In my life [47 years old] I've found that healthy skepticism [not being overly skeptical of everything] is a good trait to have. It seems like in some areas of society we do "ok", like when it comes to big foot encounters or alien visitations etc...many people are skeptical. We even have living people today who will confirm these sightings and encounters, yet many [like myself] remain skeptical.
When it comes to religion, it largely seems that this goes out the window. To me, the hurdles to be confident that the Bible is full of truth about all it's claims which happened thousands of years ago is odd when you see the same person step back from big foot or UFO's and say "I need more evidence for that".
I was prompted to ask this when a Christian friend of mine put a post on facebook [which I see this stuff every day] that had the Proverbs verse that says "only a fool says there's no God". Then above that it said "God doesn't send anyone to hell, he just honors their choice."
It seems to me, that if we were to agree that the Bible is true, good people who just happened to be healthy skeptics are going to be tortured for eternity....and it's THEIR fault. Christianity has some cute, loving, caring dressing on the outside but when you peel away the layers I feel like it seems like it really messes with people and not in a good way.
Do you feel that Christianity inherently betrays one's ability to be skeptical of it's claims or otherwise face eternal torture? Does the Bible always operate off of sound logical principles?
P.S. I'm an agnostic, I don't know if there are any God(s), I think that's absolutely a possibility. I am however skeptical of very detailed claims about these God(s) that are rooted in very ancient literature. I think a God creator is one solution to how we got here, but I don't think it's the only possible solution.
Board index ‹ Christianity
9 posts
• Page 1 of 1
Re: Sketicism and Christianity
by jimwalton » Thu Jul 18, 2019 1:49 pm
> Do you feel that Christianity inherently betrays one's ability to be skeptical of it's claims or otherwise face eternal torture? Does the Bible always operate off of sound logical principles?
Not at all. I, too, am skeptical, value evidence, and believe that reason is the path to truth. I believe in logic, science, research and thinking. I don't know what Christians you've interacted with that bring you to the conclusion that "it largely seems that this goes out the window." That's not my approach, nor that of the Christians I know.
> To me, the hurdles to be confident that the Bible is full of truth about all it's claims which happened thousands of years ago is odd when you see the same person step back from big foot or UFO's and say "I need more evidence for that".
This is obviously where some of the discussion lies. Through study I have become confident of the truth and reliability of the biblical record. The evidences are abundant and the logic is sound.
Obviously we'd have to discuss the specifics if you're up for it.
Not at all. I, too, am skeptical, value evidence, and believe that reason is the path to truth. I believe in logic, science, research and thinking. I don't know what Christians you've interacted with that bring you to the conclusion that "it largely seems that this goes out the window." That's not my approach, nor that of the Christians I know.
> To me, the hurdles to be confident that the Bible is full of truth about all it's claims which happened thousands of years ago is odd when you see the same person step back from big foot or UFO's and say "I need more evidence for that".
This is obviously where some of the discussion lies. Through study I have become confident of the truth and reliability of the biblical record. The evidences are abundant and the logic is sound.
Obviously we'd have to discuss the specifics if you're up for it.
- jimwalton
- Site Admin
- Posts: 9111
- Joined: Mon Sep 17, 2012 2:28 pm
Re: Sketicism and Christianity
by Scape211 » Thu Jul 18, 2019 3:31 pm
Penguin wrote:To me, the hurdles to be confident that the Bible is full of truth about all it's claims which happened thousands of years ago is odd when you see the same person step back from big foot or UFO's and say "I need more evidence for that".
If some of the claims for Bigfoot or UFO lead to any possibility that it was believable, more would agree. Most examples related to it are hearsay, conjecture, or just jumping to conclusions. Things like crop circles have been proven false and I don't know of any claims that provide substantial proof for either.
The bible on the other hand has things like historical proof, culture proof, testimonials and sound reasoning when you look hard enough. Not all the claims of it can be substantiated (like miraculous works), but when you talk about the burden of proof on any religion to give an account for it, you'd be hard pressed to find another that has the same level as Christianity from my experience.
- Scape211
- Posts: 128
- Joined: Sat Feb 17, 2018 12:18 pm
Re: Sketicism and Christianity
by Penguin » Sun Jul 21, 2019 1:26 pm
> Not at all. I, too, am skeptical, value evidence, and believe that reason is the path to truth. I believe in logic, science, research and thinking. I don't know what Christians you've interacted with that bring you to the conclusion that "it largely seems that this goes out the window." That's not my approach, nor that of the Christians I know.
From my perspective I've seen countless Christians appeal to the supernatural with what seems like ease. Yet we have no mechanism to verify these claims at all. As a matter of fact, I'm not really aware of any supernatural claim that is sound. All throughout history humans have been using the supernatural to explain things and that has a pretty miserable track record. Even the great Isaac Newton stumbled with this.
> This is obviously where some of the discussion lies. Through study I have become confident of the truth and reliability of the biblical record. The evidences are abundant and the logic is sound.
> Obviously we'd have to discuss the specifics if you're up for it.
What would be an example or two of compelling evidences that the Bible describes reality and the one true God? As you suggest we can't tackle anything massive but some event or some claim would be fine.
From my perspective I've seen countless Christians appeal to the supernatural with what seems like ease. Yet we have no mechanism to verify these claims at all. As a matter of fact, I'm not really aware of any supernatural claim that is sound. All throughout history humans have been using the supernatural to explain things and that has a pretty miserable track record. Even the great Isaac Newton stumbled with this.
> This is obviously where some of the discussion lies. Through study I have become confident of the truth and reliability of the biblical record. The evidences are abundant and the logic is sound.
> Obviously we'd have to discuss the specifics if you're up for it.
What would be an example or two of compelling evidences that the Bible describes reality and the one true God? As you suggest we can't tackle anything massive but some event or some claim would be fine.
- Penguin
Re: Sketicism and Christianity
by jimwalton » Sun Jul 21, 2019 1:41 pm
> From my perspective I've seen countless Christians appeal to the supernatural with what seems like ease.
Well, I can only speak for myself and not for others. In the Bible, faith is always evidentiary. God appears to Moses in a burning bush before He expects him to believe. He gave signs to take back to Pharaoh and the Israelite people, so they could see the signs before they were expected to believe. So also through the whole OT. In the NT, Jesus started off with turning water into wine, healing some people, casting out demons, and then he taught them about faith. And they couldn't possibly understand the resurrection until there was some evidence to go on.
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 belief 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. Jesus could have just ascended to heaven, the disciples figured out that he had prophesied it, and went around telling people He rose. But that's not what happened. He walked around and let them touch him, talk to him, eat with him, and THEN he said, "Believe that I have risen from the dead."
* In Matthew 8.4 Jesus encourages the man he just healed to go show the evidence that it was true.
* John 14.11 (and also 17.8): Jesus encouraged people to verify the evidences
* Heb. 11.1: Faith is based on evidences
* Romans 1.20 (the passage you mentioned). There are evidences, and we shouldn't be afraid to investigate them.
There's nothing blind about biblical faith. Granted, once we discover the reality of God and form a relationship with Him, of course we can appeal to the supernatural with ease. Once you know something is true, it becomes a foundational paradigm and worldview.
> As a matter of fact, I'm not really aware of any supernatural claim that is sound.
Obviously the Bible was written before our scientific, industrial, and technological era. We have no scientific verification, photo evidence, or data readings on the miraculous, for recognizable reasons. There have been attempts, with success, to verify modern supernatural claims. Craig Keener, a careful scholar and researcher, wrote a two-volume set on miracles. We shouldn't just discredit accounts of the supernatural before careful examination.
> All throughout history humans have been using the supernatural to explain things and that has a pretty miserable track record.
This comment sounds more prejudicial than you possibly intended it. What standard and methodology do you use to evaluate the supernatural claims of the past, say, 3000 years up until, say, 1900? Second, what scientific or logical measures do you use to assess whether or not the supernatural was truly involved? How could you ever know?
For instance, the Gospels say Jesus healed the ear of the man Peter sliced it off in the Garden of Gethsemane. Now, supposing that man came to your home after the incident. What would be your approach to discern a supernatural phenomenon (if we assume, for the sake of discussion, that it was a miracle)?
> What would be an example or two of compelling evidences that the Bible describes reality and the one true God? As you suggest we can't tackle anything massive but some event or some claim would be fine.
The resurrection of Jesus is the most conspicuous and examinable.
Well, I can only speak for myself and not for others. In the Bible, faith is always evidentiary. God appears to Moses in a burning bush before He expects him to believe. He gave signs to take back to Pharaoh and the Israelite people, so they could see the signs before they were expected to believe. So also through the whole OT. In the NT, Jesus started off with turning water into wine, healing some people, casting out demons, and then he taught them about faith. And they couldn't possibly understand the resurrection until there was some evidence to go on.
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 belief 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. Jesus could have just ascended to heaven, the disciples figured out that he had prophesied it, and went around telling people He rose. But that's not what happened. He walked around and let them touch him, talk to him, eat with him, and THEN he said, "Believe that I have risen from the dead."
* In Matthew 8.4 Jesus encourages the man he just healed to go show the evidence that it was true.
* John 14.11 (and also 17.8): Jesus encouraged people to verify the evidences
* Heb. 11.1: Faith is based on evidences
* Romans 1.20 (the passage you mentioned). There are evidences, and we shouldn't be afraid to investigate them.
There's nothing blind about biblical faith. Granted, once we discover the reality of God and form a relationship with Him, of course we can appeal to the supernatural with ease. Once you know something is true, it becomes a foundational paradigm and worldview.
> As a matter of fact, I'm not really aware of any supernatural claim that is sound.
Obviously the Bible was written before our scientific, industrial, and technological era. We have no scientific verification, photo evidence, or data readings on the miraculous, for recognizable reasons. There have been attempts, with success, to verify modern supernatural claims. Craig Keener, a careful scholar and researcher, wrote a two-volume set on miracles. We shouldn't just discredit accounts of the supernatural before careful examination.
> All throughout history humans have been using the supernatural to explain things and that has a pretty miserable track record.
This comment sounds more prejudicial than you possibly intended it. What standard and methodology do you use to evaluate the supernatural claims of the past, say, 3000 years up until, say, 1900? Second, what scientific or logical measures do you use to assess whether or not the supernatural was truly involved? How could you ever know?
For instance, the Gospels say Jesus healed the ear of the man Peter sliced it off in the Garden of Gethsemane. Now, supposing that man came to your home after the incident. What would be your approach to discern a supernatural phenomenon (if we assume, for the sake of discussion, that it was a miracle)?
> What would be an example or two of compelling evidences that the Bible describes reality and the one true God? As you suggest we can't tackle anything massive but some event or some claim would be fine.
The resurrection of Jesus is the most conspicuous and examinable.
- jimwalton
- Site Admin
- Posts: 9111
- Joined: Mon Sep 17, 2012 2:28 pm
Re: Sketicism and Christianity
by Penguin » Sun Jul 21, 2019 4:18 pm
>> All throughout history humans have been using the supernatural to explain things and that has a pretty miserable track record.
> This comment sounds more prejudicial than you possibly intended it. What standard and methodology do you use to evaluate the supernatural claims of the past, say, 3000 years up until, say, 1900? Second, what scientific or logical measures do you use to assess whether or not the supernatural was truly involved? How could you ever know?
I've been swamped lately with work and studying for an upcoming exam so I don't have the time to respond to everything right here and now. But I just wanted to take a few minutes to respond to a couple items. So in response to the above, you almost seem to be helping me make my point. How would ANYBODY show that the supernatural was involved or not? That's my whole point!
I see no issue in believing in the supernatural, provided there is good reason/justification to do so. Anecdotal evidence is not just not going to cut it. Black holes would be silly to believe if it wasn't for the evidence we have.
Let me provide you a challenge to give you an opportunity to support your claim. Name an event in human history where the BEST explanation was and still is a supernatural event. I'm not talking about an event where Christians believe the supernatural was involved but people out side of that religion would largely disagree.
I mean what phenomena have we explained to this day, best by appealing to the spirit world?
How do you decide between epilepsy and demon possession? How do you decide supernatural agency and just dumb luck or coincidence? I tried to buy the condo I'm renting currently and here the mortgage company denied it because the condo association was 60k under budget. I was disappointed and upset. A month later I got a job offer at my work to join a new team where I'll be able to work from home. I was SO happy that the condo sale didn't go through because now it didn't matter living close to the office I can get a house outside town in the country where I can have a garden etc. Was Jesus looking out for me and helping me plan my future or was that just dumb luck? It's easy to walk around and look at things and feel that someone is looking out for you and opening doors etc, why? Because there's no way to be proven wrong!
The last time I was impressed by a supernatural claim was when these end days cults announce the next date to worry over. They might be nutty but at least they give something that can be proven false.
> For instance, the Gospels say Jesus healed the ear of the man Peter sliced it off in the Garden of Gethsemane. Now, supposing that man came to your home after the incident. What would be your approach to discern a supernatural phenomenon (if we assume, for the sake of discussion, that it was a miracle)?
I assume you mean that I'm aware that the man's ear was indeed cut off at one point and now he shows up at my house with it back on? I'll bet you my response would vary depending on what culture I was raised in. If I were in a village in Africa and this happened would my best approach to be just conclude what the local culture would dictate and say it was strong jungle magic or whatever?
> The resurrection of Jesus is the most conspicuous and examinable.
I'm not sure if you've ever heard debates about the resurrection but if you want to hear of some example counter arguments you might want to listen to Robert M Price or Richard Carrier. I wouldn't at all suggest they disprove the Bible, but I think you might be a bit too confident in your assessment that the resurrection is so obviously true. As far as I'm concerned it's not so much that someone is proposing the supernatural, or some supernatural event took place thousands of years ago...but you're asking me to trust the judgement of those folks back then when I don't trust people today!
Look at the obviously nonsense cults like Mormonism and Scientology! Humans largely aren't very good at filtering through nonsense and noise and sticking to just what is sound and reasonable. If people want to have faith that these things happened and they happened for sure then that's up to them but it's asking too much of me because I can't logically defend it. Saying "Well people back then believed so it must be true...".
I would be more prone to give a measure of faith if I saw something from Christendom that made me think "wow there's something going on here" or a pattern where I saw evidence that when you followed the Bible you could tell you were on the right track. I see the opposite, I see people just like me who have the same struggles the same worries and the same opportunity to have a good life. I don't see any pattern of truth or wisdom that comes from inherently following the Christian faith.
I have to run, thanks for the dialogue.
> This comment sounds more prejudicial than you possibly intended it. What standard and methodology do you use to evaluate the supernatural claims of the past, say, 3000 years up until, say, 1900? Second, what scientific or logical measures do you use to assess whether or not the supernatural was truly involved? How could you ever know?
I've been swamped lately with work and studying for an upcoming exam so I don't have the time to respond to everything right here and now. But I just wanted to take a few minutes to respond to a couple items. So in response to the above, you almost seem to be helping me make my point. How would ANYBODY show that the supernatural was involved or not? That's my whole point!
I see no issue in believing in the supernatural, provided there is good reason/justification to do so. Anecdotal evidence is not just not going to cut it. Black holes would be silly to believe if it wasn't for the evidence we have.
Let me provide you a challenge to give you an opportunity to support your claim. Name an event in human history where the BEST explanation was and still is a supernatural event. I'm not talking about an event where Christians believe the supernatural was involved but people out side of that religion would largely disagree.
I mean what phenomena have we explained to this day, best by appealing to the spirit world?
How do you decide between epilepsy and demon possession? How do you decide supernatural agency and just dumb luck or coincidence? I tried to buy the condo I'm renting currently and here the mortgage company denied it because the condo association was 60k under budget. I was disappointed and upset. A month later I got a job offer at my work to join a new team where I'll be able to work from home. I was SO happy that the condo sale didn't go through because now it didn't matter living close to the office I can get a house outside town in the country where I can have a garden etc. Was Jesus looking out for me and helping me plan my future or was that just dumb luck? It's easy to walk around and look at things and feel that someone is looking out for you and opening doors etc, why? Because there's no way to be proven wrong!
The last time I was impressed by a supernatural claim was when these end days cults announce the next date to worry over. They might be nutty but at least they give something that can be proven false.
> For instance, the Gospels say Jesus healed the ear of the man Peter sliced it off in the Garden of Gethsemane. Now, supposing that man came to your home after the incident. What would be your approach to discern a supernatural phenomenon (if we assume, for the sake of discussion, that it was a miracle)?
I assume you mean that I'm aware that the man's ear was indeed cut off at one point and now he shows up at my house with it back on? I'll bet you my response would vary depending on what culture I was raised in. If I were in a village in Africa and this happened would my best approach to be just conclude what the local culture would dictate and say it was strong jungle magic or whatever?
> The resurrection of Jesus is the most conspicuous and examinable.
I'm not sure if you've ever heard debates about the resurrection but if you want to hear of some example counter arguments you might want to listen to Robert M Price or Richard Carrier. I wouldn't at all suggest they disprove the Bible, but I think you might be a bit too confident in your assessment that the resurrection is so obviously true. As far as I'm concerned it's not so much that someone is proposing the supernatural, or some supernatural event took place thousands of years ago...but you're asking me to trust the judgement of those folks back then when I don't trust people today!
Look at the obviously nonsense cults like Mormonism and Scientology! Humans largely aren't very good at filtering through nonsense and noise and sticking to just what is sound and reasonable. If people want to have faith that these things happened and they happened for sure then that's up to them but it's asking too much of me because I can't logically defend it. Saying "Well people back then believed so it must be true...".
I would be more prone to give a measure of faith if I saw something from Christendom that made me think "wow there's something going on here" or a pattern where I saw evidence that when you followed the Bible you could tell you were on the right track. I see the opposite, I see people just like me who have the same struggles the same worries and the same opportunity to have a good life. I don't see any pattern of truth or wisdom that comes from inherently following the Christian faith.
I have to run, thanks for the dialogue.
- Penguin
Re: Sketicism and Christianity
by jimwalton » Sun Jul 21, 2019 4:35 pm
> How would ANYBODY show that the supernatural was involved or not? That's my whole point!
Thank you for clarifying. Since the supernatural is not detectable by scientific means, we have to approach it in other ways. (There are many other things that are also not detectable by scientific means, and so we are used to this. Science is only a small part of what we would call "knowledge" and access to it.) Our belief in supernatural occurrences comes after becoming convinced of theism. Once God is most logical explanation of many things, to assume that He acts in history and nature is a small step, and actually makes sense. Just as we learn the motives, patterns, and behaviors of our closest relationships with more time and familiarity, so also once we know God we can discern His "hand" and His actions. It's certainly not science, though.
Even in an extreme situation it wouldn't be ultimately provable. Suppose you had stage 4 cancer, and I prayed for you to get perfectly well instantly and it happened. Boom. I still couldn't PROVE it was supernatural. Somebody could (and would) always say: The human body is a wonderful and mysterious thing.
It doesn't prove anything in either direction that the supernatural is both unprovable and unfalsifiable. It's just not in the realm of science.
> Anecdotal evidence is not just not going to cut it. Black holes would be silly to believe if it wasn't for the evidence we have.
Of course. But the supernatural is far different from the any of the sciences. In one sense you can look at Picasso's "Guernica" and say, "Ah, it's just paint." I guess in a sense that's undeniably true. but in another sense, someone is clueless if they just say Guernica or the Mona Lisa are "just paint." If you said, "Well, prove it's more than paint like I can prove a black hole exists." Uh...
You know what I mean?
> Name an event in human history where the BEST explanation was and still is a supernatural event
The problem with your challenge is that you're setting up a false standard of truth. It's like taking me into the bowels of a cave and challenging me to prove to you that light exists. You've set up a false standard (prove it as if it were a science, when it's not the natural sciences), created a false line in the sand (science is our only type of knowledge, when it's not), with the prospect of being able to discredit anything I present (since it doesn't fit into your boxes). It's a board game with no board.
> Because there's no way to be proven wrong!
How do I know someone has forgiven me? How do I know that someone loves me? These aren't scientific pursuits but instead human ones of perception, intuition, relationships, cultural cues, body language, linguistic interpretation and emotional response. (Wow, and love can't even be reduced to those either!)
> I assume you mean that I'm aware that the man's ear was indeed cut off at one point and now he shows up at my house with it back on?
Yes, and I'm asking you, not some hypothetical culture or African village. You. All you have to go on is anecdotal evidence which might possibly include eyewitness testimony from someone nearby (if anyone else saw it). This is where I say that these things could really happen (theoretically), and you've prejudicially decided a priori that they're impossible, so you've ruled out the only possible way to get the truth of what happened (the testimony of the man who's ear was sliced and diced and then healed).
You can't make scientific rules ("I will accept nothing but science") in a situation that has nothing to do with science (since it was a chaotic situation rather than a controlled lab with observers at the ready) and then declare victory. To be truly open minded, free thinking, and not biased—a person who truly seeks truth wherever it is —you have to allow for all mechanisms that lead us to the truth, not just the natural sciences and controlled observations.
> Richard Carrier
I have very little respect for Carrier. I've read some of his stuff and watched some youtube stuff, and his scholarship is not respectable. You'll have to go in a different direction if we want to talk about this.
> but I think you might be a bit too confident in your assessment that the resurrection is so obviously true.
I didn't say it was "so obviously true." I've examined the evidence deeply and have concluded that the resurrection most adequately fits the evidence at hand. It's inferring the most reasonable conclusion, given what we know. That doesn't make it "so obviously true," but rather the best explanation upon examination.
> you're asking me to trust the judgement of those folks back then when I don't trust people today!
Ya gotta trust somebody. If we trust nothing and no one but our own experiences, learning is minimal and experiences (based on our own perceptions) are variable. It seems you trust Price and Carrier, so I guess I'd ask why. Is it because they express your preconceptions? Because they make more sense than the opposing arguments? Or because they represent a paradigm you have chosen for yourself (atheistic naturalism?)? I don't know why you've chosen to trust them. I would guess you've chosen to trust most of your teachers, professors, and text books—but why? And you've chosen not to trust ancient descriptions of supernatural events. But why? I would guess it's because it goes against your scientific sensibilities, but supernatural events don't fall into that category. I mean, the scientific chances of a miracle occurring may be one in a billion, but theologically they are x:x (unknown to unknown). If a deity exists, the chances of miracles may be quite high, and they may be unprovable by the scientific method, but that doesn't make them untrue.
Suppose, just for the sake of discussion, God really appeared to you in your bedroom. I mean, really. You could see him; His presence was palpable; He talked to you. Let's suppose He even passed some tests you gave Him to prove it was Him and He was really there. Then He was gone. You ran out the door to tell your friends. They said, "Prove it." Uh, you couldn't, of course, but that doesn't mean it didn't happen and wasn't real. It's just outside of science. All you'd have is the weight of your trustworthiness in front of your friends. The proof would be in your reliability as an eyewitness, not in material proof of the experience.
> I would be more prone to give a measure of faith if I saw something from Christendom that made me think "wow there's something going on here" or a pattern where I saw evidence that when you followed the Bible you could tell you were on the right track. I see the opposite, I see people just like me who have the same struggles the same worries and the same opportunity to have a good life. I don't see any pattern of truth or wisdom that comes from inherently following the Christian faith.
This is a great comment. Thank you for it.
> wow there's something going on here"
Have you ever been part of a group of Christians for long?
> a pattern where I saw evidence that when you followed the Bible you could tell you were on the right track.
I have no idea how much you've studied or read the Bible, so I'm curious about that. The Bible clearly says this to me, so I wonder either why it doesn't say it to you, or maybe if your exposure to it is limited.
> I see people just like me who have the same struggles the same worries
Yep, that's true. We all have the struggles. We just deal with them differently (or, we're supposed to). We learn to live on a different plane, to think differently, and to live above life.
> I don't see any pattern of truth or wisdom that comes from inherently following the Christian faith.
These are great comments. Thank you so much. Obviously, I feel completely differently. Christianity is mostly supposed to bring us into relationship with God. It doesn't solve our problems, preclude us from the same worries, or automatically relieve us of worry. It does, however, open us to truth and wisdom otherwise not available.
I'd love to talk more when you have the time.
Thank you for clarifying. Since the supernatural is not detectable by scientific means, we have to approach it in other ways. (There are many other things that are also not detectable by scientific means, and so we are used to this. Science is only a small part of what we would call "knowledge" and access to it.) Our belief in supernatural occurrences comes after becoming convinced of theism. Once God is most logical explanation of many things, to assume that He acts in history and nature is a small step, and actually makes sense. Just as we learn the motives, patterns, and behaviors of our closest relationships with more time and familiarity, so also once we know God we can discern His "hand" and His actions. It's certainly not science, though.
Even in an extreme situation it wouldn't be ultimately provable. Suppose you had stage 4 cancer, and I prayed for you to get perfectly well instantly and it happened. Boom. I still couldn't PROVE it was supernatural. Somebody could (and would) always say: The human body is a wonderful and mysterious thing.
It doesn't prove anything in either direction that the supernatural is both unprovable and unfalsifiable. It's just not in the realm of science.
> Anecdotal evidence is not just not going to cut it. Black holes would be silly to believe if it wasn't for the evidence we have.
Of course. But the supernatural is far different from the any of the sciences. In one sense you can look at Picasso's "Guernica" and say, "Ah, it's just paint." I guess in a sense that's undeniably true. but in another sense, someone is clueless if they just say Guernica or the Mona Lisa are "just paint." If you said, "Well, prove it's more than paint like I can prove a black hole exists." Uh...
You know what I mean?
> Name an event in human history where the BEST explanation was and still is a supernatural event
The problem with your challenge is that you're setting up a false standard of truth. It's like taking me into the bowels of a cave and challenging me to prove to you that light exists. You've set up a false standard (prove it as if it were a science, when it's not the natural sciences), created a false line in the sand (science is our only type of knowledge, when it's not), with the prospect of being able to discredit anything I present (since it doesn't fit into your boxes). It's a board game with no board.
> Because there's no way to be proven wrong!
How do I know someone has forgiven me? How do I know that someone loves me? These aren't scientific pursuits but instead human ones of perception, intuition, relationships, cultural cues, body language, linguistic interpretation and emotional response. (Wow, and love can't even be reduced to those either!)
> I assume you mean that I'm aware that the man's ear was indeed cut off at one point and now he shows up at my house with it back on?
Yes, and I'm asking you, not some hypothetical culture or African village. You. All you have to go on is anecdotal evidence which might possibly include eyewitness testimony from someone nearby (if anyone else saw it). This is where I say that these things could really happen (theoretically), and you've prejudicially decided a priori that they're impossible, so you've ruled out the only possible way to get the truth of what happened (the testimony of the man who's ear was sliced and diced and then healed).
You can't make scientific rules ("I will accept nothing but science") in a situation that has nothing to do with science (since it was a chaotic situation rather than a controlled lab with observers at the ready) and then declare victory. To be truly open minded, free thinking, and not biased—a person who truly seeks truth wherever it is —you have to allow for all mechanisms that lead us to the truth, not just the natural sciences and controlled observations.
> Richard Carrier
I have very little respect for Carrier. I've read some of his stuff and watched some youtube stuff, and his scholarship is not respectable. You'll have to go in a different direction if we want to talk about this.
> but I think you might be a bit too confident in your assessment that the resurrection is so obviously true.
I didn't say it was "so obviously true." I've examined the evidence deeply and have concluded that the resurrection most adequately fits the evidence at hand. It's inferring the most reasonable conclusion, given what we know. That doesn't make it "so obviously true," but rather the best explanation upon examination.
> you're asking me to trust the judgement of those folks back then when I don't trust people today!
Ya gotta trust somebody. If we trust nothing and no one but our own experiences, learning is minimal and experiences (based on our own perceptions) are variable. It seems you trust Price and Carrier, so I guess I'd ask why. Is it because they express your preconceptions? Because they make more sense than the opposing arguments? Or because they represent a paradigm you have chosen for yourself (atheistic naturalism?)? I don't know why you've chosen to trust them. I would guess you've chosen to trust most of your teachers, professors, and text books—but why? And you've chosen not to trust ancient descriptions of supernatural events. But why? I would guess it's because it goes against your scientific sensibilities, but supernatural events don't fall into that category. I mean, the scientific chances of a miracle occurring may be one in a billion, but theologically they are x:x (unknown to unknown). If a deity exists, the chances of miracles may be quite high, and they may be unprovable by the scientific method, but that doesn't make them untrue.
Suppose, just for the sake of discussion, God really appeared to you in your bedroom. I mean, really. You could see him; His presence was palpable; He talked to you. Let's suppose He even passed some tests you gave Him to prove it was Him and He was really there. Then He was gone. You ran out the door to tell your friends. They said, "Prove it." Uh, you couldn't, of course, but that doesn't mean it didn't happen and wasn't real. It's just outside of science. All you'd have is the weight of your trustworthiness in front of your friends. The proof would be in your reliability as an eyewitness, not in material proof of the experience.
> I would be more prone to give a measure of faith if I saw something from Christendom that made me think "wow there's something going on here" or a pattern where I saw evidence that when you followed the Bible you could tell you were on the right track. I see the opposite, I see people just like me who have the same struggles the same worries and the same opportunity to have a good life. I don't see any pattern of truth or wisdom that comes from inherently following the Christian faith.
This is a great comment. Thank you for it.
> wow there's something going on here"
Have you ever been part of a group of Christians for long?
> a pattern where I saw evidence that when you followed the Bible you could tell you were on the right track.
I have no idea how much you've studied or read the Bible, so I'm curious about that. The Bible clearly says this to me, so I wonder either why it doesn't say it to you, or maybe if your exposure to it is limited.
> I see people just like me who have the same struggles the same worries
Yep, that's true. We all have the struggles. We just deal with them differently (or, we're supposed to). We learn to live on a different plane, to think differently, and to live above life.
> I don't see any pattern of truth or wisdom that comes from inherently following the Christian faith.
These are great comments. Thank you so much. Obviously, I feel completely differently. Christianity is mostly supposed to bring us into relationship with God. It doesn't solve our problems, preclude us from the same worries, or automatically relieve us of worry. It does, however, open us to truth and wisdom otherwise not available.
I'd love to talk more when you have the time.
- jimwalton
- Site Admin
- Posts: 9111
- Joined: Mon Sep 17, 2012 2:28 pm
Re: Sketicism and Christianity
by Penguin » Mon Jul 22, 2019 11:15 am
> Thank you for clarifying. Since the supernatural is not detectable by scientific means, we have to approach it in other ways. (There are many other things that are also not detectable by scientific means, and so we are used to this. Science is only a small part of what we would call "knowledge" and access to it.)
This is exactly why I'm surprised that the most loving, merciful and most powerful being possible created a Universe with a planet populated with humans where he asks them to believe things that happened thousands of years ago and where one has to believe in something heavily rooted in the supernatural. Why base all of this in something that as you admit, is not something we can really detect and measure.
As a side, it's also not my problem that there is no scientific way to lend confidence in the supernatural. Okay fine, then how else are we supposed to tell the difference between a true and a false supernatural claim? If you don't have a system or method, we just go by cultural lenses to make sense of a natural world with supposed supernatural elements.
> Our belief in supernatural occurrences comes after becoming convinced of theism. Once God is most logical explanation of many things, to assume that He acts in history and nature is a small step, and actually makes sense. Just as we learn the motives, patterns, and behaviors of our closest relationships with more time and familiarity, so also once we know God we can discern His "hand" and His actions. It's certainly not science, though.
It's not science, that's how we get parents that refuse to take their child to the hospital when their sick and pray the kid to death. Now obviously that's an extreme belief but it's happened over and over. It goes to show you people discern different things, those parents thought for SURE they were listening to God to the point they bet their kids life on it.
> The problem with your challenge is that you're setting up a false standard of truth. It's like taking me into the bowels of a cave and challenging me to prove to you that light exists. You've set up a false standard (prove it as if it were a science, when it's not the natural sciences), created a false line in the sand (science is our only type of knowledge, when it's not), with the prospect of being able to discredit anything I present (since it doesn't fit into your boxes). It's a board game with no board.
You seem to be focusing on science, I'm just talking about giving me a good reason to believe that demons, angels, spirits are active and interacting with our physical world. It's not my problem that this is hard to prove, that's exactly why I'm skeptical because I can't support these views. What would they be grounded on? You would point to the Bible but that's what I'm questioning.
> How do I know someone has forgiven me? How do I know that someone loves me? These aren't scientific pursuits but instead human ones of perception, intuition, relationships, cultural cues, body language, linguistic interpretation and emotional response. (Wow, and love can't even be reduced to those either!)
By their actions! My mother has loved me my whole entire life and never betrayed me. Is it unreasonable for me to conclude that she loves me even though I can't put that under a microscope? She could be lying, but she's been acting and faking then for 47 years. I don't necessarily need scientific measurements, just good reasons to believe.
> I didn't say it was "so obviously true." I've examined the evidence deeply and have concluded that the resurrection most adequately fits the evidence at hand. It's inferring the most reasonable conclusion, given what we know. That doesn't make it "so obviously true," but rather the best explanation upon examination.
You used the word "conspicuous", you seemed to be making it sound like belief is expected because it's so clearly true. There is definitely a major element of faith involved.
> Ya gotta trust somebody. If we trust nothing and no one but our own experiences, learning is minimal and experiences (based on our own perceptions) are variable. It seems you trust Price and Carrier, so I guess I'd ask why. Is it because they express your preconceptions? Because they make more sense than the opposing arguments? Or because they represent a paradigm you have chosen for yourself (atheistic naturalism?)?
I mentioned them to merely point out that there are other views on the available evidence. It's certainly no slam dunk at all that the resurrection happened. I think Robert Price is pretty solid, he did well against WLC.
> Suppose, just for the sake of discussion, God really appeared to you in your bedroom. I mean, really. You could see him; His presence was palpable; He talked to you. Let's suppose He even passed some tests you gave Him to prove it was Him and He was really there. Then He was gone. You ran out the door to tell your friends. They said, "Prove it." Uh, you couldn't, of course, but that doesn't mean it didn't happen and wasn't real. It's just outside of science. All you'd have is the weight of your trustworthiness in front of your friends. The proof would be in your reliability as an eyewitness, not in material proof of the experience.
I'm very glad you gave me this scenario. Just for the sake of argument let's say this happened and somehow I just knew it was true [I could have hallucinated], I run out and tell someone else I just met God. If by chance they didn't believe me, would you find fault in them for that and conclude that they must just be hateful sinners trying to deny my claim?
> Have you ever been part of a group of Christians for long?
I was raised to be a Christian from a young age. I went to Mt. Calvary Christian church/school in Elizabethtown PA as a child. My family was Southern Baptist, I remained a Christian until about early 30s. I've been around Christians my whole life.
> I have no idea how much you've studied or read the Bible, so I'm curious about that. The Bible clearly says this to me, so I wonder either why it doesn't say it to you, or maybe if your exposure to it is limited.
I meant something external. A Muslim is going to naturally say he's on the right track as long as he stays within the confines of the Qu'ran, this is all assuming the Qu'ran is right. Later on in life I started to question what I believed, I was a Christian because that's what I was raised to be, I didn't question it.......until later on. I realized I didn't have any sense that I was following the right religion or that God was even listening to me. Christians talk about this divine relationship, I have no problems whatsoever having a relationship with humans. If God behaves just like a God that doesn't exist, why be surprised when people doubt? That's not sensible.
Another sign [for me anyway] that something isn't kosher is that Christians can't agree on some pretty basic things. I've come across many Christians that can't agree on whether water baptism is needed for salvation, do people get tortured in hell for eternity or does the soul get destroyed [non existence]? Can you lose your salvation? etc etc. We're not talking about little details way out in left field, fundamental issues are not agreed on. This is alarming considering the Bible claims that one job of the holy spirit is to guide Christians in understanding of scripture. So even with supernatural guidance we can't get the details right?
Anyway, I have to run but I enjoy these conversations. I try hard to understand, but I hope I can shed light on what it's like to simply be skeptical of something but in doing that someone like myself get's told [not by you necessarily but others] that the reason why I don't believe is because I'm some cynical reprobate that deserves eternal torture.
This is exactly why I'm surprised that the most loving, merciful and most powerful being possible created a Universe with a planet populated with humans where he asks them to believe things that happened thousands of years ago and where one has to believe in something heavily rooted in the supernatural. Why base all of this in something that as you admit, is not something we can really detect and measure.
As a side, it's also not my problem that there is no scientific way to lend confidence in the supernatural. Okay fine, then how else are we supposed to tell the difference between a true and a false supernatural claim? If you don't have a system or method, we just go by cultural lenses to make sense of a natural world with supposed supernatural elements.
> Our belief in supernatural occurrences comes after becoming convinced of theism. Once God is most logical explanation of many things, to assume that He acts in history and nature is a small step, and actually makes sense. Just as we learn the motives, patterns, and behaviors of our closest relationships with more time and familiarity, so also once we know God we can discern His "hand" and His actions. It's certainly not science, though.
It's not science, that's how we get parents that refuse to take their child to the hospital when their sick and pray the kid to death. Now obviously that's an extreme belief but it's happened over and over. It goes to show you people discern different things, those parents thought for SURE they were listening to God to the point they bet their kids life on it.
> The problem with your challenge is that you're setting up a false standard of truth. It's like taking me into the bowels of a cave and challenging me to prove to you that light exists. You've set up a false standard (prove it as if it were a science, when it's not the natural sciences), created a false line in the sand (science is our only type of knowledge, when it's not), with the prospect of being able to discredit anything I present (since it doesn't fit into your boxes). It's a board game with no board.
You seem to be focusing on science, I'm just talking about giving me a good reason to believe that demons, angels, spirits are active and interacting with our physical world. It's not my problem that this is hard to prove, that's exactly why I'm skeptical because I can't support these views. What would they be grounded on? You would point to the Bible but that's what I'm questioning.
> How do I know someone has forgiven me? How do I know that someone loves me? These aren't scientific pursuits but instead human ones of perception, intuition, relationships, cultural cues, body language, linguistic interpretation and emotional response. (Wow, and love can't even be reduced to those either!)
By their actions! My mother has loved me my whole entire life and never betrayed me. Is it unreasonable for me to conclude that she loves me even though I can't put that under a microscope? She could be lying, but she's been acting and faking then for 47 years. I don't necessarily need scientific measurements, just good reasons to believe.
> I didn't say it was "so obviously true." I've examined the evidence deeply and have concluded that the resurrection most adequately fits the evidence at hand. It's inferring the most reasonable conclusion, given what we know. That doesn't make it "so obviously true," but rather the best explanation upon examination.
You used the word "conspicuous", you seemed to be making it sound like belief is expected because it's so clearly true. There is definitely a major element of faith involved.
> Ya gotta trust somebody. If we trust nothing and no one but our own experiences, learning is minimal and experiences (based on our own perceptions) are variable. It seems you trust Price and Carrier, so I guess I'd ask why. Is it because they express your preconceptions? Because they make more sense than the opposing arguments? Or because they represent a paradigm you have chosen for yourself (atheistic naturalism?)?
I mentioned them to merely point out that there are other views on the available evidence. It's certainly no slam dunk at all that the resurrection happened. I think Robert Price is pretty solid, he did well against WLC.
> Suppose, just for the sake of discussion, God really appeared to you in your bedroom. I mean, really. You could see him; His presence was palpable; He talked to you. Let's suppose He even passed some tests you gave Him to prove it was Him and He was really there. Then He was gone. You ran out the door to tell your friends. They said, "Prove it." Uh, you couldn't, of course, but that doesn't mean it didn't happen and wasn't real. It's just outside of science. All you'd have is the weight of your trustworthiness in front of your friends. The proof would be in your reliability as an eyewitness, not in material proof of the experience.
I'm very glad you gave me this scenario. Just for the sake of argument let's say this happened and somehow I just knew it was true [I could have hallucinated], I run out and tell someone else I just met God. If by chance they didn't believe me, would you find fault in them for that and conclude that they must just be hateful sinners trying to deny my claim?
> Have you ever been part of a group of Christians for long?
I was raised to be a Christian from a young age. I went to Mt. Calvary Christian church/school in Elizabethtown PA as a child. My family was Southern Baptist, I remained a Christian until about early 30s. I've been around Christians my whole life.
> I have no idea how much you've studied or read the Bible, so I'm curious about that. The Bible clearly says this to me, so I wonder either why it doesn't say it to you, or maybe if your exposure to it is limited.
I meant something external. A Muslim is going to naturally say he's on the right track as long as he stays within the confines of the Qu'ran, this is all assuming the Qu'ran is right. Later on in life I started to question what I believed, I was a Christian because that's what I was raised to be, I didn't question it.......until later on. I realized I didn't have any sense that I was following the right religion or that God was even listening to me. Christians talk about this divine relationship, I have no problems whatsoever having a relationship with humans. If God behaves just like a God that doesn't exist, why be surprised when people doubt? That's not sensible.
Another sign [for me anyway] that something isn't kosher is that Christians can't agree on some pretty basic things. I've come across many Christians that can't agree on whether water baptism is needed for salvation, do people get tortured in hell for eternity or does the soul get destroyed [non existence]? Can you lose your salvation? etc etc. We're not talking about little details way out in left field, fundamental issues are not agreed on. This is alarming considering the Bible claims that one job of the holy spirit is to guide Christians in understanding of scripture. So even with supernatural guidance we can't get the details right?
Anyway, I have to run but I enjoy these conversations. I try hard to understand, but I hope I can shed light on what it's like to simply be skeptical of something but in doing that someone like myself get's told [not by you necessarily but others] that the reason why I don't believe is because I'm some cynical reprobate that deserves eternal torture.
- Penguin
Re: Sketicism and Christianity
by jimwalton » Sun Aug 18, 2019 7:50 pm
> This is exactly why I'm surprised that the most loving, merciful and most powerful being possible created a Universe with a planet populated with humans where he asks them to believe things that happened thousands of years ago and where one has to believe in something heavily rooted in the supernatural.
It's odd to me that you think it's unreasonable for a supernatural being to expect us to believe in the supernatural. To me that's a necessary piece.
The things that happened millennia ago were major point of revelation in a long, historical plan (viz., the covenant, the Exodus, Israel as a nation, and Jesus). God is still doing things today; we're not just left to believe in something thousands of years ago. I can point to things in my life, as all Christians can.
> Why base all of this in something that as you admit, is not something we can really detect and measure.
I assume you're a thinking person. But science cannot measure and detect what you are thinking. So you yourself base your position on something that science cannot detect and measure, viz., your own thoughts and conclusions about these matters.
> How else are we supposed to tell the difference between a true and a false supernatural claim
You'll notice a pattern in the Bible. When God gave people a message, He verified with some kind of sign—certainly real and provable to THEM, but with no material residue for later study. God was all about evidences. But we're looking back 2000 years. With no artifact ("Look! Jesus's footprints are still here on the lake!") to examine, we have to evaluate the event via other means. What are those means? In the Bible, it was that the message given actually happened. God told King Hezekiah He would save Jerusalem from the Assyrians. History tells us Jerusalem was not taken by the Assyrians. Later prophets predicted Jerusalem would be destroyed by the Babylonians, and it was. These and dozens of others give credibility to the text. But the interpretations (it was God who did it, not some natural occurrence) are unprovable.
For instance, Donald Trump says he's not a racist, and yet if we look at his record, we see all white people on his cabinet, all white people on his staff, and we listen to his words about people of other races. We can't PROVE he's a racist, but if it looks like a rat, smells like a rat, acts like a rat, and carries disease like a rat, we infer the most reasonable conclusion: it's a rat! We have to infer beyond what can be proved. When I subscribe to the supernatural interpretation portrayed in the Bible, there are many pieces of knowledge going into that conclusion.
> that's how we get parents that refuse to take their child to the hospital when their sick and pray the kid to death.
I think these parents are injurious and wrong, not godly. These people are making tragic mistakes. This is not part of Christianity.
> You seem to be focusing on science, I'm just talking about giving me a good reason to believe that demons, angels, spirits are active and interacting with our physical world
I focused on science because you seem to want empirical proof for non empirical phenomena. What sort of evidence would you accept for the question you are asking, if not science?
> By their actions!
But that's just your interpretation of your experiences. Is that what you're telling me is unacceptable when it comes to "proving" God? I know families where one kid feels very loved and another feels rejected, even though the parents are treating them the same and loving them the same. With "by their actions," you are giving me subjective, interpretive, eyewitness accounts. I'm not trying to be difficult, but it seems to me you are giving me the exact thing you are rejecting from Christianity.
> You used the word "conspicuous", you seemed to be making it sound like belief is expected because it's so clearly true.
Belief follows evidence. When I'm convinced, then I subscribe to that position (belief). Is Trump a racist? I think the evidence points to the conclusion that he is, so I believe it. To me it seems clearly true. But it's not clearly true because I expected it but rather because I've researched it, discussed it with others, and reasoned about it.
> I mentioned them to merely point out that there are other views on the available evidence. It's certainly no slam dunk at all that the resurrection happened.
Oh, I agree there are plenty of views on it. The case for the resurrection is anything but a slam dunk. And yet on careful examination of the evidence, I find it compelling.
> I think Robert Price is pretty solid, he did well against WLC.
It's interesting how extremely intelligent people can examine the same evidence and arrive at completely different conclusions. It makes one wonder about the nature of epistemology. In the end, one of them is right and one is wrong. It astounds me that someone so smart could end up being so wrong when he's working so hard to examine the evidence objectively and reason the case through to its rational conclusion. It make me very wary and careful about my own thought processes and conclusions. We all need to learn from situations like this. Even the best of scholarship can go astray.
> If by chance they didn't believe me, would you find fault in them for that and conclude that they must just be hateful sinners trying to deny my claim?
Absolutely not. In my many conversations on this forum, I do run into people that are quite hostile and excessively closed-minded. But most of my conversations are like this one with you: friendly, open, interesting, and enjoyable.
> Elizabethtown PA
Hmm. I grew up in Phillie. Raised Baptist, also, as you.
> Christians can't agree on some pretty basic things.
Yeah, it's weird. (Just being honest and open.) I end up shaking my head SO many times and breathing big sighs. Despite the temptation to do so, I don't evaluate Christianity by Christians. I evaluate it by the Bible and by Christ.
Just as I shouldn't evaluate democracy by our current state of political disorder, neither should I evaluate Christianity by our current state of ecclesiological disjunction.
> I enjoy these conversations
Me, too. I'm fine with continuing the conversation.
It's odd to me that you think it's unreasonable for a supernatural being to expect us to believe in the supernatural. To me that's a necessary piece.
The things that happened millennia ago were major point of revelation in a long, historical plan (viz., the covenant, the Exodus, Israel as a nation, and Jesus). God is still doing things today; we're not just left to believe in something thousands of years ago. I can point to things in my life, as all Christians can.
> Why base all of this in something that as you admit, is not something we can really detect and measure.
I assume you're a thinking person. But science cannot measure and detect what you are thinking. So you yourself base your position on something that science cannot detect and measure, viz., your own thoughts and conclusions about these matters.
> How else are we supposed to tell the difference between a true and a false supernatural claim
You'll notice a pattern in the Bible. When God gave people a message, He verified with some kind of sign—certainly real and provable to THEM, but with no material residue for later study. God was all about evidences. But we're looking back 2000 years. With no artifact ("Look! Jesus's footprints are still here on the lake!") to examine, we have to evaluate the event via other means. What are those means? In the Bible, it was that the message given actually happened. God told King Hezekiah He would save Jerusalem from the Assyrians. History tells us Jerusalem was not taken by the Assyrians. Later prophets predicted Jerusalem would be destroyed by the Babylonians, and it was. These and dozens of others give credibility to the text. But the interpretations (it was God who did it, not some natural occurrence) are unprovable.
For instance, Donald Trump says he's not a racist, and yet if we look at his record, we see all white people on his cabinet, all white people on his staff, and we listen to his words about people of other races. We can't PROVE he's a racist, but if it looks like a rat, smells like a rat, acts like a rat, and carries disease like a rat, we infer the most reasonable conclusion: it's a rat! We have to infer beyond what can be proved. When I subscribe to the supernatural interpretation portrayed in the Bible, there are many pieces of knowledge going into that conclusion.
> that's how we get parents that refuse to take their child to the hospital when their sick and pray the kid to death.
I think these parents are injurious and wrong, not godly. These people are making tragic mistakes. This is not part of Christianity.
> You seem to be focusing on science, I'm just talking about giving me a good reason to believe that demons, angels, spirits are active and interacting with our physical world
I focused on science because you seem to want empirical proof for non empirical phenomena. What sort of evidence would you accept for the question you are asking, if not science?
> By their actions!
But that's just your interpretation of your experiences. Is that what you're telling me is unacceptable when it comes to "proving" God? I know families where one kid feels very loved and another feels rejected, even though the parents are treating them the same and loving them the same. With "by their actions," you are giving me subjective, interpretive, eyewitness accounts. I'm not trying to be difficult, but it seems to me you are giving me the exact thing you are rejecting from Christianity.
> You used the word "conspicuous", you seemed to be making it sound like belief is expected because it's so clearly true.
Belief follows evidence. When I'm convinced, then I subscribe to that position (belief). Is Trump a racist? I think the evidence points to the conclusion that he is, so I believe it. To me it seems clearly true. But it's not clearly true because I expected it but rather because I've researched it, discussed it with others, and reasoned about it.
> I mentioned them to merely point out that there are other views on the available evidence. It's certainly no slam dunk at all that the resurrection happened.
Oh, I agree there are plenty of views on it. The case for the resurrection is anything but a slam dunk. And yet on careful examination of the evidence, I find it compelling.
> I think Robert Price is pretty solid, he did well against WLC.
It's interesting how extremely intelligent people can examine the same evidence and arrive at completely different conclusions. It makes one wonder about the nature of epistemology. In the end, one of them is right and one is wrong. It astounds me that someone so smart could end up being so wrong when he's working so hard to examine the evidence objectively and reason the case through to its rational conclusion. It make me very wary and careful about my own thought processes and conclusions. We all need to learn from situations like this. Even the best of scholarship can go astray.
> If by chance they didn't believe me, would you find fault in them for that and conclude that they must just be hateful sinners trying to deny my claim?
Absolutely not. In my many conversations on this forum, I do run into people that are quite hostile and excessively closed-minded. But most of my conversations are like this one with you: friendly, open, interesting, and enjoyable.
> Elizabethtown PA
Hmm. I grew up in Phillie. Raised Baptist, also, as you.
> Christians can't agree on some pretty basic things.
Yeah, it's weird. (Just being honest and open.) I end up shaking my head SO many times and breathing big sighs. Despite the temptation to do so, I don't evaluate Christianity by Christians. I evaluate it by the Bible and by Christ.
Just as I shouldn't evaluate democracy by our current state of political disorder, neither should I evaluate Christianity by our current state of ecclesiological disjunction.
> I enjoy these conversations
Me, too. I'm fine with continuing the conversation.
Last bumped by Anonymous on Sun Aug 18, 2019 7:50 pm.
- jimwalton
- Site Admin
- Posts: 9111
- Joined: Mon Sep 17, 2012 2:28 pm
9 posts
• Page 1 of 1
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest