Rational BAC

[QUOTE=Sven]Umm, because most theists on Earth don't accept the divinity of Christ?
Which was BTW one of my points in the OP. Did you ever read it?

So you answer why you believe in the Christian god is - "How could I not?" :huh:

Well maybe you misunderstood what I meant. And more probably I didn't state clearly what I meant.

As a theist---as any type of theist, Christian or other, how could I not very easily accept things that you could not easily accept?

As an atheist---as any type of atheist---how could you easily accept things that I could very easily accept?

(Probably still clear as mud---but worth a try anyway.)

Sven

:banghead:
You still say that you accept the divinity of Jesus because you are a Christian. But that's not an explanation why you accept it - it's simply in the definition of "Christian".

People change their beliefs or abandon them totally. So simply being one type of a theist or an atheist has nothing to do with the kinds of things you accept.

You are still saying: "I believe because I believe".

jbernier

It is not a satisfactory argument in and of itself because, really, it is not meant to be one. That is to say that it is really a negative response to a positive argument as opposed to a positive argument itself. You are right: It does not get us on to the right path but such an argument does help us avoid the wrong path.

This might make good polemics but I am not sure it is good history. All texts serve someone's interests; that is why they are written. Sometimes this interest can be as simple as the desire to know more about our physical universe, as is frequently the case in scientific research. Sometimes the interest can be more material or social; that is unquestionable. However, I think that each text must be examined closely within the historical context of its production and reception in order to demonstrate whose interests have been and are being served by said text. I think that in most cases any text of any importance will serve multiple interests for multiple people and it is too simple the analysis to engage in Marxist-style arguments that a given text was intended to do litte more than to serve the interests of a dominant class. In the case of the OT texts, I do not think that there is sufficient historical evidence to substantiate such an assertion; that is, I would contest that it is a 'fact.' In the case of the NT, well, they were all written before first Christian priests appeared on the scene so I think that it would be an uphill battle to make that case.

You are assuming that to write something that serves one's interests is to write lies. However, one can say something that is entirely truthful and still have that statement serves one interests.

I do not find them horribly convincing, either. And you are right - they do all demonstrate the existence of [i]a[/a] god.

But that only speaks to how to judge between statements, not to the veracity thereof. We are speaking of limitations in the object of revelation, not the nature of the subject.

Hypothetical situation:
A person goes to university and is taught that the scientific method is the best means of discovering truths about the universe.
There is thus a strong correlation between the culture of the scientific discipline in which they train and their own beliefs.
Does that serve as a satisfactory critique of the scientific method? Of course not. So what if ideas are transmitted from one person to another. That says absolutely nothing about the veracity of those ideas.

Again, so what? There is no warrant to use the plurality of beliefs as evidence that all beliefs are false. Again, this only speaks to the nature of human beliefs, not to the veracity of those beliefs. I would suggest that you are confusing epistemology with ontology: That epistemological problems suggest ontological problems.

Based upon your statements above this is really a critique of only a few ways of reading the Biblical texts - that is, of those ways that do not take the nature of the texts as pre-scientific into account. It is only a problem if only reasonably expects the Biblical texts to give one accurate descriptions of evolutionary theory, etc. - an expectation that I would suggest can only be held by the hermeneutically naive or the mentally ill.

Why must I have one? To be more pointed, do the practices of logic and the concept of God allow the former to speak to the existence of the latter? I think that your own argument thus far indicates that the answer is 'No.' What, then, is the logical warrant for seeing this as a critique of the concept of God as opposed to a critique of the practices of logic? It could just as much be a critique of logic in that it demonstrates that there are areas of human existence that logic cannot speak to.

Again, a statement about how we see, not about what exists.

A statement about how we come to see, not about what exists.

A statement about how we see, not about what exists.

Well, since I do not think any of your arguments are anywhere near as strong as you suggest I am not entirely sure what the challenge to Christian belief would be here? I would turn the question around: What makes you still believe that observation of the material demonstrates that God does not exist, given that one cannot use observation of the material to prove that nothing beyond the material exists? That is to say, by definition if one restricts one's observation to the material (as you have done here) one can only speak to the material. If God is not material (as you have argued here, by suggesting that there is no material proof for the existence of God) then how can observation of the material speak to the existence of God at all? So, what makes you so sure that a material challenge to the existence of a non-material entity has any epistemological validity whatsoever? And if it does not then can we not say that your epistemology is blind to the possibility of the existence of the non-material? And if that is the case then could we not say that the Gospels (particularly the Gospel of John) are correct when they diagnose humanity which is closed to God as having a form of blindness? That is all to say is not your own demand to focus upon the material (i.e. the flesh, in Johannine terms) support of the Gospel when it
says that the fleshly individual is unable to perceive the spiritual.

By 'spiritual', by the way, I do not simply mean the crude idea of an incorporeal realm but the idea that there is more to living than the material cosmos that we can detect with our five senses and the instruments we have created to extend their power of perception. This something more cannot be discovered through the mere exercise of our physical senses or the application of logic to problems that perplex us. That is to say that the 'spiritual' is, for me, the existential - and that is precisely the domain to which questions about God and the spiritual must be directed. Your entire argument rests in the material and I would argue that, as such, it goes in the wrong direction entirely.

Sven

First, you may have misunderstood. I did not present arguments against the Christian God, I presented my view of the religions of the world. This view encompasses that the different religions of the world are not that much different, and thus that it's difficult, if not impossible to decide (for me) which one is the correct one. That's why I asked which reasons Christians have fpr choosing their specific good - because I may indeed simply miss something.

Then I suggest you read up on the history of the OT. You seem to have a great lack of knowledge about this topic.

This is semantics. The people who fabricated large parts of it (and/or incorporated previous myths) may have not been priests, but they nevertheless had interests. What these interests were exactly is irrelevant - it's only relevant that we know that large parts of the NT were fabricated.

No, I'm not. I know it's lies (or something similar, maybe self delusion), and try to explain it by one's interests. It's exactly the other way round.

Of course one kind of revelation maybe right. But since there's no way to find out which one (Or do you know a way? Then please present it!), personal revelation isn't worth anything.

That's why my comment was not intended as a critique, but as a possible explanation why Christians are Christians. In other words, for a Christian to be "sure" about the veracity of his/her faith, they would have to demonstrate to him/herself that the cause for his/her belief was not only the upbringing. Your analogy fails in one important point: Christianity is something which we should be able to learn without someone teaching it to us.

:huh: My point wasn't the pluraity of beliefs at all - I'd rather like to know why Christians are so certain that their faith doesn't belong in the "made up" category.

I suggest possible explanations why there is Christianity and like to know why Christians are so certain that these explanations are wrong and that there's indeed something to their belief.

:huh: Please read again what I wrote above. I specifically excluded scientific problems as a problem for the bible. What is a problem for the bible is the history which was made up. You are arguing a strawman here.

You don't have to have one. But then you have to have other reasons for your belief. So far, I've seen none.

It isn't a critique. I'm asking if there is a way which I perhaps don't know about.

Of course. But then my question why you believe in Christianity still isn't answered.

Of course. But we decide based on what we "see" - or do you disagree?
I simply want to know "seeing" what makes you believe in Christianity.

I think it's still a challenge - only not in the sense you understood it. The challenge isn't to show Christianity right or wrong, it is about how you know it to be right or wrong. My points demonstrate that it's impossible to know if it's right or wrong, that's "all". I simply explained my view and wanted to hear your reasons for believing.

Since I don't believe that God doesn't exist, turning around the question is simply silly. I'm agnostic (see profile), simply because I know of no evidence which leads to any (specific) God. Because of this, I started this thread to let Christians explain their reasons. All what I got up to now are evasions, statements like "I believe because I believe", and now even shifting the burden of proof. This thread really starts to get annyoing.

This is not what I suggested. I asked for reasons (not necessarily limited to material proof!).

What else can you observe which speaks to the existence of God? Again, that's not a critique, I'm asking for explanations.

[snipped more strawmen]

I'm sure you would find similar statements in the holy books of other religions. So we could as well say that you have a form of blindness with respect to Allah. This leads nowhere with respect to the question how to know which religion is correct.

[snipped more of the same]

OK. Then please finally answer the OP and explain how we/I can get to know something about the 'spiritual'. Is this you answer? You - by what means whatsoever - know something about the 'spiritual', and this knowledge leads you to the Christian God? If yes, please elaborate. If no, please correct me and explain your reason for believing.

Rational BAC

BINGO---

I think you got that one.

I do believe because I believe.

jbernier

Sven,

At the end of your most recent post you say the following:

And in the OP you said:

Now, here is my problem. In order to answer the OP as you have asked it I must accept the validity of the five points to which you refer to as "all of the above" in this quotation. However, I do not. Thus I cannot really answer why I 'still believe...despite all of the above' because 'all of the above' are not challenges to my belief - particularly since you did not really offer anything other than assertion for most of your points. You quite simply failed to persuade me that these were real challenges to Christian belief. So there is no 'despite' here. My previous post was entirely meant to explain why I could not accept those statements which were an integral part of your question as phrased in the OP.

So I will modify your question so that I can answer it without accepting statements I do not accept. In order to answer your question it must read "What makes you believe your god is the 'right' one?" This is entirely to say that I cannot answer your question without rewriting it - not without saying that I agree with something I do not agree with, which would of course be dishonest.

The first comment to be made is to acknowledge my debt to Rene Girard in the formation of my thinking. Along with that I will also mention that I am political theologian - those are the questions that concern me and they are where I start. The second comment to be made is that I am convinced that the Gospel reveals the divine. That, however, does not mean that I dogmatically exclude the possibility that (for instance) the Quran does the same. I am not convinced that holding to one's own beliefs means that one must immediately state that another's are false. I think one must be more critical than that. For instance, I think that the apparent glorification of violence in both the Biblical texts and the Quran is problematic; however, even that statement is not identical to saying that they are false. Even before I would call myself a Christian I would call myself a 'YHWHist' - that is, someone who recognizes YHWH, the deity who first revealed himself in ancient Israel - as the One God. YHWHistic religion, of course, includes Judaism, Christianity, Islam, the Samaritans at Mt. Gerizim and any other tradition which shares this recognition of the God of ancient Israel as the One God (admittedly 'YHWHist' is probably not the best term for this common tradition but in lieu of something better I'll stick with this one). I thus take an unique approach to Judaism, Christianity and Islam (unique to Christianity, that is; it is actually quite similar to the one taken by Islam), in that I see all three as "peoples of the book" and thus part of a larger tradition of which I am a part.

That having been said I think that this tradition is concerned with a larger, social, reality: The tendency towards violence among the members of any community. Rivalries escalate among members of a community, leading to disorder; eventually a point is reached in which only violence can resolve the conflicts. One need only look at kids on a playground to see examples of this tendency - and I think that nothing is more telling about the human condition than the behaviour of children. What will children do? A group will join for the purpose of tormenting another child (or, less frequently, children). This is what will unite them, what will be their common purpose. Rivalry is not expunged; rather, it is transformed into something which enables concerted action as each seeks to rival the torment inflicted by their comrades. Their common purpose of tormenting another provides a site for their rivalry that directs it away from one another.

I think that the YHWHistic traditions have been concerned with finding ways of mitigating this tendency to violence (indeed, I would see this as the root of all religion, law, etc.). Ancient Judaism had the temple cult, in which the rivalry is placed upon sacrifice: By rivalling one another in providing sacrificial victims the community could direct its rival toward concerted action that circumvented the need for violence against one another. In the cross, we see a wholly innocent victim killed as result of this mechanism of internal rivalry transformed into external persecution. It thus reveals the most fundamental problem of the human condition: Our tendency to violence as a means of mediating our mutual rivalries. In the Hebrew scriptures I see a movement in this direction but I would argue that it is most clearly articulated in the Passion (the one in the Gospels, not in the movie of the same name). Incidentally the question of historicity is not particularly relevant here - what matters is what the Gospel reveals about rivalry and violence as literature about the human condition.

The cross, I would argue, reveals a means to rupture the cycle of internal rivalry that is resolved by external persecution. That means is to identify with the victim that does not strike back - that is, with Christ. The decision to not strike back as the antidote to the human condition is so opposed to how humans normally respond that I am convinced that such a revelation can only come from outside the human. Can I prove that? No. However, this is why I am convinced that Jesus is divinity revealed among us: For only divinity could rupture the human condition that has us hopelessly marred in violence.

Yes, of course, 'Christianity' has engaged in violence. However I would suggest that is precisely because 'Christianity' has been in flight from the Gospel (for the Gospel is hardly identical with 'Christianity'). The crucified man can never be a warrant for violence - it can only speak to the destruction and futility that is violence. Those who preach violence are worshipping but a perverted caricature of Christ crucified - they are, in fact, the Anti-Christ, the enemies of the cross who prophesy in Jesus' name but whom Jesus will never know. At the same time, I would also suggest that for the first time since perhaps the very first few centuries of the church 'Christianity' is in a position where it can receive the Gospel. No longer in positions of power and cultural dominance like we were up to the last century we can begin to identify with the victim in a way not possible since 'Christianity' became an imperial religion.

Sven

Thanks for clearing that up.

Sven

Sorry, you are of course right. This was bad wording on my part.
I should have included disagreement with my points - it was only that I thought that these points are crystally clear to anyone looking rationally at it, as I would have expected from non-fundies. But my points are obviously not that clear after all. Again, sorry.

:huh:
Here they are again:
(1) the bible is probably not trustworthy
Evidence given: wrong on science (not that important), but also wrong on history. Did you expect that I outlined in detail what exactly the bible gets wrong on history? Sorry, every reader of BC&H and/or the literature should have quite a good idea that this isn't an assertion, but well-established fact. Since it's wrong on things they could have gotten right, I see no a-priori reason to trust anything in the bible. Where's the assertion?

(2) you have no logical argument (that I know of) to go from "a god" to "the Christian god"
Note that "that I know of". It's obvioulsy no assertion when I simply state what I know.

(3) personal revelation is not trustworthy
I explained why it's not trustworthy: Because its contradictory among different people (do you deny this?) and because we have no way to verify which revelation is the "correct" one (or do you deny that?). Again, I don't see why this was an assertion.

(4) belief is strongly correlated with upbringing
This is also a well-known fact. Note that I did not assert that people believe only because of their upbringing - I only suggested it as a possible explanation for their specific belief. Again, I see no assertion.

(5) many beliefs are known to be fabrications
I provided two examples; since you don't believe in all other gods (the Greek and the Roman pantheon, the Hindu gods, etc.), you have to agree that they are fabrications - or are they real? Again, no assertion, also stating well-known facts.

Don't you agree that it would be much easier to believe in Christianity if the above points were wrong? That's the point - these points make it more difficult, but of course not impossible. So there has to be a reason to believe which "trumps" these five points - which is it?

And I think you misunderstood my OP - possibly indeed based on bad wording.

Thanks! You are quite welcomed to do this!

Hmm. I have to look him up - doesn't ring a bell. After a quick search: Would you recommend The Girard Reader? Or is there anything online about him?

I think you outlined you reasons for this in the following; if there's more to it than you presented here, I would appreciate it if you could also share it with me.

Depends on the details. Since Christians have (usually) some sort of trinity and Moslems don't, either Christianity or Islam is false. Or do you think that A and not-A can both be true?

Of course not. But if Christians say A and Moslems not-A, one of them is wrong.

But these religions all contradict each other at least in some detail. So, some sort of YHWHistic religion may indeed be the correct one - but which one is it? How do you determine this? Or is it "sufficient" to just believe in some sort of YHWHistic religion and the details are not that important?

I agree that these religions have indeed many things in common.

Seems to be the same as what we find in the "animal kingdom". Thus it's not only the "human condition", but a general behaviour among sentient beings. This maybe only a BTW, I'm not sure what you are getting at.

Interesting hypothesis. But as far as I know, for instance Buddhism, deals with this also very well.

[quote]Incidentally the question of historicity is not particularly relevant here - what matters is what the Gospel reveals about rivalry and violence as literature about the human condition.
[...]
Hmm. I'm not sure, but it's quite possible that this idea already emerged in other societies which had no YHWHistic religions. Perhaps I/we should inquire about this in BC&H?

But anyway, thanks. This reason for believing (so far?) doesn't convince me, but (as I already said to seebs) it's at least something.

[snip, I basically agree]

This is of course also problematic in a way: Over the centuries, there certainly were a lot of Christians who thought exactly the same; that they are the first one who really understand the gospels. I think you commit kind of a "no-true-scotsman" fallacy here.

jbernier

The assertion is that historical inaccuracy in a text that was not written according to contemporary understandings of proper historical practice means that the text is useless theologically. You have made statements about its value as a historical document (which are, indeed, quite correct) and then suddenly jump to making statements about its value as a theological document - without offering a warrant for that jump. In my books that is assertion.

Fair enough. However, one needs to establish why this is a challenge to Christian belief; as far as I say you did not do so. You merely asserted that it was.

Assertion is not the right word. 'False assumption' would be more accurate. Christian theology is deeply suspect of personal revelation, preferring instead to stick with the canon which has been accepted through a communal process of discourse over the theological weight of particular texts. In Christian theology, revelation is always communal.

Actually, this was your strongest point. However, there is, again, a false assumption (although not necessarily an assertion; I will grant that). That false assumption is simple: That the source from which one acquires one's beliefs speaks to the veracity of said belief. Genesis (i.e. source) and veracity are not the same thing; that is why ad hominen attacks are logical fallacy (no, I am not saying that this is an ad hominen attack; I am merely suggesting that the same logic is at work in confusing genesis of knowledge with veracity of knowledge).

Again, though, the assertion comes in the suggestion that this is a challenge to Christian belief. I would counter by saying that all human knowledge is fabricated; that is to say, I dare you to show me any knowledge that has just popped out of thin air without any process of manufacture. However, fabrication does not mean 'not correct'; again, genesis and veracity are being confused.

Nope, I don't agree. One is founded on an unwarranted leap from historiographic statements about the Biblical texts to theological ones; another is founded upon an apparent assumption that the absence of logical argumentation is by definition a liability (hardly one that would find unquestioned acceptance among philosophers, at least among the ones I know); another is founded upon the false assumption that Christian theology prizes personal revelation; the last two are founded on a fallacious confusion of genesis and veracity of knowledge. I see nothing but fallacies piled upon fallacies in your arguments so, no, I do not agree.

I am not surprised that you have not heard about him: He is far less known in North America than in his native France. I would have thought that there is stuff on him online but I have been unable to find anything. Probably the most accessible introduction to his thought is I See Satan Fall Like Lightning. Written when he was 75, I think he saw it as a summing up of his life's work while he still has the time to do so.

This was, indeed, the most cursory part of my argument - and perhaps the weakest as I am much more the social scientist than the theologian or philosopher (by virtue of my training). In a nutshell, what I am suggesting is that the very act of rupturing the cycle of violence is an intrusion of the divine into this world; that the cycle of violence is inherent to the human condition and only something outside that condition can open the possibility of its rupture.

Fair enough. There are certainly points of dogma which are mutually exclusive by their own admission; I would not state that they are both true. What I would say, though, is that acceptance of the idea that there is revelation present in the Christian scriptures does not a priori mean that there is no revelation present in the Qu'ran.

I tend to see more as a denomination than as wholly separate religions. That is to say that each is as much an ancestor of the YHWHistic traditions of ancient Israel as the next one. I think that one of the most significant problems in the contemporary world is the inability of these three faiths to recognize their common ancestry. That having been said, yeah, I do think that the Gospels most fully reveal the divine - for the precise reason that I see in Jesus's refusal to return violence with violence, to the point of death, as the clearest rupture of the cycle of violence.

Yes, I would agree - and would suggest that, if anything, it bolsters my argument that it is something that we cannot escape on our own. It is an inherent part of the human as creature - and thus only that which is beyond either the human or the creation can break the cycle of violence.

It would seem to (although a Buddhist friend of mine who is also a scholar of Buddhist religion would say otherwise; however, I am far from being Buddhist scholar so I do not really feel qualified to address her argument). That having been said I must make clear that I am making positive statements about the Christian tradition, which does not necessarily mean that I am making negative statements about (for instance) the Buddhist tradition.

That would not horribly affect my argument as it is not an argument for Christian exclusivity but rather an argument for how the divine is revealed in the Gospels.

Fair enough; I do come close to committing that fallacy. That having all been said then, if my interpretation is correct, then those who engaged in violence in the name of the Gospel misunderstood the purposes of the Gospel. That is not really a 'no-true-Scotsman' fallacy but rather the logical conclusion of my argumentation.

Rational BAC

I am so glad that you understand now.

Belief is really a very simple thing. Divinely simple. You do or you don't. Comes from deep within---and that is all there really is to it.

It is just when it is overthought about that it becomes very complicated.

Very understandable why atheists don't really have a clue on this subject and could not even begin to understand how a theist thinks and perceives.

Very understandable also why theists do not have a clue as to how atheists think and perceive.

Apples and oranges is what it is. All we can hope to do is to try and understand each other. Maybe never will.