The Root of My Agnosticism
Conversing with me recently, a friend spoke of the demonic encounters of some of his Indonesian classmates. This brings up the idea of the observation of the supernatural. This is an enormous topic, encompassing theological, philosophical, and metaphysical arguments. But it is the crux of why I struggle. I wrote the following in an e-mail to my friend, and I’ve modified it slightly for this post.
This is the most important post I’ve ever left on this blog. I welcome comments.
Allow me, if you will, to attempt to tie a broad philosophical discussion to a single point about the supernatural. If I have any skill as a communicator, I'll get back to this point in a moment. I'm going to attempt to bring up several large areas of philosophy and theology and return to this one -- give me a second, and please try not to get distracted by my rabbit trails. I'll try to bring this all back to a comprehensible, razor's edge conclusion.
I think everyone can agree that there are six categories of arguments for the existence of God. They are:
- Ontological Arguments: Arguments from nothing but analytic, a priori and necessary premises to the conclusion that God exists. In other words, the logic of God requires God. (St. Anselm, et al) All other arguments are a posteriori arguments.
- Cosmological Arguments: Facts about the world require a God. This encompasses first cause, Kalam, and related arguments. (Aquinas, et al)
- Teleological Arguments: Arguments from Design. Creation science and Intelligent Design are the modern incarnations.
- Arguments from Miracles. Attestation of divinity claims through the working of supernatural healings, resurrection, etc.
- Moral Arguments. C.S. Lewis and Ravi Zacharias really like this one. These arguments center around the necessity of an absolute moral being to create the moral order that, it is argued, is present all around us.
- Pragmatic Arguments: The most famous is Pascal's Wager: you're better off believing. This could be excluded from this list, as it makes claims about belief in the existence of God rather than claims directly about the existence of God.
While its apologists have used at various times the myriad forms of each argument, the Bible directly makes claims about itself -- or the characters portrayed on its pages -- using four arguments. Let's use the Bible as the source text, rather than apologists or critics:
- Moral Argument: God is the lawgiver and "the Law is holy, and the commandment is holy and righteous and good" "the Law is spiritual"
- Argument from Miracles: Jesus as God because of healings and resurrection.
- Cosmological: God is portrayed as the first/sustaining cause: "In the beginning was the word..."
- Teleological: God is the Creator: "In the beginning, God created..." "since the creation of the world... His invisible attributes have been clearly seen... so that [unbelievers] are without excuse"
There are certainly other places in the Bible where these arguments are found. The Ontological argument can be injected into scripture, but only through eisegesis, which all honest readers want to avoid. (Not an attempt to discredit the argument; it is simply not in the Bible.) The Pragmatic argument can be seen in parts ('The fool has said in his heart, "There is no God "' -- a comment about belief rather than for the existence of God). But again, there is more eisegesis than exegesis to be done here.
Thus, in examining the Bible, we are left with four kinds of claims, arguments, or proofs of the truth of the Bible: cosmological, teleological, miraculous, and moral. Note that I am not the one phrasing the argument this way -- this is what the Bible puts forward as its own reason-based claims. [Correct me if I'm wrong at this point, because these are still suppositions leading up to my argument.]
One more supposition. We learn through either reason or experience. Reason encompasses logic, science, etc. Experience includes observation, direct interaction, and, in the dualistic view of the psyche, spiritual experiences. Thus, we are left to examine the claims of the Bible using the same faculties we employ when considering any truth claim: reason and experience.
Now for the broadening of my claim, which will result in the major obstacle between me and complete belief in the Bible:
The necessary use of these faculties requires us to compare what is stated as truth in the Bible to other truths learned by these faculties. This comparison must take place prior to accepting the Bible's claims as absolute truth, otherwise we are being intellectually dishonest. When I therefore turn these -- reason and experience -- on the Bible's truth claims, I come to the following basic conclusions. (These are summaries, not my complete thinking).
Moral Arguments
Faculties available for argumentation: Reason and Experience
There is a lot I could say on this topic that would get us off track -- for instance, is the God of the OT moral in absolute terms? For now, I will focus on a classical formulation of the Moral Argument.
Ravi Zacharias' messages and books on “Why I am not an Atheist (Part 1/2)" and "Is Atheism Dead, Is God Alive? (1/2)" summarize a Biblical Moral Argument for God's existence:
- Without God there is no Law -- How else do we define absolutes?
- Without God there is no Hope -- Theism answers the question of death.
- Without God there is no Meaning -- God supplies meaning to our actions while we live.
While considering his claims, I had the following thoughts, which he never addressed. First, why can we claim that we are owed Law, Hope, or Meaning. Innately, we wish for justice. We want to have eternal hope. We would like to think that our lives mean something. I agree that the theistic world view gives answers to these three neatly, but the bigger question is -- are they the right answers? Life is easier with theistic answers, but who says that we are owed Law, Hope, or Meaning?
His argument strikes me as this: he wishes it so, it gives his life internal consistency, so it must be. Why, other than wishing, are we owed these three? I want to live my life based first on Truth; if Law, Hope, and Meaning fit in with that, so be it. I do not believe in wishing the God of the Bible into existence because he makes my personal world view consistent.
--
Arguments from Miracles (or, at its root, the supernatural)
Faculties available for argumentation: Experience (reason can only be used indirectly)
Miracles are acts that must be experienced to believe. Reason cannot be used to compel a person to believe in them since by their very definition they are contrary to reason. My friend’s Indonesian buddies believe in the supernatural because of their claim to have directly observed it. New Testament believers commonly found faith due to the direct observation of a disciple or Jesus performing a supernatural wonder. Others at the time disbelieved these because they did not directly observe them. Arguments, such as the argument that the disciples died for claiming belief in the miracle of the resurrection, are indirect uses of reason to describe a miraculous event -- not a direct reasonable argument for miracles.
Thus to believe in the miraculous (or the supernatural), I have to experience it directly. I do not believe I ever have. I have prayed throughout my life to witness the supernatural or a miracle, because I believe that this is a huge barrier to my belief. I am one of those for whom God has allotted a small measure of faith, and I need, like Thomas, to see before I believe. I'll pass on the extra helping of blessing granted to those who believe without seeing to gain the smallest foothold in the world of belief. For now, though, I find it hard to believe in the supernatural or in miracles.
--
Cosmological Arguments
Faculties available for argumentation: Reason (you cannot experience logic)
Cosmological arguments have at their root the logic of the world around us. There are attributes of the universe -- for instance the relationship between space and time -- that make it logically feasible that space and time require a cause or starting point (creation/big bang/the beginning of time), but something outside the universe and the constraints of the space/time relationship does not. This is effectively a little cosmology + the Kalam Cosmological argument. Whatever is outside space and time cannot be described by this argument, though -- and likely it could never be understood by beings who operate within space and time. Thus, attributing first cause to something outside space and time does not lead us to God -- it leads us only outside space and time.
--
Teleological Arguments
Faculties available for argumentation: Reason (you cannot understand design through experience)
This, of course, is where the Young-Earth Creationist (YEC) interpretation of the Bible finds a mass of incongruence with just about every area that science has ever observed. I do not believe in a massive conspiracy against the literal interpretation of Genesis. I believe that theories about the age of the earth and universe and the nature of biology and evolution are correct according to the simplest explanations of observed attributes of our world. These explanations change as we gain more knowledge, but they typically change further away from the YEC account with each new observation of the world.
My YEC friends and I could write forever back and forth and never solve this, but let me say this: there is ample reason within the Biblical text to believe in a non-scientifically-literal Genesis creation account. First, the Creation account in Genesis is a poem; second... we could go on about this forever. I'm sure by now some have written me off as a God-hating, left-wing, atheistic, baby-eating, Christmas-warring, free-loving, all-colors-of-the-rainbow-of-thought-accepting, Bush-bashing liberal (I am not), but I actually don't believe that arguments from design must be thrown out due to the success of evolutionary theory.
On the other hand, I haven't found a theory of design that leads directly to the Bible's God. The engineer in me, though, has trouble seeing the weak anthropic principle, design in nature, and order throughout the cosmos without thinking that something started this whole space/time arrangement in our universe. Nonetheless, this observaion (I do not say conclusion yet) does not lead us exclusively to the truth of the Bible.
--
So, I promised that I would go from broad to narrow and make a single point. Here's my best shot. This is where I get back to my discussion of my friend’s Indonesian friends' supernatural observations.
My point: of all the arguments for the existence of God, the only one that leads a person to the God of the Bible is the argument from Miracles. Moral arguments, cosmological arguments, and teleological arguments can lead a person to a God-concept or a moral absolute, but not to the God of the Bible. Proving what you are asserting through demonstrations of the supernatural that augment and agree with your other truth claims about God necessarily shows a uniqueness to your claim when compared to other truth claims about God. Thus, I agree with the Bible in that the most comprehensive way for Jesus to prove his deity was through just these kinds of demonstrations, culminating with the resurrection.
Another reason why the argument from miracles is so important is that it makes all the other arguments fall into place. It grants a person to the God of the teleological and cosmological arguments and a face to the moral absolute of moral arguments. Without it, everything is in the abstract.
My problem is that these miraculous demonstrations were experienced by others, not me. These others include the gospel writers, those in Jesus' time who claim to have witnessed these miracles, and those in my time, like the Indonesian guys, who claim to have experienced the supernatural in a manner consistent with the Bible's description. The only "learning faculty" I can therefore bring to bear on these claims is my reason, and these claims fly in the face of reason. There is no means of reasoning your way into believing these unreasonable claims without, as mentioned before, sacrificing your intellectual honesty by accepting the Bible as true from the outset.
This is where I'm stuck.
I have never experienced the supernatural in a manner consistent with the Bible's description; thus, I do not believe.
Labels:
Christianity,
Creationism,
Evolution,
God,
Meaning in Life
16 comments:
I think you've stated you position pretty clearly. I should really think this through before I reply, so I'll just leave you with one thought, which relates to your main tool of objection: your facility for reasoning. How do you know you can put so much confidence in you ability to reason? How do you learn to reason soundly? Claim (speculation, feel free to refute): your reasoning ability must be trained by your experience. Corollary: when reasoning in areas in which you have no direct experience, you must have faith in others and rely on them to accurately relate their experiences to you. The caveat to this corollary is, of course, that you want to be sure that you can believe those others, especially when their claims seem to contradict your previously developed reasoning. (This, I think, is where you have issues with Christianity.) In particular, what criteria would you use in order to accept the experiences of others, and let them influence your reasoning?
Let me give you an example of what I mean. The objects we see in everyday life appear to have a very well defined discrete particulate nature. An atomic theory of matter in which atoms are made of tiny particles seems very reasonable. Now what if I come along and tell you that I have had new experiences which lead me to reason that those tiny particles which you claim things are made of are not really particles? That they are really objects unlike any you ever saw, with properties that seem wavelike (diffraction, self-interaction, etc.). You have a few choices. First, reject what I say outright because it is unreasonable to you. Second, trust me to be telling you the truth and accept what I say concerning the quantum nature of atoms. Third, seek out those same experiences for yourself, in which case you then are willing to modify your reasoning because you trust your experiences.
This third method is the essence of the scientific method, and it works well because experiments are repeatable. (I'll leave aside the questions of billion dollar experiments that are never repeated, or those of "observational" sciences such as evolutionary biology, geology, and cosmology). When we try to bring this scientific reasoning to spiritual questions, then the problem of knowing who to trust when becomes more difficult. Experiments in the supernatural (if you'll pardon the paradoxical phrase) cannot be anything like those in the natural. Without controlled, repeatable experiments, the interpretation of events and observations becomes much more subjective (my main problem with evolution, btw). My third choice from the paragraph above becomes extremely difficult, and you are faced with the choice of accepting or rejecting supernatural claims on "blind faith".
It seems to me that you have taken the first choice. You reject spiritual claims because you have not experienced them yourself. I prefer the second choice, and accept the reports/claims of many people concerning Christ and the resurrection. Mind you that I also actively pursue the third (and seek to discern spiritual events in my life). Again, this sometimes becomes subjective because of its supernatural nature (uncontrolled/unrepeatable experiment), but I am willing to accept that.
Perhaps you will say that I am too naive, but I urge you to also put a little more confidence in others, and then continue to develop your understanding/reasoning about the supernatural. Have faith like a child = recognize our own limited reasoning ability and small set of experiences and be willing to accept the input of others.
I realize that I've not answered *any* of your questions, but I just wanted to let you know where I'm coming from. You want to know the truth, and so are skeptical of the experiences of others. I'm perhaps less of a skeptic in that sense, but more skeptical of our reasoning abilities (I've seen mine fail so often while trying to learn physics). Anyway, this one thought has turned out rather long, but as they say, I didn't have time to write a shorter reply.
Interesting. I found myselft questioning my ability to reason as well. Which is an important question. And I will agree that you learn your reasoning skills through your environment. However, my solution was the exact opposite as yours. I took up the agnostic position because of it, and I am working diligently to ground my reasoning faculties.
For further resources on this I recommend Bertrand Russell's Skeptical Essays. He discus's the nature of certainty, and to what extent can men be rational.
Cheers!
If you just go around trusting what the people around you say is the truth, then you are bound to a geographical location. US = Christianity; Iran = Islam; China = Atheist; The Bush = Who knows? Various Rocks? etc.
Reason is the only thing we have to go on. Thomas Jefferson (deist) put it best: "Your own reason is the only oracle given you by heaven, and you are answerable, not for the rightness, but uprightness of the decision." Considering that the alternative is just going along with peer pressure and indoctrination, this is very persuasive (at least to me).
http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/jefferson_carr.html
I too am trying to find out the truth. Best wishes! Merry Christmas!
Have you ever considered some form of naturalistic theism? That is, identifying God with some feature or features of the natural world. God in such an account is an evaluational term of those saving or transformative features of experience to which we seek to relate to in an appropriate manner.
Some recent books along these lines of thought could include Gordon Kaufman's Theology in the Nuclear Age and his more systematic In the Face of Mystery and Jerome Stone's Minimalistic Transcendence.
I suspect you might be surprised how many in the churches, especially in mainline protestant ones, are not supernaturalists at all. Either what I described or some form of panentheism has taken it's place for many, Marcus Borg is a good example of that move.
I agree with many, and perhaps all, of your points. It stands to reason that moral, cosmological, and teleological arguments can only lead to a reasonable basis for the existence of some kind of being who is outside or our experience.
Moral arguments show that this being would be the source of justice, hope, and meaning. (And my thought’s about what Ravi Zacharias never addressed is: why do we all innately long for those things? The Christian view of creation and the Fall seem to answer that question the most reasonably. We were intended for a better world and something went horribly wrong because we doubted God’s goodness and His intentions toward us. Now we’re living in that broken place where justice fades, hope wanes, and meaning is blotted out.)
Cosmological arguments lead one to believe it is reasonable that there is some unknown cause outside of our existence that we are the effect of. The Big Bang theory is now accepted by virtually every true scientist (meaning those who work in the truly physical sciences), and it points very clearly to a beginning of our physical universe. Every cause has an effect therefore every effect must have a cause.
Teleological arguments show that the physical universe is the result of finite and precise design from the precise balances of substances in the Big Bang to the daily replication of DNA in every living being. I cannot believe that such intricacy came out of chaos in the way that philosophical evolution mandates, and it seems that you agree with me. Therefore I must believe that there is some sort of designer out there, who is infinitely smarter than I could ever hope to be, who figured all of this out.
So we’ve come to a reasonable basis for: 1) some moral agent who is the source for our innate desire for truth, justice, mercy, purpose, hope, etc.; 2) some cause that effected our physical universe; and 3) some designer with the capacity to plan all of our physical world out and then had the ability to bring us into existence. And you’re absolutely right, none of these arguments lead directly to the God of the Bible. And you’re right about the “catch 22” of needing to accept the Bible as true in order to accept it’s witness of the New Testament miracles. So what I think you’re really stuck on is whether or not the Bible is a reliable historical document. Can it speak to the events is records accurately? How does it measure up when compared to other historical documents? Check out these articles and let me know what you think of them…
http://www.leaderu.com/orgs/probe/docs/bib-docu.html
http://everystudent.com/features/bible.html
I sincerely appreciate all the comments so far; I've followed up with the suggested links and recommended authors. My response to the previous post, Amanda's, is below:
Perhaps I was a bit unclear in my reasoning regarding a few of the arguments for God's existence.
My discussions of the "Moral Argument" were intended to comprise a rejection of it. I listed Ravi Zacharias' claims as those with which I disagree. I will grant that an absence of God does change the way many people look at Law, Hope, and Meaning. Nonetheless, a human desire for absolute law, hope for the future, and meaning to our lives does not necessitate God, as RZ seems to argue in the linked sermons and in his book Can Man Live Without God. This amounts to wishing God into existence because he would be the last piece of our law/hope/meaning puzzles. I reject the argument as wishful thinking.
My point about the cosmological argument was that the very concept of causation depends entirely on the meaning of time. The foundation of the cause/effect relationship is removed when time cannot be used as a descriptor. With space and time unequivocally linked since Einstein, there is no meaning to the phrase "before the beginning of the universe." To describe what happened before the universe ( e.g., to describe the cause of the universe) is to describe what happened before time. Again, you cannot have a concept of "before" without the concept of time. Thus, the cosmological argument dissolves into meaninglessness as soon as you begin to describe the cause that existed before the universe.
Now to the teleological argument. You mentioned that you "cannot believe that such intricacy came out of chaos in the way that philosophical evolution mandates." This is one where, I must admit, I do not have a firm answer. I am an engineer professionally and academically (BS, MS, working on a PhD). The only means I have of understanding complexity is through deliberate design. However, the field of biology works with different materials (life), leverages different design influences (natural selection, mutation), and has only one metric for success (survival through reproduction). While I am not fully convinced of these mechanisms' ability to create the living complexity around us, I am not a biologist; I am putting a lot of thought to this now. Aside from evolution, the question of abiogenesis - a completely separate field of thought - must also be considered.
However, I recognize that my position - and yours - amount to a logical fallacy: the argument from personal incredulity. Just because we do not currently understand how something could happen does not mean that it did not occur. To claim that life neither sprang from non-living elements (abiogenesis) nor gradually shaped itself into the natural world as we know it (evolution) simply because we do not understand how it could have happened is not a strong argument. Thus, to find a more satisfactory answer, I am seeking, reading, and pondering.
In short, I do not think we are on the same page with respect to your concluding points 1-3 in your final paragraph. The arguments - moral, cosmological, and teleological - break down into wishful thinking, misapplied logic, and a mystery, respectively. So, hope for a successful argument for the existence of God does lie in the argument from miracles alone, unsupported by the others listed. The others are wrong, inconclusive, or do not lead to God.
The reliability of the Bible is an enormous field. Questions include: Was it reproduced and translated correctly from the original autographs? Did the various councils of Christian fathers (e.g. Council of Nicea) make the correct choices in determining the cannon of scripture? Does it describe historically verifiable events correctly? These are all important, and very well addressed by the references you mention. However, this does not address where I am stuck.
For the sake of brevity, let's grant that the Bible we have is exactly what was written by the original authors, all the books included in it are exclusively the correct ones with no omissions, and that it is generally accurate in describing testable historical events ( e.g., city locations, who was a ruler and when, wars, etc.). This still does nothing to establish a precedent to believe the Biblical authors when they make claims about the supernatural. Fallacies could have been correctly reproduced throughout history in a document that records a mostly accurate secular history of events interwoven with tales of the supernatural. Just because the book was reproduced correctly does not mean that what is being reproduced is true. Just because the book describes wars and rulers to within reasonable limits of accuracy does not mean that when it begins to describe the supernatural, we should believe it on these points as well.
A review of my original post reveals my position that the supernatural can only be understood through experience. We have two means of acquiring knowledge as human beings: reason and experience. The supernatural is something that by definition defies reason -- the only explanation for the supernatural is something outside the reasonable, natural world. There does not exist a process rooted solely in reason that can have us understand the resurrection of a dead man. Thus, I make the case that experiencing a miracle is the only means by which we can acquire knowledge of a miracle or supernatural event. Having not experienced the miracles - including the resurrection of Christ - I claim that there is no means through reason that one can gain knowledge of them, and thus belief in them. Therefore, I do not believe in the supernatural, having neither experienced it nor been given reason to believe in it.
Let me first start off agreeing with you that these arguments indeed do not lead to a “person God” but do lead to a super-natural. And I do think that you are right that the Miracles argument is most likely to lead to a person God. However, I do think that we can describe what ever it is that is outside of time and space. I don’t wish to bring in the Miracle argument because I think that is useful in other areas and times and not exactly at this point.
Allow me to comment on your comments of the Moral Argument. When I discuss this, I do not use the Bible. I also don’t wish to bring up purpose or meaning. Sense you offered the “Biblical Moral Argument” I wish to supply the more general one: It states that:
1.) Objective moral values are a fact.
2.) Either atheism or theism can account for these facts.
3.) Atheism cannot and theism can.
4.) Therefore, theism must be true.
In order for an argument to be successful it needs to show itself more probable than the alternative. Can theism account for ethics? Yes. Can atheism? Well, it might be able to. I say might because it has been a struggle for atheists to come up with a good and sound and agreed upon explanation of ethics without god. They might be able to but they’ve had to stretch. So, the next question is, “Which one is more probable?” Well, theism can much more easily account for the facts than atheism could and, thus, theism is the more probable one.
The key propositions in the Moral Argument are proposition 1 and 3. If you would like to hear my argument for objective morals then here’s a work of mine, Ethics Discarded which deals with the existence of objective morals. It offers support for proposition 1.
Concerning proposition 3, I will make a few comments. If there was no God, then there is no supreme ruler to set up a standard for right or wrong. Also, if there is no God, then there is nothing to hold the actions of one’s life accountable. So, even if there was a code of right and wrong, it still wouldn’t matter because nothing could hold their entire life accountable. Allow me to return to my first “If there was no God” statement and give some reasons. My first reason is that Objective morals can not be grounded into random material processes. I like how Peter Kreeft said it, “A good will might create molecules, but how could molecule create a good will. How could electricity obligate me?” If morals “evolved” it could not be universalized. My second reason is that morals can not be grounded into our desires. If we “ought” to desire something then desire itself has a standard it must answer to. Also, what decides between two desires a person might have? And what decides if one desire is right or wrong? What if I desire to rape a child of yours? Would that desire be wrong? Pure evolution wouldn’t have a place to object (you can’t OBJECT in a subjective morality, because morals aren’t OBJECTive). Lastly, if morals were based on desires then why do we often go against our own desire and expect others to as well? My third reason is that morals can’t be cultural conventions because then it can’t explain rebellions and which culture is right and wrong (Nazis for example). A culture can’t get better because nothing is set to define what “better” is and a culture can’t get worse. While there are differences, these differences still don’t show that an objective morality doesn’t exist but rather supports it because it shows that all cultures agree that there is a morality. My Ethics Discarded deals with these as well.
So, if these two propositions are logical and are more probable then theism is more favorable than atheism.
I now wish to move on what these arguments point to.
First, it is impossible to make an objective claim to anything’s existence without objectively describing it at least in a minor sense. So, using the Teleological, Cosmological and Moral Argument, let us glean some descriptions of this super-nature. I’ll start with the Cosmological. The Cosmological points to something else which must be Uncaused and able to cause. If this something is able to cause, it would then have a significant amount of power (at least in comparison to ourselves and the objects in our universe) to cause the universe we live in. It also must be outside of time, space, and matter. So, it is atemporal, aspatial, and immaterial.
Now the Teleological. It shows that what ever caused the universe did not do it by accident but with purpose and incredible intelligence. Thus, whatever created the universe must have been purposeful, intelligent, and personal enough to create a universe custom tailored for our existence.
And the Moral Argument. It shows that whatever set the objective standard of morality must itself be good. In fact, the question Plato couldn’t answer I think is answerable from this argument. His dilemma was: “Does God command things that are good or are things that He commands good because He commanded them?” I would state that it is neither. God commands things that are in his nature and, as a result, He is the objective standard. But returning to the task at hand, whatever set the moral code must be moral itself and it is not too hard to conclude that it also must be able to hold those under the code responsible for it or else it loses its power to enforce the code.
I f you wish to see my support for each argument and others, then please refer to my post on God’s Existence.
Alright, let us collect these attributes. What ever caused the universe is Un-Caused, able to cause, incredibly powerful, atemporal, aspatial, immaterial, incredibly wise, purposeful, personal, good and able to enforce good. This sounds to me as it is pointing, or at least heavily suggesting, what we call or refer to as “God.”
I don’t want to bring into this the Bible, at least for now. I just wish to come to an accurate description of that which exists out-side of nature and caused the universe.
I must apologize, The link above is messed up. so here it is again:
God's Existence - http://moriasophy.blogspot.com/2006/01/god.html
This is my brief response to Zeteo's second post (time stamped at 9:19pm)
Okay, if we're agreeing that the Bible is essentially a reliable historical document, what do we do with the historical accounts that many people saw various miraculous events? The primary example I'm thinking of is I Corinthians 15:3-6 which talks about Jesus's resurrection and how he "appeared to more than 500 brothers at one time, most of whom are still alive..." Paul wrote this letter in about 55 AD from Ephesus. Both of these cities were, trade-route-wise, was just a hop, skip and a jump from Jerusalem. He wrote it knowing that the church in Corinth could and probably would verify what he was writting by trying to find some of those 500 men who saw Jesus up and walking around several days after his death on the cross.
We know that the other men Paul mentioned by name did, in fact, live at that time and we have extra-biblical sources (these are considered reliable primary sources which arn't nearly as accurately preserved as the Bible) that confirm events in their lives. Isn't it reasonable to believe that the letter is adding reliable details to our account of their lives? If these men hadn't witnessed what Paul claims they did, wouldn't someone have said something about it? The fledgling church had no real power at this time. It was composed of mostly illiterate fisherman, slaves, and other members of the lower classes. Also, they had MANY powerful enemies, from the Jewish rulers to Roman officials to craftsmen who relied on idol manufacturing for their livelihood. Lots of people, who the masses would have listened to and believed, didn't like the Christians and were looking for anything and everything they could find to stamp it out.
I would second Dwights comment. I have found Marcus Borg to be extremely helpful to me and I think both of those options merit further investigation.
While I appreciate Amanda's comment (even though I disagreed ona some points), I'm not sure exactly how it deals with Gnosos' original post, which deals primarily with whether or not God exists. It seems like we're trying to skip straight from that to christianity a bit prematurely.
Hello there, just dropping by and it's very interesting how you've stated your position.
There are times when I wonder if I'm simply too young and arrogant to be a skeptic. But clearly, I would prefer to withhold judgement/belief than to acknowledge an imperfect God or unreliable so-called sources of truth.
Someone said reason is the way to go, and insofar as my personal attempts to use this faculty to come to a tincture of understanding about God, I find that it is only human nature to keep asking these questions. Does this warrant my strong inclination toward agnosticism? That's what I wish to find out.
Thanks.
Interesting to read your blog.
There is a website called http://whydoesgodhateamputees.com/ which has some very interesting perspectives on the whole thing. The title refers to the fact that people say God answers prayers but for some reason no amputee has ever had a missing limb replaced.
Sam Harris says that faith is a license people give each other to believe when there is no evidence.
Harris's "Letter to a Christian Nation" is also worth reading.
Both of these sources really rip away this need for philosphical gymnastics.
" It is very easy to demonstrate to yourself where Goodness comes from, and why humans create it. We can start the demonstration with a question that everyone understands: Is murder good or evil? Forget about God and just answer the question using your own common sense. Murder: right or wrong?
Obviously murder is wrong. Everybody knows that. How do human beings all know that murder is wrong? We -- each one of us -- can look inside ourselves and ask, "Do I want to be murdered?" The answer is, "No." Of course not. It is obvious.
Ask 100 people, "Do you want to be murdered?" 100 people will all say, "No." A person cannot "exist" to answer the question unless he or she is "alive," so obviously he or she does not want to be "dead" because of a murderer. If everyone on the planet were running around murdering each other, humanity could not exist. It's as simple as that. "
If you start from a point where you feel that these beliefs are part of who you are then anything that potentially undermines that is a serious threat. I think this fear is what leads people to twist and turn with all this smoke about moral absolutes etc.
If this was a clean slate and someone came up with this storyboard we would all be pretty disinterested.
Deut 25:11-12
11 If men get into a fight with one another, and the wife of one intervenes to rescue her husband from the grip of his opponent by reaching out and seizing his genitals, you shall cut off her hand; show no pity.
" If you think about what you are reading in the Bible in the context of an all-knowing God who supposedly wrote it, none of it makes any sense. But if you think about the Bible as being a book written by primitive men like you would find in the remote regions of Afghanistan today, it makes complete sense. "
Pablo P, I think it is not too early to discuss Christianity.
I personally agree with Zeteo's observation that an argument based on miracles stands the greatest chance of convincing someone about who God is, if He indeed exists. I also agree that personal experience is the best way for the argument of miracles to work. More specifically, as someone who has accepted Jesus as God, I think the surest way for Zeteo to come to know God is to see Jesus, in the flesh, for himself. Since that is no longer possible (until the end of days), the next best thing is to consider the New Testament accounts, which clearly depict who Jesus is, and what He did to prove He was God. The question now becomes, "are the New Testament accounts of Jesus reliable?"
This is a very broad, deep, and well-developed subject that many authors have written countless books on. I myself am extremely new to the subject, but what I have read so far has only reinforced my belief that the New Testament has indeed made an accurate portrayal of Jesus.
Some links that might prove helpful in such a case are:
The Evidence for Resurrection
Did Jesus Really Rise From the Dead?
Ankerberg Theological Research Institute (link to their Apologetics archive)
You can also read the book John Ankerberg co-wrote with John Weldon:
Ready With An Answer for the Tough Questions About God
Hope my post is of help.
Well, I was looking back through your older posts as it's quite a journey you've been on. While I don't have anything directly to add to the fantastic post and interesting comments above, I just wanted to say thanks for documenting all of this. It's (the entire blog) quite a resource and especially interesting as it began before a lot of the more recent attention paid to skeptical-related media/issues. Thanks.
I believe the author of this blog is in a very exciting place. The best place! He is in search of truth and this is commendable. I just want to share an important thought with you. So far I've never heard or known of any human being say about themselves: "I am the way, THE TRUTH, and the life and no one comes to the Father but by me." In the book of Jeremiah chapter 39 there is a verse that says: "You will seek me and find me when you seek me with all your heart...I will be found by you." So, friend, you go on right ahead and continue to seek for truth. But remember this one thing: truth is not a concept; it is a person. And you will only find it (Him) with your heart because the mind always seeks to understand and reason, therefore it is limited; but it is with the heart that you trust and believe. I just wanted to leave you with this thought. Remember: truth...not a concept to grasp, but a person to know.
Post a Comment