov 20, 2012 6:47 pm
Whats the difference between belief and knowledge?
- youdontknowwhothisis
- Posts: 7
- Joined: Sun Nov 18, 2012 8:51 pm
Re: belief VS knowledge
by jimwalton » Wed Nov 21, 2012 9:52 am
Great question. Knowledge is what we've learned, understand, and remember from the past and present, and faith is our expectation of what will happen in the immediate and far future based on what we've learned from the past. In other words, and maybe more clear, faith isn’t a leap in the dark; faith is not “believing something unreasonable with all your heart.” Faith is always an assumption of truth based on enough evidence to make it reasonable for you to make that assumption. Let me try to explain.
When you sit down in a chair, you didn’t think twice about sitting down. You have enough faith that the chair will hold you. Faith? Yes. You’ve sat in chairs hundreds of times, but can you be absolutely sure it will hold you this time? No, you can never be absolutely sure. Things do break on occasion. But you make an assumption of truth based on enough evidence to make it reasonable for you to make that assumption, and you sit down. That’s an act of faith, and it has nothing to do with a leap in the dark.
You know, almost all of life is by faith, because we can never know what lies ahead. Every time you turn a door knob you are expressing faith. Because 10,000 times you’ve turned a door knob, and it opened the door. So you turn the knob and move forward. Does it always work that way? No. Sometimes you turn the knob and the door doesn’t open. But you make an assumption of truth based on enough evidence to make it reasonable for you to make that assumption.
We know chairs hold people. That's past experience and learning. We know turning door knobs open doors. We know that when we turn a key a car starts. that's all knowledge. But every time we turn a car key, it's an exercise of faith. We don't know for sure that the car will start, and unfortunately sometimes it doesn't. Then we use our knowledge to try to figure out what to do about it. We dial our phone (as an act of faith, assuming it will work and help us reach another person), and try to get help.
Understand? We live our lives by faith. All of us, every day, every action. Because we can't know anything future, but we assume what will happen, based on the evidence and our experience. Get it?
OK, now, your question probably pertains to spiritual things. My faith in God is not a blind leap in the dark. It's an assumption of truth based on enough evidence to make it reasonable for me to make that assumption. When you read the Bible, people came to Jesus to be healed because they had heard about other people who had been healed. They had seen other people whom Jesus had healed. People had heard him teach. Their faith was based on evidence. Jesus kept giving them new information, and they gained new knowledge from it. Based on that knowledge, they acted with more faith. People came to him to make requests. See how it works? My faith in God is based on my knowledge of the credibility of those writings, the logic of the teaching, and the historical evidence behind it all. The resurrection, for instance, has evidences that give it credibility that motivate me to believe in it. My faith in the resurrection is an assumption of truth based on enough evidence that makes it reasonable to hold that assumption. The same is true for my belief in the existence of God, my belief that the Bible is God's word, and my understanding of how life works.
Talk to me more if you want to. This subject goes further and deeper. I'm just scratching the surface and opening the subject with this reply.
When you sit down in a chair, you didn’t think twice about sitting down. You have enough faith that the chair will hold you. Faith? Yes. You’ve sat in chairs hundreds of times, but can you be absolutely sure it will hold you this time? No, you can never be absolutely sure. Things do break on occasion. But you make an assumption of truth based on enough evidence to make it reasonable for you to make that assumption, and you sit down. That’s an act of faith, and it has nothing to do with a leap in the dark.
You know, almost all of life is by faith, because we can never know what lies ahead. Every time you turn a door knob you are expressing faith. Because 10,000 times you’ve turned a door knob, and it opened the door. So you turn the knob and move forward. Does it always work that way? No. Sometimes you turn the knob and the door doesn’t open. But you make an assumption of truth based on enough evidence to make it reasonable for you to make that assumption.
We know chairs hold people. That's past experience and learning. We know turning door knobs open doors. We know that when we turn a key a car starts. that's all knowledge. But every time we turn a car key, it's an exercise of faith. We don't know for sure that the car will start, and unfortunately sometimes it doesn't. Then we use our knowledge to try to figure out what to do about it. We dial our phone (as an act of faith, assuming it will work and help us reach another person), and try to get help.
Understand? We live our lives by faith. All of us, every day, every action. Because we can't know anything future, but we assume what will happen, based on the evidence and our experience. Get it?
OK, now, your question probably pertains to spiritual things. My faith in God is not a blind leap in the dark. It's an assumption of truth based on enough evidence to make it reasonable for me to make that assumption. When you read the Bible, people came to Jesus to be healed because they had heard about other people who had been healed. They had seen other people whom Jesus had healed. People had heard him teach. Their faith was based on evidence. Jesus kept giving them new information, and they gained new knowledge from it. Based on that knowledge, they acted with more faith. People came to him to make requests. See how it works? My faith in God is based on my knowledge of the credibility of those writings, the logic of the teaching, and the historical evidence behind it all. The resurrection, for instance, has evidences that give it credibility that motivate me to believe in it. My faith in the resurrection is an assumption of truth based on enough evidence that makes it reasonable to hold that assumption. The same is true for my belief in the existence of God, my belief that the Bible is God's word, and my understanding of how life works.
Talk to me more if you want to. This subject goes further and deeper. I'm just scratching the surface and opening the subject with this reply.
- jimwalton
- Site Admin
- Posts: 9111
- Joined: Mon Sep 17, 2012 2:28 pm
Re: belief VS knowledge
by Sean Flowers » Wed Nov 21, 2012 9:20 pm
Isn't the question of the existence of God a matter of belief, and not really of knowledge? Here's what I mean:
According to John 4:24, "God is spirit." As far as I can tell, most NT scholars understand this to mean that God is immaterial and not part of the created order. If that's true, then He is not observable through our five senses, unless He makes Himself known to us through them. And, if you really think about it, without our five senses we could learn nothing. Our five senses send information about the world to our brain, and that information is then processed within that brain. One could say that, without our five senses, we'd have no new information to process. And, without our brains, we'd have no ability to process. And, here's the difficult thing I experience existentially regarding the "belief VS knowledge" question as it pertains to the question of the existence of God. I agree with Mr. Walton that we all exercise faith and that this faith is (or ought to be) based on knowledge. Faith is a prediction of what most likely will be the case (e.g., that the chair that has so reliably held me for 6 years [knowledge] will not collapse the next time I sit in it [faith]). Faith as it pertains to people works much the same way, in fact. We learn of their character through experience, and, based on that character we make a faith decision whether or not to trust them in the present or future. But, the question of God is more difficult for me... Unlike other people whose existence I never question, God's existence I do. We certainly cannot trust in someone when we don't think he or she exists! This comes back to the whole "five senses" thing and what we might call "knowledge." So, I would make a distinction between trusting God's character and believing He exists. One must believe He exists prior to believing He is trustworthy (much like a chair or person is trustworthy).
Now, Christian philosopher JP Moreland argues that many Christians have gotten this issue wrong (i.e., regarding "belief VS. knowledge")... He notes that many believe that God's existence is a matter of faith, and that this is wrong. He argues that God's existence is actually a matter of knowledge, and that trusting this God is a matter of faith. Dr. Moreland believes that his cosmological argument constitutes evidence. He argues that the universe had a beginning, that this universe was caused, and that something that exists outside of this space-time-matter universe must have created it. He assumes that free-will is undetermined by prior events (e.g., brain activity, which is part of the created order), and that an act of this must have been the cause of the universe. Further, he then draws an implication from this, and assumes that free-will is limited to persons, and that a spaceless-timeless-immaterial being must have created the universe... (this was a quick overview of the argument). While I would definitely applaud Dr. Moreland for suggesting that the existence of God is a matter of knowledge, and would agree with him that the universe indeed had a beginning and was caused, I would point out that his assumption is that what we might call "free-will" is limited to persons (i.e., God, angels, and humans, but not animals). But this is, in fact, a matter of faith, and is an echo of Cartesian substance dualism (i.e., the belief that humans are made of two separate substances: physical and mental -- body and soul). But, the existence of the soul is really a matter of faith, not of knowledge. And, most neuroscientists would argue that our mental life is produced by the brain which is physical. Thus, even Dr. Moreland here fails to convince me, because his argument has a premise that is based on faith and not evidence.
So, back to the existential question I had mentioned regarding God's existence... I do wonder on what basis one can say that He exists. I want to know if there is evidence that He exists so that I might KNOW He exists, without relying upon philosophical speculation. Likewise, relying upon the possible validity and accuracy of historical documents may help other people, but it really doesn't help me recognize or relate to God as I would another person. As a human being, I rely upon my five senses to learn anything and everything. And, if God doesn't reveal Himself in reliable ways in the present, then I see no reason to believe He exists and to trust in Him.
How would you respond to this existential question Mr. Walton (or anyone else who has thought through this issue)? It really is a deeply personal struggle that (I'm sorry) dogmatism will only worsen.
Thank you for your time!
Sean
According to John 4:24, "God is spirit." As far as I can tell, most NT scholars understand this to mean that God is immaterial and not part of the created order. If that's true, then He is not observable through our five senses, unless He makes Himself known to us through them. And, if you really think about it, without our five senses we could learn nothing. Our five senses send information about the world to our brain, and that information is then processed within that brain. One could say that, without our five senses, we'd have no new information to process. And, without our brains, we'd have no ability to process. And, here's the difficult thing I experience existentially regarding the "belief VS knowledge" question as it pertains to the question of the existence of God. I agree with Mr. Walton that we all exercise faith and that this faith is (or ought to be) based on knowledge. Faith is a prediction of what most likely will be the case (e.g., that the chair that has so reliably held me for 6 years [knowledge] will not collapse the next time I sit in it [faith]). Faith as it pertains to people works much the same way, in fact. We learn of their character through experience, and, based on that character we make a faith decision whether or not to trust them in the present or future. But, the question of God is more difficult for me... Unlike other people whose existence I never question, God's existence I do. We certainly cannot trust in someone when we don't think he or she exists! This comes back to the whole "five senses" thing and what we might call "knowledge." So, I would make a distinction between trusting God's character and believing He exists. One must believe He exists prior to believing He is trustworthy (much like a chair or person is trustworthy).
Now, Christian philosopher JP Moreland argues that many Christians have gotten this issue wrong (i.e., regarding "belief VS. knowledge")... He notes that many believe that God's existence is a matter of faith, and that this is wrong. He argues that God's existence is actually a matter of knowledge, and that trusting this God is a matter of faith. Dr. Moreland believes that his cosmological argument constitutes evidence. He argues that the universe had a beginning, that this universe was caused, and that something that exists outside of this space-time-matter universe must have created it. He assumes that free-will is undetermined by prior events (e.g., brain activity, which is part of the created order), and that an act of this must have been the cause of the universe. Further, he then draws an implication from this, and assumes that free-will is limited to persons, and that a spaceless-timeless-immaterial being must have created the universe... (this was a quick overview of the argument). While I would definitely applaud Dr. Moreland for suggesting that the existence of God is a matter of knowledge, and would agree with him that the universe indeed had a beginning and was caused, I would point out that his assumption is that what we might call "free-will" is limited to persons (i.e., God, angels, and humans, but not animals). But this is, in fact, a matter of faith, and is an echo of Cartesian substance dualism (i.e., the belief that humans are made of two separate substances: physical and mental -- body and soul). But, the existence of the soul is really a matter of faith, not of knowledge. And, most neuroscientists would argue that our mental life is produced by the brain which is physical. Thus, even Dr. Moreland here fails to convince me, because his argument has a premise that is based on faith and not evidence.
So, back to the existential question I had mentioned regarding God's existence... I do wonder on what basis one can say that He exists. I want to know if there is evidence that He exists so that I might KNOW He exists, without relying upon philosophical speculation. Likewise, relying upon the possible validity and accuracy of historical documents may help other people, but it really doesn't help me recognize or relate to God as I would another person. As a human being, I rely upon my five senses to learn anything and everything. And, if God doesn't reveal Himself in reliable ways in the present, then I see no reason to believe He exists and to trust in Him.
How would you respond to this existential question Mr. Walton (or anyone else who has thought through this issue)? It really is a deeply personal struggle that (I'm sorry) dogmatism will only worsen.
Thank you for your time!
Sean
- Sean Flowers
- Posts: 10
- Joined: Wed Nov 21, 2012 7:32 pm
Re: belief VS knowledge
by jimwalton » Wed Nov 21, 2012 11:07 pm
Sean,
Thanks for the insightful reasoning and questioning. This is the beauty of dialogue.
Regarding the foundations of epistemology, I don't quite concur that all things are learned through the 5 senses and that observation is the only mechanism of enlightenment. To me that's simplistically naturalistic and precludes the possibility of an open (rather than a closed universe) system. My argument to support that thesis would be in the area of mathematics, where through abstract reasoning and sundry formulae, learning is able to take place and the structure of realities may be discovered ("learned"). Einstein's famous theory of relativity might provide a case in point: The math came first; the scientific observations through the 5 senses confirmed it.
I obviously agree that John 4.24 teaches that noncorporeality of God, and that the only way he can be known is through self-revelation. But the Bible teaches both general revelation (God revealing himself to us through our 5 senses), and special revelation (God making use of all available means (physical, mental, and spiritual). While there is an inherent subjectivity to all epistemologies, my reason and my five senses convince me of the reality of several worlds: the physical world around me that I can see and touch; the mental world of my thoughts which, though informed by my senses, operates independently of them; the emotional world of my visceral perceptions (sometimes in conflict with my mental world); and my spiritual world of a force and life outside the naturalistic system. Even if you disagree with the last one, the other three are at least items of discussion.
To your question, then: On what basis can we say that God exists? I find evidence in the following:
1. The created order. True science is limited to the scientific method, observation, and confirmation. Speculations backwards based on theories and agendas are, frankly, outside of the scope of true science, though that is not really what is being discussed here. To me the universe exhibits an order,complexity, and balance beyond the parameters possible in a system governed by pure chance. I see evidence of other forces at work that are necessary to make it even possible to generate what we see.
2. Purpose. While science and my five senses can tell me what is there and how it works, it cannot explain the area of purpose that my observations tell me is universal to humanity. We all have a sense of purpose, a desire for purpose, and a quest for meaning that to me is evidence of a foundation in the universe consistent with the existence of a divine being, and inconsistent with the limitations of a closed system of random coincidences regulated by natural processes.
3. Consistency. My study of Scripture finds in the Bible a credible explanation of humanity that anyone is able to observe with their five senses, reliably discussing hundreds of subjects pertinent to humanity (good, evil, purpose, history, depravity, joy, blessing, health, disease, et al.) with depth, breadth, and understanding. I find in the quality of the thoughts in the writing an intellect beyond the capacity of humanity, given that the writing took place over a 1300-year span by over 40 authors from numerous locations. I see there evidence that to me in convincing of a common source, despite the varieties of personalities and writing styles incorporated therein.
4. Lifechange. I have seen lives changed in ways far different from those excited about political processes, motivated by exciting business opportunities, transformed by relationships, or enlightened by ideas. The changes I have seen in individuals give evidence that they have been acted upon by a spiritual power of a life-giving nature, and those changes encompass a complete metamorphosis of attitudes, thoughts, desires, and actions.
This isn't a complete list, but enough to make my point.
What I find interesting is that the Bible claims that God confronted your exact objections and decided to appear on earth in the flesh so that people could perceive him with their eyes, touch him with their hands, and hear him with their ears. Even that wasn't good enough for them, according to the teaching of the Bible. Interesting that even convincing evidence given to the five senses wasn't adequate for someone who only sees what they want to see regardless of what is available to their senses.
Possibly you're unconvinced. I don't know. Sean, you know that some philosophers even wonder, and are able to effectively reason and "prove" that even we don't exist. Hence, Descartes' famous conclusion: "I think, therefore I am." At some point we add reason to observation to come to some conclusion that makes it reasonable to make an assumption of truth. Did Alexander the Great exist? We have no eyewitnesses who are still alive, and he cannot be proven by our 5 senses. But we place credibility in the historical documents that point to his existence, and we observe the changes that have come to the world through Hellenistic influences, and so we believe it even though we can't see it. In a sense, you can't KNOW God exists anymore than you can KNOW the American Civil War happened. You choose to believe the evidences that give credence and credibility to the historicity of the conflict, and you accept it as truth. I don't see that as any different than my believe in God that I consider to be based on reasonable recognitions of credibility, veracity, documentation, and observation. At its core, then, when you come right down to it, all (or almost all) of knowledge is really faith, since I'm choosing to believe which sources I will consider reliable (and even my 5 senses have deceived me on occasion), and I'm choosing to believe which ones I will deem as credible, and therefore everything I "know" is really that I'm choosing to trust those sources of information, be they my teachers, my text books, various historical documents, or whatever.
And to add another angle, if you rely only on your five senses to learn anything and everything, then you know nothing of satisfaction, delight, contentment, justice, or love. Those, after all, cannot be touched or smelled, seen, heard or tasted. I think you have limited yourself to a limited, robotic view of life: The Mr. Spock of "Star Trek," to use a ridiculous example.
Does God reveal himself in the present? Absolutely he does, in the ways I enumerated above.
Thanks for the insightful reasoning and questioning. This is the beauty of dialogue.
Regarding the foundations of epistemology, I don't quite concur that all things are learned through the 5 senses and that observation is the only mechanism of enlightenment. To me that's simplistically naturalistic and precludes the possibility of an open (rather than a closed universe) system. My argument to support that thesis would be in the area of mathematics, where through abstract reasoning and sundry formulae, learning is able to take place and the structure of realities may be discovered ("learned"). Einstein's famous theory of relativity might provide a case in point: The math came first; the scientific observations through the 5 senses confirmed it.
I obviously agree that John 4.24 teaches that noncorporeality of God, and that the only way he can be known is through self-revelation. But the Bible teaches both general revelation (God revealing himself to us through our 5 senses), and special revelation (God making use of all available means (physical, mental, and spiritual). While there is an inherent subjectivity to all epistemologies, my reason and my five senses convince me of the reality of several worlds: the physical world around me that I can see and touch; the mental world of my thoughts which, though informed by my senses, operates independently of them; the emotional world of my visceral perceptions (sometimes in conflict with my mental world); and my spiritual world of a force and life outside the naturalistic system. Even if you disagree with the last one, the other three are at least items of discussion.
To your question, then: On what basis can we say that God exists? I find evidence in the following:
1. The created order. True science is limited to the scientific method, observation, and confirmation. Speculations backwards based on theories and agendas are, frankly, outside of the scope of true science, though that is not really what is being discussed here. To me the universe exhibits an order,complexity, and balance beyond the parameters possible in a system governed by pure chance. I see evidence of other forces at work that are necessary to make it even possible to generate what we see.
2. Purpose. While science and my five senses can tell me what is there and how it works, it cannot explain the area of purpose that my observations tell me is universal to humanity. We all have a sense of purpose, a desire for purpose, and a quest for meaning that to me is evidence of a foundation in the universe consistent with the existence of a divine being, and inconsistent with the limitations of a closed system of random coincidences regulated by natural processes.
3. Consistency. My study of Scripture finds in the Bible a credible explanation of humanity that anyone is able to observe with their five senses, reliably discussing hundreds of subjects pertinent to humanity (good, evil, purpose, history, depravity, joy, blessing, health, disease, et al.) with depth, breadth, and understanding. I find in the quality of the thoughts in the writing an intellect beyond the capacity of humanity, given that the writing took place over a 1300-year span by over 40 authors from numerous locations. I see there evidence that to me in convincing of a common source, despite the varieties of personalities and writing styles incorporated therein.
4. Lifechange. I have seen lives changed in ways far different from those excited about political processes, motivated by exciting business opportunities, transformed by relationships, or enlightened by ideas. The changes I have seen in individuals give evidence that they have been acted upon by a spiritual power of a life-giving nature, and those changes encompass a complete metamorphosis of attitudes, thoughts, desires, and actions.
This isn't a complete list, but enough to make my point.
What I find interesting is that the Bible claims that God confronted your exact objections and decided to appear on earth in the flesh so that people could perceive him with their eyes, touch him with their hands, and hear him with their ears. Even that wasn't good enough for them, according to the teaching of the Bible. Interesting that even convincing evidence given to the five senses wasn't adequate for someone who only sees what they want to see regardless of what is available to their senses.
Possibly you're unconvinced. I don't know. Sean, you know that some philosophers even wonder, and are able to effectively reason and "prove" that even we don't exist. Hence, Descartes' famous conclusion: "I think, therefore I am." At some point we add reason to observation to come to some conclusion that makes it reasonable to make an assumption of truth. Did Alexander the Great exist? We have no eyewitnesses who are still alive, and he cannot be proven by our 5 senses. But we place credibility in the historical documents that point to his existence, and we observe the changes that have come to the world through Hellenistic influences, and so we believe it even though we can't see it. In a sense, you can't KNOW God exists anymore than you can KNOW the American Civil War happened. You choose to believe the evidences that give credence and credibility to the historicity of the conflict, and you accept it as truth. I don't see that as any different than my believe in God that I consider to be based on reasonable recognitions of credibility, veracity, documentation, and observation. At its core, then, when you come right down to it, all (or almost all) of knowledge is really faith, since I'm choosing to believe which sources I will consider reliable (and even my 5 senses have deceived me on occasion), and I'm choosing to believe which ones I will deem as credible, and therefore everything I "know" is really that I'm choosing to trust those sources of information, be they my teachers, my text books, various historical documents, or whatever.
And to add another angle, if you rely only on your five senses to learn anything and everything, then you know nothing of satisfaction, delight, contentment, justice, or love. Those, after all, cannot be touched or smelled, seen, heard or tasted. I think you have limited yourself to a limited, robotic view of life: The Mr. Spock of "Star Trek," to use a ridiculous example.
Does God reveal himself in the present? Absolutely he does, in the ways I enumerated above.
- jimwalton
- Site Admin
- Posts: 9111
- Joined: Mon Sep 17, 2012 2:28 pm
Re: belief VS knowledge
by Sean Flowers » Thu Nov 22, 2012 4:40 am
Mr. Walton,
Thank you for taking time to write me! I appreciate it, and I am very thankful for this opportunity to dialogue with you and possibly others.
I admit that some of what you said goes over my head a bit! But, here goes. ...Do you think that perhaps mathematics is a way our mind/brain assesses the information we've sensed? My assumption (again) is that "without our senses, we'd have no information to process. And, without our brains, we'd have no ability to process." My suggestion is that maybe mathematics is a system of thought that presupposes and analyzes the physical world we've sensed. ...This would be to nuance what I had said about the five senses, and to bring it into closer conformity to what I believe you had said. I'd be interested to know what you think!
To be honest, it seems to me that the belief that there is meaning in life is a matter of speculation. I don't believe there is inherent meaning in life, and believe that what we call "satisfaction, delight, contentment, justice, or love" are abstract concepts we as humans place onto reality. And, regarding the biblical accounts as historical, I don't disregard that they represent what the authors believed to have happened. But, I see no reason to accept the Exodus account (for example) as true out of a world of historical literature containing many gods. Interestingly, at that time the existence of god(s) was assumed such that the major question was not which god(s) exist, but which god(s) are the most powerful. But, one wonders today where the assumption that god(s) exist came from... As a matter of worldview, I am admittedly naturalistic. But, to be honest, I'd love to be able to relate to God (if He exists)! But, He doesn't seem to be reliable at relating back, and, if He exists, seems to be indistinguishable from my inner voice. That's simply not something I find reliable like another human being.
...I used to be a Christian (well, maybe). I was so for three years. And, ALL that time I struggled implicitly with things like this, no matter how earnestly I tried to seek God. Christianity caused me to become neurotic to the point of despair, and eventually I just gave in to failure. I speak about the existential aspect of experiencing/knowing God, because that's what I've sought for so long. And, relying on a possibly true historical account won't give me the experience I long for. I would like to experience God like I experience other people, and for goodness' sake, not have to continue doubting whether I'm imagining Him. And, focusing on this aspect of experiencing Him is to bypass the various beliefs one simply has to assume or formulate (e.g., that there is meaning in life; that the world was created for humans, etc.) in order then further to formulate God's existence. ...I don't see why God wouldn't reveal Himself to me and all other humans like He did with Abram, Moses, or Saul of Tarsus. This isn't a game! It infuriates me to think how some scholars have actually told me that these characters were special and that God doesn't reveal Himself like that to anyone else. I understood what they meant. But, here's the thing... if God does make Himself accessible to people through the Spirit and loves them enough to have died for them, why wouldn't He reveal Himself in ways they could recognize and could rely on?
So, on a personal level, there is too much that needs to be taken for granted (even among philosophers!) in order to believe that God exists. I don't expect everyone to feel the same way, though.
I apologize for taking up so much text and for writing about something so personal. ...Has anyone else experienced this? Does anyone else think that too much needs to be assumed in order to accept God's existence?
Thank you for taking time to write me! I appreciate it, and I am very thankful for this opportunity to dialogue with you and possibly others.
I admit that some of what you said goes over my head a bit! But, here goes. ...Do you think that perhaps mathematics is a way our mind/brain assesses the information we've sensed? My assumption (again) is that "without our senses, we'd have no information to process. And, without our brains, we'd have no ability to process." My suggestion is that maybe mathematics is a system of thought that presupposes and analyzes the physical world we've sensed. ...This would be to nuance what I had said about the five senses, and to bring it into closer conformity to what I believe you had said. I'd be interested to know what you think!
To be honest, it seems to me that the belief that there is meaning in life is a matter of speculation. I don't believe there is inherent meaning in life, and believe that what we call "satisfaction, delight, contentment, justice, or love" are abstract concepts we as humans place onto reality. And, regarding the biblical accounts as historical, I don't disregard that they represent what the authors believed to have happened. But, I see no reason to accept the Exodus account (for example) as true out of a world of historical literature containing many gods. Interestingly, at that time the existence of god(s) was assumed such that the major question was not which god(s) exist, but which god(s) are the most powerful. But, one wonders today where the assumption that god(s) exist came from... As a matter of worldview, I am admittedly naturalistic. But, to be honest, I'd love to be able to relate to God (if He exists)! But, He doesn't seem to be reliable at relating back, and, if He exists, seems to be indistinguishable from my inner voice. That's simply not something I find reliable like another human being.
...I used to be a Christian (well, maybe). I was so for three years. And, ALL that time I struggled implicitly with things like this, no matter how earnestly I tried to seek God. Christianity caused me to become neurotic to the point of despair, and eventually I just gave in to failure. I speak about the existential aspect of experiencing/knowing God, because that's what I've sought for so long. And, relying on a possibly true historical account won't give me the experience I long for. I would like to experience God like I experience other people, and for goodness' sake, not have to continue doubting whether I'm imagining Him. And, focusing on this aspect of experiencing Him is to bypass the various beliefs one simply has to assume or formulate (e.g., that there is meaning in life; that the world was created for humans, etc.) in order then further to formulate God's existence. ...I don't see why God wouldn't reveal Himself to me and all other humans like He did with Abram, Moses, or Saul of Tarsus. This isn't a game! It infuriates me to think how some scholars have actually told me that these characters were special and that God doesn't reveal Himself like that to anyone else. I understood what they meant. But, here's the thing... if God does make Himself accessible to people through the Spirit and loves them enough to have died for them, why wouldn't He reveal Himself in ways they could recognize and could rely on?
So, on a personal level, there is too much that needs to be taken for granted (even among philosophers!) in order to believe that God exists. I don't expect everyone to feel the same way, though.
I apologize for taking up so much text and for writing about something so personal. ...Has anyone else experienced this? Does anyone else think that too much needs to be assumed in order to accept God's existence?
- Sean Flowers
- Posts: 10
- Joined: Wed Nov 21, 2012 7:32 pm
Re: belief VS knowledge
by jimwalton » Sat Nov 24, 2012 3:49 pm
Oh, OK, I see what’s happening here. You’re choosing to believe in the truth of certain positions despite the evidences I have offered. Your writing is pervaded with it “my assumption is…,” “I don’t believe there is…and believe…,” and “I see no reason to accept…” It’s as I said: we all live by faith, and we choose the objects of our faith based on what we accept as the evidences we perceive and what we choose to believe about them.
I think we could go around any number of times concerning the particulars, but to what end? We’ll just be reiterating our divergent opinions. I think that your refusal to accept any learning except what comes from your senses negates any possibility of abstract thinking. And your position that life has no purpose sounds a lot like the ancient Greek philosophy of Epicureanism, which taught that basically life had no meaning, so our own good and pleasure became the highest values. It has its strengths and weaknesses. Its strengths are a lot of fun, and you get to do what you want. Its weaknesses are that life is devoid of all purpose, and therefore the pleasure just leads to banality and emptiness. To me, neither of your positions is ultimately desirable, but you have to choose your own course based on what you believe.
Instead of all the back and forth about philosophical particulars, here’s what I see: Your misunderstandings about Christianity have caused you to walk away from it and leave you feeling bitter. You came to Christ with great expectations and counting on what you had been taught. You were excited by the promises of a personal relationship with God and EXPERIENCING Him in powerful and personal ways. May we go there?
My personal experience sounds like it mirrors yours, yet with a different conclusion. I had been a believer for many many years when a personal life crisis plunging me into a very dark hole. For about 5 years I struggled with some of exactly what you’ve mentioned: neurotic to the point of despair, giving in to failure, wanting to experience God like I experience other people, wanting prayer to mean SOMETHING, and wanting God to reveal himself to me—EXACTLY what you’ve written. The common yearnings of the human soul are amazingly consistent.
I did a deep, DEEP study of the Bible to try to unlock its secrets and mysteries, and to connect with the God who is there. Here are the deep truths:
1. We know God through his Word, and almost no other way. He interacted directly with people very sparingly through history. It’s not a strategy, as you read the Bible, that works well. It turns out to be counter-productive most of the time, just making things worse. Instead what works far better is to write it down, and then to connect with people through the written accounts. You may be thinking, Well, that sucks. We have to be honest about the pros and cons (and everything has its pros and cons). The advantage is that the account is exactly the same for each of us. The disadvantage is that we desperately want the direct connection, as if we’re friends or have the hotline to heaven. It turns out the written way is the far better way.
2. God hardly ever intervenes in the circumstances of our lives. People get ridiculously frustrated with prayer because God so many times just doesn’t show up. It’s because you haven’t been taught right or well. So many Christians are so desperate to see God everywhere that they do, and those of us who don’t feel so guilty, and we feel like failures and rejects. I looked and looked in the Bible, and (I won’t bore you with the long list of what I learned) the conclusion is this: God hardly ever intervenes in the circumstances of our lives, but he does intervene in our hearts all the time. 97% + of what he does is in the heart of people. That’s where it gets personal, but most of that 97% is because of what we learn from reading his Word. It’s TOTALLY different from what you were most likely taught.
3. Abraham, Moses, and Saul were special people in history that God used to accomplish particular purposes. They didn’t get used because they earned it, but because God needed them in that time and place and for that task. We don’t all get to be the big cheese; some of us are just worker ants. Almost none of us get the direct line, but we all have access to His Word. But you’ve been told this before. Here’s the deeper truth: we are not all the same, and therefore God doesn’t treat us all the same. It’s sort of a “be careful what you wish for” scenario. Such experiences would be detrimental to most of us. Moses, because of God’s revelation to him, had an extremely difficult life. He most likely had very few friends. His leadership was often challenged, his teachings were doubted, his faced rebellions, and times of great aloneness. Saul/Paul was beaten, chased out of town, imprisoned, stoned, flogged, and on and on. Most people who experienced the direct revelation of God paid a huge price for it.
I don’t want to tackle too much with one letter. How much is demanded of us to believe that God exists? The obstacles for the one who doesn’t believe are just as problematic. It falls in the weight of evidence and which evidences we choose to believe.
I would say that most people have not been taught accurately about what the Bible truly says, but instead have been fed a form of feel-good Christianity that many feel unfulfilled by, deceived by, and they eventually walk away from it. Talk to me some more. After 5 years in the hole, I can swear to you that God is real, that He connects with me, and I with him, but it's not like you've been taught. I'm on the other side of a huge wall, having gotten here through the deep mud and slime. Don't just walk away. Talk to me more. There are answers here, but they're not just on the surface.
I think we could go around any number of times concerning the particulars, but to what end? We’ll just be reiterating our divergent opinions. I think that your refusal to accept any learning except what comes from your senses negates any possibility of abstract thinking. And your position that life has no purpose sounds a lot like the ancient Greek philosophy of Epicureanism, which taught that basically life had no meaning, so our own good and pleasure became the highest values. It has its strengths and weaknesses. Its strengths are a lot of fun, and you get to do what you want. Its weaknesses are that life is devoid of all purpose, and therefore the pleasure just leads to banality and emptiness. To me, neither of your positions is ultimately desirable, but you have to choose your own course based on what you believe.
Instead of all the back and forth about philosophical particulars, here’s what I see: Your misunderstandings about Christianity have caused you to walk away from it and leave you feeling bitter. You came to Christ with great expectations and counting on what you had been taught. You were excited by the promises of a personal relationship with God and EXPERIENCING Him in powerful and personal ways. May we go there?
My personal experience sounds like it mirrors yours, yet with a different conclusion. I had been a believer for many many years when a personal life crisis plunging me into a very dark hole. For about 5 years I struggled with some of exactly what you’ve mentioned: neurotic to the point of despair, giving in to failure, wanting to experience God like I experience other people, wanting prayer to mean SOMETHING, and wanting God to reveal himself to me—EXACTLY what you’ve written. The common yearnings of the human soul are amazingly consistent.
I did a deep, DEEP study of the Bible to try to unlock its secrets and mysteries, and to connect with the God who is there. Here are the deep truths:
1. We know God through his Word, and almost no other way. He interacted directly with people very sparingly through history. It’s not a strategy, as you read the Bible, that works well. It turns out to be counter-productive most of the time, just making things worse. Instead what works far better is to write it down, and then to connect with people through the written accounts. You may be thinking, Well, that sucks. We have to be honest about the pros and cons (and everything has its pros and cons). The advantage is that the account is exactly the same for each of us. The disadvantage is that we desperately want the direct connection, as if we’re friends or have the hotline to heaven. It turns out the written way is the far better way.
2. God hardly ever intervenes in the circumstances of our lives. People get ridiculously frustrated with prayer because God so many times just doesn’t show up. It’s because you haven’t been taught right or well. So many Christians are so desperate to see God everywhere that they do, and those of us who don’t feel so guilty, and we feel like failures and rejects. I looked and looked in the Bible, and (I won’t bore you with the long list of what I learned) the conclusion is this: God hardly ever intervenes in the circumstances of our lives, but he does intervene in our hearts all the time. 97% + of what he does is in the heart of people. That’s where it gets personal, but most of that 97% is because of what we learn from reading his Word. It’s TOTALLY different from what you were most likely taught.
3. Abraham, Moses, and Saul were special people in history that God used to accomplish particular purposes. They didn’t get used because they earned it, but because God needed them in that time and place and for that task. We don’t all get to be the big cheese; some of us are just worker ants. Almost none of us get the direct line, but we all have access to His Word. But you’ve been told this before. Here’s the deeper truth: we are not all the same, and therefore God doesn’t treat us all the same. It’s sort of a “be careful what you wish for” scenario. Such experiences would be detrimental to most of us. Moses, because of God’s revelation to him, had an extremely difficult life. He most likely had very few friends. His leadership was often challenged, his teachings were doubted, his faced rebellions, and times of great aloneness. Saul/Paul was beaten, chased out of town, imprisoned, stoned, flogged, and on and on. Most people who experienced the direct revelation of God paid a huge price for it.
I don’t want to tackle too much with one letter. How much is demanded of us to believe that God exists? The obstacles for the one who doesn’t believe are just as problematic. It falls in the weight of evidence and which evidences we choose to believe.
I would say that most people have not been taught accurately about what the Bible truly says, but instead have been fed a form of feel-good Christianity that many feel unfulfilled by, deceived by, and they eventually walk away from it. Talk to me some more. After 5 years in the hole, I can swear to you that God is real, that He connects with me, and I with him, but it's not like you've been taught. I'm on the other side of a huge wall, having gotten here through the deep mud and slime. Don't just walk away. Talk to me more. There are answers here, but they're not just on the surface.
- jimwalton
- Site Admin
- Posts: 9111
- Joined: Mon Sep 17, 2012 2:28 pm
Re: belief VS knowledge
by youdontknowwhothisis » Sun Nov 25, 2012 11:57 pm
Honestly I joined this site becuase a friend recommended it. The things it immediately made me think about though was this "connection" with God. I too feel that this was a problem for me. I was raised to believe that it was completely possible... I saw people (teens and adults) have such a connection in worship and in brokenness/repentence. I saw people enchanted with worship and broken in tears and shaking at camps, conferences, and retreats etc. I was always almost jealous of this. I wanted to know God and feel him. Know he was there with me. It even got to the point that I thought I was doing something wrong ritually or intellectually.
I would like to put it in an example: Imagine a little kid. They want their moms attention so they call her name. She is busy with something so she doesn't answer immediately. The kid starts grabbing at her shirt trying to get the attention even more. She still is unable to calm the kid or give the expected answer. Since the kid is not getting the attention, he/she then leaves and goes to cause trouble... following the saying that "any attention is better than no attention"
That was me with God. I wanted to seek him out and know him. I called him (prayer) and when I didn't get an answer, I started asking questions, looking for a way around being "ignored."I went to camp to try to get closer because it always was a place that people became closer to God. I was baptized just to make sure that I had my bases covered and the "outward displays of acceptance" were done. I wanted to feel God in anyway I could. I became desperate. I did way more Bible studies, through guided books and tried and true methods and just flipping it open looking for guidance... anything I could.
Still nothing, so I just started slowly falling away. I lost all hope. Nothing even convinced me somewhat. I lost hope of finding the answers to my searching. I started sinning. Nothing that needs to be listed as it would only be a distraction. I didn't care anymore and I stopped praying and going to church and studying the Bible.
I never thought that other people were experiencing the same things because no one talked about them in church. Everything was about the positives...So if you are out of your 5 year slump, what changed? Do you now feel that connection you craved? I don't even know at this point if I am willing to give it a try since all hope has been beaten out of me. I am not closed minded though; I like to consider all of the possiblities. My heart might take awhile to follow along and trust its truth and not lies. Maybe a testimony from your experience will ignite a spark, but for now its a great conversation in the mean time.
I would like to put it in an example: Imagine a little kid. They want their moms attention so they call her name. She is busy with something so she doesn't answer immediately. The kid starts grabbing at her shirt trying to get the attention even more. She still is unable to calm the kid or give the expected answer. Since the kid is not getting the attention, he/she then leaves and goes to cause trouble... following the saying that "any attention is better than no attention"
That was me with God. I wanted to seek him out and know him. I called him (prayer) and when I didn't get an answer, I started asking questions, looking for a way around being "ignored."I went to camp to try to get closer because it always was a place that people became closer to God. I was baptized just to make sure that I had my bases covered and the "outward displays of acceptance" were done. I wanted to feel God in anyway I could. I became desperate. I did way more Bible studies, through guided books and tried and true methods and just flipping it open looking for guidance... anything I could.
Still nothing, so I just started slowly falling away. I lost all hope. Nothing even convinced me somewhat. I lost hope of finding the answers to my searching. I started sinning. Nothing that needs to be listed as it would only be a distraction. I didn't care anymore and I stopped praying and going to church and studying the Bible.
I never thought that other people were experiencing the same things because no one talked about them in church. Everything was about the positives...So if you are out of your 5 year slump, what changed? Do you now feel that connection you craved? I don't even know at this point if I am willing to give it a try since all hope has been beaten out of me. I am not closed minded though; I like to consider all of the possiblities. My heart might take awhile to follow along and trust its truth and not lies. Maybe a testimony from your experience will ignite a spark, but for now its a great conversation in the mean time.
- youdontknowwhothisis
- Posts: 7
- Joined: Sun Nov 18, 2012 8:51 pm
Re: belief VS knowledge
by jimwalton » Tue Nov 27, 2012 10:16 pm
Can I try to be as truthful about this as possible? First of all, we’re all different. Some of us are quite emotional creatures, feeling things deeply, sometimes getting weepy, and at other times downright creepy. Often the emotions are real, and they flow quite easily. People like this are also able to make emotions come.
Others of us are deadpan rational. “Don’t sing a song in church, just give me the facts, ma’am.” My father, for one, wouldn’t cry even if you hit him with a bat. Sure, he loves to sing, but it’s because he loves the song, not because he’s getting all teary-eyed on anybody.
To be honest, we live in an era when emotional responses to God are not only common, but encouraged. Some churches and or denominations thrive on it, and they’re professionals at whipping people up in an emotional frenzy. Other churches like to appeal to reason, and you’ll probably get thrown out if you raise your hands in worship, or try to smile. “NOT IN CHURCH!”
The interesting thing about Christianity is that it is both rational and emotional, and can exist on one level or the other, or on both, and not suffer for the treatment. Christianity is intensely philosophical, ethical, and deep. It has attracted and challenged history’s greatest minds. At the same time it can be mystical and emotional, engaging one’s heart and feelings to the deepest ocean level. Christianity is available at all levels for all people types.
If you want to connect with God, connect with Him as YOU, not as the world around you. Connect with Him the way he SAYS to connect with him, not the way the church culture has chosen to do it. You’ve been misled, I say, and your frustration and emptiness is because of the expectations you were filled with and found unfulfilling.
Can I say this to you honestly? God hardly ever answers my prayers either. I beat my head against the wall so many times it’s ridiculous. But then I studied the Bible deeply to find out what it REALLY says about prayer, and found that though prayer is never limited, it is the pattern of God to answer prayers about your soul and heart WAY more than about your circumstances. I thought if I spent hours in prayer, deep and meditative, or vocal and making requests, or emotional and intense, or anything and everything, that I would find that relationship with God, or that he would “talk” to me. Sure, through the years many thoughts came to my head during times of prayer, and some of them were good thoughts, but lots of them turned out to be lies and untruths. Talk about frustrating.
I learned instead to connect with God the way He tells us to connect with Him: through his Word. I find that if I start out with the Bible, and read it, and meditate on it (meaning to roll the thoughts around in my head as I go through the day), that a connection with God IS made, and he “talks” to me. But it’s always from his Word, around His Word, and through His Word. Sometimes it’s even emotional, but not often. More often it’s like, “Oh, I get it!”
Instead of starting with me and my searching, I started with the Bible, and the pieces gradually fell together. I found that my worship changed, and I could connect with God through worship through His Word. I can connect with God when I serve other people, because God’s Word has helped me understand how that works and what it’s all about.
Now I’m very well aware of the connection, but I don’t feel it, and it’s not like I wanted. But I understand that I have to accept God on his terms, not mine. The connection through His Word is real, and vital, and it has changed my life.
Now ask me what you want. Let's talk honestly, and I will answer any question—honestly. No cliches, no riddles.
Others of us are deadpan rational. “Don’t sing a song in church, just give me the facts, ma’am.” My father, for one, wouldn’t cry even if you hit him with a bat. Sure, he loves to sing, but it’s because he loves the song, not because he’s getting all teary-eyed on anybody.
To be honest, we live in an era when emotional responses to God are not only common, but encouraged. Some churches and or denominations thrive on it, and they’re professionals at whipping people up in an emotional frenzy. Other churches like to appeal to reason, and you’ll probably get thrown out if you raise your hands in worship, or try to smile. “NOT IN CHURCH!”
The interesting thing about Christianity is that it is both rational and emotional, and can exist on one level or the other, or on both, and not suffer for the treatment. Christianity is intensely philosophical, ethical, and deep. It has attracted and challenged history’s greatest minds. At the same time it can be mystical and emotional, engaging one’s heart and feelings to the deepest ocean level. Christianity is available at all levels for all people types.
If you want to connect with God, connect with Him as YOU, not as the world around you. Connect with Him the way he SAYS to connect with him, not the way the church culture has chosen to do it. You’ve been misled, I say, and your frustration and emptiness is because of the expectations you were filled with and found unfulfilling.
Can I say this to you honestly? God hardly ever answers my prayers either. I beat my head against the wall so many times it’s ridiculous. But then I studied the Bible deeply to find out what it REALLY says about prayer, and found that though prayer is never limited, it is the pattern of God to answer prayers about your soul and heart WAY more than about your circumstances. I thought if I spent hours in prayer, deep and meditative, or vocal and making requests, or emotional and intense, or anything and everything, that I would find that relationship with God, or that he would “talk” to me. Sure, through the years many thoughts came to my head during times of prayer, and some of them were good thoughts, but lots of them turned out to be lies and untruths. Talk about frustrating.
I learned instead to connect with God the way He tells us to connect with Him: through his Word. I find that if I start out with the Bible, and read it, and meditate on it (meaning to roll the thoughts around in my head as I go through the day), that a connection with God IS made, and he “talks” to me. But it’s always from his Word, around His Word, and through His Word. Sometimes it’s even emotional, but not often. More often it’s like, “Oh, I get it!”
Instead of starting with me and my searching, I started with the Bible, and the pieces gradually fell together. I found that my worship changed, and I could connect with God through worship through His Word. I can connect with God when I serve other people, because God’s Word has helped me understand how that works and what it’s all about.
Now I’m very well aware of the connection, but I don’t feel it, and it’s not like I wanted. But I understand that I have to accept God on his terms, not mine. The connection through His Word is real, and vital, and it has changed my life.
Now ask me what you want. Let's talk honestly, and I will answer any question—honestly. No cliches, no riddles.
- jimwalton
- Site Admin
- Posts: 9111
- Joined: Mon Sep 17, 2012 2:28 pm
Re: belief VS knowledge
by Sean Flowers » Wed Nov 28, 2012 1:47 am
Dear Mr. Walton and youdontknowwhothisis,
Firstly, I want to say it's great to hear from you both! It takes a lot of courage to make oneself vulnerable and share their experience of God. I didn't realize that the struggles I had were as common as they are. So, thank you both for being open!
Secondly, Mr. Walton, you write that God most often intervenes in our hearts and not in our circumstances, and that this happens mostly because of our interaction with the Bible. Certainly our circumstances can change and yet leave us unmoved. But, if we're moved, then those circumstances can take on new meaning even if they remain unchanged. You're saying that consistent exposure to the Bible can change our worldview if we let it (i.e., it will "move" us), and that this change will open up the possibility of relating to God. Mr. Walton, I have a theological question: Do you believe that God is a transcendent, yet relational being who exists eternally and independently of the universe He created? (This is fundamental, I know, but for that reason it is essential for me to ask).
I'm going to lay down a scenario that I'd like to receive your input on. I believe that coming to recognize God through the written Word, and imagining Him through that Word, are indistinguishable. That is, since we cannot know that God exists through the direct observation of our senses, the recognition that He exists, and the imagination that He exists, cannot be distinguished. To put this in common language, a scholar might tell me "God exists, but you just don't recognize Him" in response to my saying that "I don't see any indication that God exists." And, then I might respond by saying, "how do I know that when I read the Bible I'm not just imagining a God who doesn't actually exist, and perceiving His intervention where it is not?" How can I tell the difference between that, and simply failing to recognize Him? My tentative conclusion is that one cannot.
This scenario means a lot to me, and I can imagine it means a lot to others as well. Now, it may be the case that God exists. To me, this is certainly a possibility. In fact, the dilemma I face originally came about when I allowed for the possibility that God may not exist and that all Christians are deceived into thinking He exists. Unfortunately, that same openness is not shared even by some of the foremost, conservative, evangelical scholars (you might even know one or two of them, Mr. Walton). That is, when they were asked if they believe it's possible that God may not exist, they answered that they don't think there is even the slightest chance that He does not exist. So, to them, my dilemma is meaningless. ...Fortunately, not all of the foremost, conservative, evangelical scholars are like that. Some, in fact, believe that it is possible that God may not exist, although it is highly improbable that that is the case. This is, perhaps, a better position to take given the nature of the subject under question. (If you'd like me to include the names of these "foremost, conservative, evangelical scholars" to whom I posed my question and got different answers, I'll happily e-mail them and see if I can get their permission).
Youdontknowwhothisis - Can you relate to my dilemma? Do you have any thoughts or comments?
Mr. Walton - Can you relate to my dilemma? How would you deal with this genuinely troubling concern?
Regards
Sean
Firstly, I want to say it's great to hear from you both! It takes a lot of courage to make oneself vulnerable and share their experience of God. I didn't realize that the struggles I had were as common as they are. So, thank you both for being open!
Secondly, Mr. Walton, you write that God most often intervenes in our hearts and not in our circumstances, and that this happens mostly because of our interaction with the Bible. Certainly our circumstances can change and yet leave us unmoved. But, if we're moved, then those circumstances can take on new meaning even if they remain unchanged. You're saying that consistent exposure to the Bible can change our worldview if we let it (i.e., it will "move" us), and that this change will open up the possibility of relating to God. Mr. Walton, I have a theological question: Do you believe that God is a transcendent, yet relational being who exists eternally and independently of the universe He created? (This is fundamental, I know, but for that reason it is essential for me to ask).
I'm going to lay down a scenario that I'd like to receive your input on. I believe that coming to recognize God through the written Word, and imagining Him through that Word, are indistinguishable. That is, since we cannot know that God exists through the direct observation of our senses, the recognition that He exists, and the imagination that He exists, cannot be distinguished. To put this in common language, a scholar might tell me "God exists, but you just don't recognize Him" in response to my saying that "I don't see any indication that God exists." And, then I might respond by saying, "how do I know that when I read the Bible I'm not just imagining a God who doesn't actually exist, and perceiving His intervention where it is not?" How can I tell the difference between that, and simply failing to recognize Him? My tentative conclusion is that one cannot.
This scenario means a lot to me, and I can imagine it means a lot to others as well. Now, it may be the case that God exists. To me, this is certainly a possibility. In fact, the dilemma I face originally came about when I allowed for the possibility that God may not exist and that all Christians are deceived into thinking He exists. Unfortunately, that same openness is not shared even by some of the foremost, conservative, evangelical scholars (you might even know one or two of them, Mr. Walton). That is, when they were asked if they believe it's possible that God may not exist, they answered that they don't think there is even the slightest chance that He does not exist. So, to them, my dilemma is meaningless. ...Fortunately, not all of the foremost, conservative, evangelical scholars are like that. Some, in fact, believe that it is possible that God may not exist, although it is highly improbable that that is the case. This is, perhaps, a better position to take given the nature of the subject under question. (If you'd like me to include the names of these "foremost, conservative, evangelical scholars" to whom I posed my question and got different answers, I'll happily e-mail them and see if I can get their permission).
Youdontknowwhothisis - Can you relate to my dilemma? Do you have any thoughts or comments?
Mr. Walton - Can you relate to my dilemma? How would you deal with this genuinely troubling concern?
Regards
Sean
- Sean Flowers
- Posts: 10
- Joined: Wed Nov 21, 2012 7:32 pm
Re: belief VS knowledge
by youdontknowwhothisis » Wed Nov 28, 2012 3:36 pm
Jimwalton, I have been to both types of churches that you talked about. I have been to the don't even smile type and then the dance around, talk in spirits types. Both appealed to different parts of me. Part of me thought that the flailing around, "emotional frenzy" that you talked about was fake, but then there were some instances that I could not deny seemed absolutely real. Then on the other side of the spectrum, I felt that the stoic churches where you couldn't ever have anything emotional or feeling related in church, I felt that it was too "ritualistic." They followed the schedule and prayed here and sang here and listened here. I could tell you to the minute what time we would be dismissed. I found the emotional church very enthralling, not going to lie. It drew me in, made me want to be a part of it all. I just observed and listened. I never danced around or spoke in tongues, but throughout the week after, I found myself praying alot more because God seemed closer. I would worship in the car, worship with friends in between weeks and really started to feel like I was going to be moved by God. At the same time, I was going to the church that was very by the book. I learned much more there but also felt that I was an observer. I tried to connect with God at both places and after awhile, I just gave up. A friend (that was versed in the scriptures and devout) from the by the book church told me that the people at the emotional church were just actors and that they would lead me astray. I wasn't getting what I needed at either so I just slowly stopped going.
You say God hardly ever answers your prayers... Then whats the point in praying. I could if I wanted, think about a Bible study I was doing without ever "bowing my head" and praying.I could think about him alot. If prayers go unanswered, isn't it all just a waste of time?? Near the end of my hope, I started praying to "make deals" with God. Something like "show me that ...... and then I will...." After all of those didn't work, I reversed it... "If I do.... then will you do ...." Still nothing. I completely gave up on praying.
Sean, you said.... "How do I know that when I read the Bible I'm not just imagining a God who doesn't actually exist, and perceiving His intervention where it is not?" my response... I 10000000000% believe God exists. I know he knows everything past, present, and future. What I don't understand is why he has let me down so much, just completely failed me. Honestly, your questions are a little too philosophical or theological that where I am at but I do think I get the gist of what you are saying. I do agree that I don't know what is God's doing and what is just circumstance. How can we tell the difference?
You say God hardly ever answers your prayers... Then whats the point in praying. I could if I wanted, think about a Bible study I was doing without ever "bowing my head" and praying.I could think about him alot. If prayers go unanswered, isn't it all just a waste of time?? Near the end of my hope, I started praying to "make deals" with God. Something like "show me that ...... and then I will...." After all of those didn't work, I reversed it... "If I do.... then will you do ...." Still nothing. I completely gave up on praying.
Sean, you said.... "How do I know that when I read the Bible I'm not just imagining a God who doesn't actually exist, and perceiving His intervention where it is not?" my response... I 10000000000% believe God exists. I know he knows everything past, present, and future. What I don't understand is why he has let me down so much, just completely failed me. Honestly, your questions are a little too philosophical or theological that where I am at but I do think I get the gist of what you are saying. I do agree that I don't know what is God's doing and what is just circumstance. How can we tell the difference?
- youdontknowwhothisis
- Posts: 7
- Joined: Sun Nov 18, 2012 8:51 pm
18 posts
• Page 1 of 2 • 1, 2
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest