Make no mistake... I want God to exist. Specifically, I want Christianity to be true! But one of the more troubling aspect of religion in general is the seemingly backward way its adherents come to their respective beliefs. It has been my nearly homogeneous experience that the religiously minded form this particular class of beliefs almost exclusively from feelings, perceived need and authority. I cannot deny that this is true of myself and in some sense still is true.
Now, although the tone of my writing (at least how it appears in my mind) is of a critical nature, this is not to say that Christianity is false or even that I am renouncing my faith as a Christian. My only point, really, is to express a deep seated frustration about the nature of religious belief. More explicitly, this frustration can be expressed by the fact that once a person concludes that he/she is in need of religion X and thence experiences religion X's deity, it is only after a most ardent devotion that he/she looks for a rational foundation on which to place his/her newly revered faith. Of course, under such circumstances, a confirmation bias is certainly bound to develop, which makes objective investigation nearly impossible.
Hey Ryan-
ReplyDeleteGood posts, interesting stuff.
I would offer the comment that there might be some confusion between Fundamentalism and Christianity. The basic tenets of Christianity are that people have sinned against God and are in need of a Savior. Jesus came to reconcile us back to God so that we could be with God one day. The existence of Satan and hell aren't necessarily central to Christianity, but they are to Fundamentalism. Augustine (one of the most important and central Christian fathers) described evil as a privation, as basically the absence of God. He believed that the dualism described by modern Fundamentalists (the battles between God and Satan) was a Manichaein heresy. God is omnipotent, omniscient, and sovereign, therefore Satan could not exist according to Augustine.
Fundamentalism (in its varying states) is more dualistic in nature (heaven and hell, Christians and the world) and tries to paint the Bible as a sort of rule book for humanity. Some may be more inclined to believe in less literal forms, but it is still God vs Satan and humanity vs "the world". Furthermore, heaven and hell were Persian concepts before they were in the New Testament. I would argue that the Fundamentalist position on heaven and hell are more Persian than they are Christian.
If you look at the big picture of the Bible, God revealed himself to Israel and they they went into Babylonian captivity. Much of the writings are focused on that period, and that is when scholars believe much of the Bible was written. Whether it is literal or not, it is a huge symbol of the sin of humanity and the need for a Savior. Christ came to be that Savior so we could one day be with God again. Here in this world, God is veiled to us, and we cannot see him.
Have you ever read 2 Corinthians? What of the Gospel being veiled? Is it possible that God has removed himself from any direct representation because of the sin of humanity?
I would ask... is God's veiling of "Himself" to humanity equivalent to veiling "Himself" to every individual? Because God seems pretty darn veiled to me and despite my sincerest pleas "He" appears to remain altogether silent.
ReplyDeleteYeah, that's been my experience also. I'm always suspicious when I hear people say how they talk to God. I think I've had answers to prayers, but its nothing I can directly put a finger on and say that was God. Then again, I've also had prayers go unanswered. My suspicion is Paul had this experience too:
ReplyDelete1 Cor 13:12 "Now we see but a poor reflection as in a mirror; then we shall see face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I am fully known."(NIV)
There was a very famous work done about this called "Dark Night of the Spirit" by a Spanish mystic. Jeanne Guyon and Fenelon also write at great length about this.
My question would be: What would someone be like if they were absolutely and perfectly powerful but also absolutely and perfectly humble? How would power be displayed through perfect humility?
That's a good question Bruce and I must admit that I am not sure. But do you think that humility applies to God? If God is real, then wouldn't "He" be the only one with the right to be "arrogant", for lack of a better word?
ReplyDeleteI suppose he would be the one with the right to be arrogant, but I would think if humans are expected to be humble, than wouldn't God be the perfect form of humility? What was your feeling of Goldman Sachs or Madoff when they arrogantly and greedily abused the 'little guy' on Wall Street? Wouldn't you expect God, if he were to exist, to be the opposite of arrogance and greed, to be the perfect model of moral behavior?
ReplyDeleteOn a different topic, I'm playing around with the question of why is there a difference between the laws of physics and the laws of morality? Why do we expect God to break the laws of physics (in miracles), but we expect him to be perfect in keeping the laws of morality? If God created both the laws of physics and the laws of morality, wouldn't we also expect him to keep both sets of laws? It would follow that if God is omnipotent, omniscient, and omnipresent, then he can certainly find a way of accomplishing his goals without ever breaking the laws of physics. My thesis would be that the laws of physics have never been broken, not even by God. What do you think? I'm interested in your view on this.
Bruce -
ReplyDeleteThat is an interesting conjecture. I'm not really sure how you would show such a thing. What is more, if God never breaks the laws of physics, then in what sense can we be warranted in postulating the existence of God? There would be nothing to distinguish "His" existence from "His" non-existence, since the universe would operate solely by naturalistic means.
I guess I like the idea of causation from the scholars of the Middle Ages. God is the primary cause of the universe, and naturalistic explanations are the secondary cause. As part of the universe, we will never be able to "see" or experiment past the secondary causation. The universe will always seem to be caused by natural forces. Thus God can never be proven or disproven from our vantage point. God, in his humility, "hides" behind secondary causation. This is why science eventually separated from theology- it formed a natural division between primary and secondary causation.
ReplyDeleteThe support for Christianity comes from the life, death, and resurrection of Christ and the testimony of the eye witnesses. God must reveal himself because we cannot find him, and he chose to do that by becoming a man and living among us for a time.
But how do we know that God has revealed "Himself"? It seems to me that just as God is beyond the reach of science, so the resurrection is out of our reach to verify as well. There is no shortage of religions claiming they have the divine revelation of "God" and each claims that this or that verifies said claim.
ReplyDeleteHey Ryan-
ReplyDeleteI don't have much time tonight, but lets start at the beginning. The Bible says that there is something wrong with humanity (the fall of Adam and Eve in the garden, the fall of Jerusalem to the Babylonians, etc.) When you look at history, such as Stalin, Hitler, Mao, Pol Pot, the Crusades, the Inquisitions, the list is endless, do you see this? Do you agree? Do you think there is something wrong with yourself too? I can only speak for myself and I know there is something wrong with me. The Bible is the only place I know that says this. Do any of the other religions say this?
We'll discuss more later.
Hey Ryan-
ReplyDeleteI found a very cool blog you might like:
http://thecreationofanevolutionist.blogspot.com/2010/01/searching-for-truth-in-truth-project_24.html
He's discussing the Truth Project one episode at a time. Check it out and let me know what you think.
Bruce
Bruce -
ReplyDeleteIt depends on what you mean by "wrong". If you mean that there is something "spiritually wrong" with humanity, then I don't know, since spirituality is what is in question. If you mean that people do "wrong" things with respect to some standard, then sure, I would agree.
Okay, so lets forget about the spirituality thing and agree that there is something wrong with the human race. The Bible illustrates this situation with the nation of Israel: they lost their "promised land" to the Babylonians, went into exile, and lived under the thumb of a number of successive regents (Babylon, Persia, Greece, Rome).
ReplyDeleteDo you agree that the nation of Israel wanted a "savior" to conquer their regents and give them back their promised land?
Do you agree that throughout the psalms and prophets (and even the law) there are prophesies that God will "give Israel back" to them, meaning Israel will once again prosper?
Do you agree that God can use history as an illustration of the human condition (meaning that there is something wrong)?
Do you agree that God could have piggy backed prophesies of the human condition onto the prophesies of Israel's condition?
If you agree that this is a possibility, then next we'll look at some of those prophesies. If not, let me know where you disagree.
Bruce -
ReplyDeleteThank you for your reply. Let me begin by saying that I very much appreciate the 'tone' of your responses. It is refreshing to have someone take these matters seriously and actually take the time to investigate them with me, rather than simply argue and try to 'fix' me.
That said, it will be helpful, before we agree fully on the matter, to know what humanity has gone 'wrong' with respect to. When you say that something is 'wrong' with the human race, are you referring to a biblical standard?
Next, while I would agree that the bible can be illustrative in a purely literary sense, it remains to be seen whether or not it is illustrative in a completely historical sense. Is there any independent corroborating evidence or record that Israel had the sort of interactions described in the Bible with the nations you mentioned?
______________________
"Do you agree that the nation of Israel wanted a "savior" to conquer their regents and give them back their promised land?"
______________________
I agree that the Bible claims this desire for Israel and current Hebrew culture seems to indicate a renewed interest in this idea.
______________________
"Do you agree that throughout the psalms and prophets (and even the law) there are prophesies that God will "give Israel back" to them, meaning Israel will once again prosper?"
______________________
On this matter I am not wholly convinced. Any so called "prophecy" in the OT seems incredibly ambiguous and general... not unlike, say, Nostradamus' supposed 'prophecies'.
______________________
"Do you agree that God can use history as an illustration of the human condition (meaning that there is something wrong)?
Do you agree that God could have piggy backed prophesies of the human condition onto the prophesies of Israel's condition?"
______________________
Certainly IF God exists, then these things are indeed possible, but I'm not sure how one would go about substantiating such matters.
I appreciate your questions on religion, because it seems like most people just go along with the status quo and never question what they believe or what they are told.
ReplyDeleteLet's look again at the biblical standard, then, if that's a point of question. We won't broach the topic of inspiration since that is something that cannot be shown. First, from my standpoint, the term "biblical" is in the eye of the interpreter, so I think it would be impossible to draw a standard and call it the "biblical" standard. When I hear that term used today, it usually refers to a conservative fundamentalist viewpoint, which doesn't square very well with archaeology or textual criticism.
I just finished an Old Testament course from Dr. Levine of Vanderbilt Divinity School, and she emphasized that from research the laws of Israel are closely related to the surrounding nations. The Bible was not written in a vacuum, but generally expresses viewpoints common to the time. All nations state that their law comes from some god as a way of validating the law. One popular theory shows the first part of the OT was edited by the priests of Israel (Ezra and his counterparts, possibly after the exile). The priests show that the people made a covenant with God to keep the law, but lost the Promised Land because they did not keep the law as they had promised. This is also the point expressed by the prophets of Isaiah, Jeremiah, and Ezekiel. Therefore, the people agreed to keep the law, and they could not and did not.
Does this sound like a workable standard for ancient Israel? We can discuss the standard that would apply to modern people another time.
Next, you asked if the Bible is historical in regards to the captivity and the surrounding nations. In that regard, the Bible has been shown to be mostly historical. I say mostly, because Daniel has been shown to be a work of fiction, and Esther is believed by some to be fiction, although there is some evidence both ways. Otherwise, nations like the Persians kept excellent records which corroborate the Bible, as did the Greeks, Babylonians, and the Assyrians.
Are we in agreement on these two points?
Okay,... I think I can agree to those.
ReplyDeleteOkay, so we have that Israel was conquered and taken from what they believed to be their Promised Land. If you can imagine, their national shame was very great. It's somewhat hard for us to imagine in this country, but you can get an idea by reading Lamentations. I think it is natural in such situations to look for a way out, or someone to restore things the way they 'should be', do you agree? In Israel's case, this would be restoration of the Promised Land and self-governance, perhaps even retribution on their enemies who had mocked them and sent them into exile. If you look at verses such as Genesis 49:10, Numbers 24:17, Deuteronomy 18:15, and Isaiah 9:7, you can see how they might have begun to hope for a 'Messiah' who would make everything right. Look at John 4:25, when Jesus was talking to the woman at the well: The woman said, "I know that Messiah" (called Christ) "is coming. When he comes, he will explain everything to us." (NIV) Now let's look at one more passage, Isaiah 61:
ReplyDelete1 The Spirit of the Sovereign LORD is on me, because the LORD has anointed me to preach good news to the poor. He has sent me to bind up the brokenhearted, to proclaim freedom for the captives and release from darkness for the prisoners,
2 to proclaim the year of the LORD's favor and the day of vengeance of our God, to comfort all who mourn,
3 and provide for those who grieve in Zion-- to bestow on them a crown of beauty instead of ashes, the oil of gladness instead of mourning, and a garment of praise instead of a spirit of despair. They will be called oaks of righteousness, a planting of the LORD for the display of his splendor.
4 They will rebuild the ancient ruins and restore the places long devastated; they will renew the ruined cities that have been devastated for generations.
5 Aliens will shepherd your flocks; foreigners will work your fields and vineyards.
6 And you will be called priests of the LORD, you will be named ministers of our God. You will feed on the wealth of nations, and in their riches you will boast.
7 Instead of their shame my people will receive a double portion, and instead of disgrace they will rejoice in their inheritance; and so they will inherit a double portion in their land, and everlasting joy will be theirs.
(NIV)
Do you agree that such prophesies could become very comforting and attractive to the exiled people of Israel? Can you see how this would become a national hope?
So lets review:
1) Israel held a standard that was somewhat common to all ancient societies in their Pentateuch or our Old Testament Law
2) According to the priests and the prophets after the exile, the people of Israel had agreed to keep the law, but could not and did not keep the law.
3) Because of their 'sin', again according to the priests and the prophets, God brought Assyria and Babylon to conquer Israel and exile them from the 'Promised Land'.
4) The national humiliation of being exiled from their land and subject to foreigners was great as can be read in Lamentations.
5) Down through the 500 years of their rule by the Persians, Greeks, and Romans, the people hoped for a Messiah who would come and set everything right.
Do you agree?
I agree that the hope for a messiah could become a great comfort, but that doesn't make any of it true.
ReplyDeleteAgreed.
ReplyDeleteNow let’s look at the New Testament. As a disclaimer, I want to tell you that, as most Philosophy and Religion professors will agree, there is no way to absolutely and definitively either prove or disprove the existence of God or the claims of Christianity. There is no such smoking gun for either viewpoint, but I think we can look at some reasons why Christians believe:
First: When Jesus claimed to be the long-awaited Messiah in the Gospels, do we find that the people accepted him or did they not? I think his death at the instigation of the Jewish people demonstrates that he was not accepted. He was a ‘different’ Messiah than what the people wanted. This gives us a ring of authenticity to the writings of the Gospels. If they were contrived writings, we would expect he would have been described as overwhelmingly accepted by the people but put to death by those nasty Romans or something like that. Why would the Gospels portray him as an unaccepted Messiah unless that was what had actually happened?
Second: Many ancient societies had a rule for determining the truth of a witness in a court of law. You will find this in 2 Corinthians 13:1 and Deuteronomy 17:6 among other references, but it was also common to other ancient societies: Every matter was to be decided by 2 or 3 witnesses. It was considered valid testimony in a court of law if 2 or 3 witnesses agreed on an event. The Gospels go above and beyond this requirement in that we have 4 witnesses of Christ in the 4 Gospels.
Third: We also have a 5th witness in the writings of Paul, who gave extensive testimony to his own revelation apart from the Gospels that he received from Christ.
Fourth: The fact that the Gospels don’t agree with each other actually establishes them as more truthful witnesses. If they were contrived or copied, it would be expected that they would agree. When in a court of law, if two people give the exact same story, then their witness is often not considered as valid as two people who tell the story from unique viewpoints with details that often contradict. If two students at your college turn in papers that are in exact agreement, isn’t cheating often suspected? But if they have different details that agree upon certain events, isn’t that an indication of the truth for those events?
Fifth: We have the witness of history. Jesus is recorded as saying in Matthew 13:32 that Christianity would become the largest religion in the world. As you know, Christianity did establish itself as the world’s largest and most important religion and has continued that way even until this day. This was certainly not intuitive to the first or second century when this account would have been penned. The fact alone that Christianity has become the most popular religion bears some significance; the fact that it was prophesied to become such makes it important as a witness.
What do you think? Do you agree with this reasoning or disagree?