In response to a series of questions asked of me by Matt Chewning
-------------------------------
Before answering your questions, I wanted to address your own views. The fact that you feel the need to have evidence for your claims is admirable. Blind faith has the unfortunate side effect of being both immune to discussion and impossible to defend. Given that you base your beliefs (at least in part) on a logical progression of facts, perhaps it would be enlightening to see you summarize your case.
With regards to your questions:
1. Are you Agnostic or an Agnostic Theist?
I am a strict Agnostic, meaning I take no position on the existence of any deity. My studies have focused around evidence for the possibility of the existence of a god in any form, and less on the specific revelation of god as defined by any particular religion. My father has been taking the position that the Christian tradition is compelling enough to make an ipso facto case for god's existence, so my discussions with him have focused around things like Jesus, the Bible, and all related Christian-specific beliefs. This is a much more difficult mountain to climb in my opinion, as he has to simultaneously demonstrate the existence of god at the same time he is differentiating Christianity from the countless other incorrect revelations of god. Since he (and you, from what you say) are convinced you have the answers though, it is completely understandable that you might be reluctant to posit from a position that ignores things you are certain of. In general though, I have typically found the atheistic arguments more compelling than the theistic ones. Whatever bias I might have in my Agnosticism is currently leaning toward the philosophy of Logical Empiricism, even though I am aware of the limited explanatory power of such a worldview.
2. What is your view on the bible and why?
I assume the question you really are asking is what I make of the proposed divine heritage of the Bible. This question is predicated on an answer to both god's existence and his nature. Without a framework that defines either of these traits, it is very difficult to presuppose how (if at all) god would choose to reveal himself. I would go so far as to say that any document claiming to be the infallible word of an omniscient being must be held to an enormously high standard. It isn't sufficient to say that the Bible meets standard historical criteria for truth (which I have read interesting arguments against this) and it isn't enough to say that the Bible has a high degree of historicity. In order for the the Bible to be what it is claimed to be, it needs to far exceed the standards of any document ever created. Any other claim would be inconsistent with the nature of an omniscient being. Given that you base your own belief in the Bible off of evidence, I am interested to see how overcame this rather large obstacle. From my own personal research, there seems to be legitimate reasons to doubt even some of the basic accuracy of the Bible, pushing the larger goal of proving it's divine nature out of reach. I will freely admit though, that I have not plumbed the depths of this subject. If you have insight into matters that I have not considered, I welcome them.
3. Who is Jesus and why is that your view?
If we're peeling back the onion of Christianity, Jesus is at the core. Jesus' divinity cannot be reasonably discussed until both god's existence and the divinity of the Bible are assumed. If you have already incorporated both of these assumptions into your worldview, then the claims made about Jesus should be an inevitable conclusion. If you could somehow prove that every claim about Jesus was true, then you could accept every other Christian tradition a priori. As I have mentioned earlier though, this is an almost insurmountable task. If you haven't first demonstrated that there is a god and that the Biblical account of Jesus can be accepted as historical fact (virgin birth, miracles, resurrection, and all), you really don't have much else to rely on as evidence. Anyone attempting to climb this mountain of improbability, is generally unaware of the assumptions they are making in the process.
4. If you were to have every single question that you have, answered, and it all leads to Christ being God, would you become a Christ Follower (Christian)? I understand that this is an impossible feat, but still a hypothetical question.
I follow the Socratic Method, which states that you "follow the evidence wherever it takes you". Even though my father has occasionally accused me otherwise, I am genuinely interested in this truth. I would like to present this question back to you though, as I think it points out a huge danger with the concept of faith. Is there any evidence, no matter how hypothetical, that would convince you that your god does not exist? Think about this before giving me a reflex answer. Human beings have a great capacity to adapt our perception of the world to match our beliefs. One only need to look at the myriad of mutually-exclusive world religions to see this fact. If your beliefs are correct, then there are billions of completely genuine Muslims in the world who are dead wrong. According to the Christian world view, they have deluded themselves and are following a false religion. Once you convince yourself that you've discovered the truth, you almost inevitably stop asking questions. More importantly, you start seeing the entire world through the lens of your belief structure. The entire apparatus becomes self-reinforcing to the point where it is almost impossible to tear down. My guess is that there is not a single piece of evidence that I can show a true believer to make them see that they are wrong. A true believer will find a way to explain away anything that does not fit what they know to be true. If you are luckily enough to be correct, then you have nothing to worry about. If you are one of the billions that choose wrong, then you have robbed yourself of the opportunity to know real truth.
Hopefully this gives you some insight as to where my thought process and research has taken me. I have posed some questions and made some assertions of my own here, so I welcome your perspective.
5 comments:
" In order for the the Bible to be what it is claimed to be, it needs to far exceed the standards of any document ever created."
So there are two possibilities at this crossroads.
1. The Bible is not the word of God.
2. The Bible is the word or God.
In the first case the Bible will be exposed as false when brought before the bar of reason.
In the second case, as you rightly point out, the Bible could never be judged according to mans finite wisdom.
For the sake of the argument let's for moment assume the Bible is the word of God. If this is so, then all attempts to scrutinize the Bible will fail by definition.
In other words, in your unafraid search for the real truth you must allow for the sake of argument that the bible is both true and untrue. In the case of it being true you are by default unable create a standard by which it can be judged.
Great topic!!
That is, of course a great dilemma that all believers need to come to terms with. The Bible is the primary source for the vast majority of Christian beliefs, yet it cannot really be shown to be either true or false. Like the existence of god question, the best you can ever hope for is a reasonable list of facts that can be used to make an educated guess. That does not stop you from having faith, but I am still curious as to how an intellectually honest believer reconciles their need for evidence with their need to believe in something. Even though a conclusive answer is out of reach, how much evidence is enough to sway your feelings one way or the other?
Brian,
you responded to my comment with,
"That is, of course a great dilemma that all believers need to come to terms with."
Believers and non believers alike since the two argue the same issue with different conclusions.
My point was though that the question is invalid if you can not create a standard by which the true word of God can be judged. And if this side of the argument is impossible to address in this manner than the other side should be too. For,
(Brian) "How can we be truly objective, for instance, if we use different criteria to judge different sides of an argument? Forcing consistency ensures that all facts are being evaluated in a similar manner, standardizing comparisons between different sets of observations"
So it appears to me that proving or disproving the divine nature of the Bible purposeless matter since the same lens can not be used to judge both sides of the equation ie
1 the bible is the word of God
2 the bible is not the word of God
Next Point:
(Brian responding to Matts hypothetical questions regarding Jesus)"I would like to present this question back to you though, as I think it points out a huge danger with the concept of faith."
This Brian, is very revealing! You've not escaped faith yourself. Nobody escapes faith!
All arguments regarding religion, morals, ethics, aesthetics, politics and philosophy really can be reduced to the question that I posed to you before:
Do you believe that something can come from nothing in the most absolute terms?
Ignore this question and all other arguments are moot. It IS the fundamental question that is, well, like the 800 pound gorilla in the room.
It's a wonderful exercise in intellectual dexterity to try in earnest to understand the interesting tangents that make up the wonderful world of philosophy, and the very pursuit of truth itself is exhilarating.
There is no doubt that we enjoy demonstrating our mastery of logical and rational jujitsu, playing chess with words and ideas, using trivia and erudition as tactics to achieve in the end what amounts to nothing more than food for the ego. Much as a beautiful woman can herself be charmed by her own beauty, so can an intelligent man be in love with his intellect.
The real fight lies in the zero plus zero question. Watch and watch maker.
It all comes down to a very simple equation that fortunately we can assign numbers to.
1. 0+0=0
2. 0+0= Everything that exists
Do you believe in a Creator?
Regarding The Idea That Believers Carry The Burden Of Proof
One must take into consideration the testimony (belief in God) of Billions and Billions of people throughout history and the fact that the majority of people have believed in God. This means that it is equally if not more so the burden of the non believer to prove God non existence.
Our combined existence constitutes our reality. In that reality it is the judgment of the vast majority that evidence of God lies everywhere and is obvious.
What evidence? Everything is the evidence! Again, not to beat a dead horse but you either believe all was created or that zero plus zero equals not zero, but in fact equals everything. That is simple math and for those that like well established models, it has long since been agreed that zero plus zero equals zero.
This is the exact question that non believers try to avoid, and they avoid it easily. It's so easy and fun to get wrapped up in another interesting debate, albeit a moot tangential point.
In Conclusion:
My argument in this comment is not meant to pose a question to you that would make you look unreasonable regardless of how you answer (although that is a great debating tactic!) ie zero plus zero etc...
My argument is merely to show that FAITH IS required to believe both
1. God exists
2. God does not exist
If one claims to believe in neither but lives as though there is no God, then by faith he lives as though there is no God and we are reminded that actions speak louder than words.
FROM A CHRISTIAN PERSPECTIVE (just thoughts and not a challenge)
Since, as we have agreed, we can not rationalize or reason our way back to The Beginning nor can we answer all there is to ask by way of reason, faith is a requirement.
The question is WHY do we CHOOSE to put our faith where we put it? The answer truly lies in our inner most being, in our hearts. And I believe the Lord does search our hearts as it says in the Bible.
What is the REAL reason non believers choose to deny God? Could it sometimes be homosexual attraction (insert anything) that needs to be either rejected or justified? On the other hand could one simply choose to love God? This is rhetorical...
I apologize if I wrote too much.
An Example Of You Exercising Faith In Your Own Words
"I personally believe that all of the universe can be explained through natural means, a belief called Metaphysical Naturalism, but I cannot prove this fact.
This is an example of consciously embracing a conclusion despite the lack of evidence.
Since you choose Metaphysical Naturalism to be the prism through which you discern Truth from Non Truth, and since you admit by definitions that you laid out (ie faith is embracing a conclusion despite the lack of evidence), then you must now concede that the method you used to arrive at your current convictions (agnostic) was based on faith.
Since you choose Metaphysical Naturalism to be the prism through which you discern Truth from Non Truth, and since you admit by definitions that you laid out (ie faith is embracing a conclusion despite the lack of evidence), then you must now concede that the method you used to arrive at your current convictions (agnostic) was based on faith.
Almost. If I embraced what felt right to me, I would be a card carrying Atheist. Metaphysical Naturalism is what I truly believe, but my desire to be intellectually honest prevents me from embracing even my own faith. How can I ask believers to objectively consider the implications of their belief if I am not actively trying to poke holes in my own? My rejection of faith pulled me back from Atheism to my current position of weak Agnosticism.
The entire reason for writing this post was to try and lay out my developing worldview for my father (I think I do a better job of this in my post Naturalism, Materialism, and Empiricism (oh, my!)). Since our assumptions can kill objectivity, I wanted to give myself no place to hide. I want my assumptions to be plastered on the walls for everyone to see and I want there to be no ambiguity in the way they are stated. I do this because I know that if I ever let irrational ideas blind me from the truth, you will all happily throw it right back in my face. It is the only way I can think of to keep myself in check.
The difference between the critical thinkers and the sheep is the courage to put those deep-seated beliefs on trial every day.
Post a Comment