diana

Hi gang.

What follows is a chunk of an e-mail discussion I've been having with a new friend. You'll note places that are somewhat disjointed, and that is because this piece falls in the middle of an ongoing conversation (but I think the gist is preserved, so I essentially reproduced it verbatim, as it gives you the flavor of the thing).

He's very earnest and sincere, not to mention polite, so I ask that all replies assume his goodwill.

He's touched on several points that I feel others are far better to address than me--such as evidence of the crucifixion, what a court of law would find reasonably convincing, and C.S. Lewis' arguments for objective morality--so I have elected to take this conversation public for that purpose.

I've asked him to register at Infidels and have given him a link to this thread. I hope he elects to join us so as to further explain the points we may be unclear on and to respond to any counterpoints that are posted.

Without further ado, here we go:

HIM: I clearly remember the day I simply had this conversation with myself. "I need to decide right now if I believe [the Bible] is from God. If it isn't, then its a waste of my time. If it is, then I need to read it more. Considering the historical impact, the way it rings true to me, and knowing that the right thing is often the hard thing (how was that for an objective criteria?)....I buy it. I think its God's written communication."

ME: So it wasn't obvious to you that it was from God? Interesting.

HIM: Kind of interesting. Clearly, if you assume a God then he has the ability to authenticate himself to the Nth degree. Faith is desired (required?) by God.

ME: And I disagree that it's a waste of your time to read it in an undecided state. You learn more from reading a book critically than you do assuming it's true.

Objective criteria?

1. Historical impact of the bible: genocide, subjection and bloodshed. Yup. Must be inspired, all right....

HIM: Hey, YOU used the word objective so I'm holding you to it: Judeo-Christian law, human rights, and the place of women in society. The US Constitution gets abused for various reason and so has the Bible.

2. It rings true for you. (You were being sarcastic about the "objective" comment, I gather.)

3. The right thing is often the hard thing. (You had to have been being sarcastic. My apologies for not getting it the first time. In the unlikely event you did mean this seriously, I'll need further support for all three arguments.)

HIM: Actually, I wasn't being overtly sarcastic BUT just giving you my subjective criteria.

The various religious texts seem to be opposed on key points. I think they are exclusive. Why the Bible? I, too, wonder if its cultural.

ME: The Bible is opposed to itself on key points, as well--not just other religious texts. In this sense, it goes above and beyond the call of duty.

<a href="http://iidb.org/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=52&t=000333" target="_blank">Discussion on C.S. Lewis' arguments for objective morals.</a> (MF&P)

<a href="http://iidb.org/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=51&t=000702" target="_blank">Discussion on biblical evidence that would convince a jury.</a> (BC&A)

HIM: I think you would benefit from faith

ME: In what way?

HIM: I think you would benefit by releasing resentment and anger (however smoldering it may be now). You resent the indoctrination of your youth. That resentment has made you hyper-sensitivie to....everything. You trust absolutely nothing until its proven to you. But, hey, how can you really trust YOU? If you are practicing self-deception, how do you know? By what standard is anything "true" for you? Do you trust your mind, your experience so much so you can discover self-delusion and self-deception? You've described situations in the martial arts that you now chasitse yourself for missing the obvious holes. (what a terrible sentence....). Faith may be the outside arbitrator you need. I know that is a huge leap for you. How can blind acceptence be good for me? It isn't all that blind...you (the jury) weigh the evidence and bring a verdict.

ME: To the best of my knowledge, mankind has never benefited from convincing himself to "just believe" anything. (Remember the Dark Ages?) It is only those people who have rejected those explanations that don't make sense and found their own who change the world and improve our lot.

HIM: I, too, don't like the "just believe". Weigh all the evidence and decide.

d

(Edited to trim post length and spread the wealth into more appropriate forums. Please click and read as the spirit moves you. We can keep this thread to the question of faith vs. evidence--which I believe are mutually exclusive--and how my friend knows a god exists, and how he knows it's his god.)

[ October 20, 2002: Message edited by: diana ]</p>

diana

Since this was addressed to me personally, I thought I'd take a stab at it:

You like and admire C.S. Lewis, DC. Here, then, is an analogy:

A girl is molested by her father from the age of eight until she's fourteen. She grows up hurt and confused and angry. She's ultra-sensitive about anything pertaining to sex. She's defensive and over-protective of her body. She doesn't trust anyone completely.

Eventually, she learns enough about sex to know that most people choose to do this, and even willingly invite it. But she's still bitter toward her father, still hypersensitive.

Your cure for her problem is to tell her that she'd be much happier if she somehow convinced herself that her father was right to do this to her.

If you just read this and reacted with, "No! That isn't at all what I'm saying!" then I suggest you haven't thought through the connections you just made pertaining to me.

I don't have faith because I am incapable of believing something without convincing evidence. I spent my childhood trying, to no avail. I simply cannot do it.

But if I did have convincing evidence, faith would not be necessary (according to the scriptural definition of faith). So, it is fair to say I am incapable of faith, period.

I am angry about my childhood indoctrination for the same reason a molested child may be expected to always harbor resentment toward her molester: I was told what to believe. My parents' superstitions and doctrines were forced upon me. I was not given a choice. This is brainwashing--mental rape.

An integral part of the brainwashing was to reject any subversive information as "of the Devil"--basically, to not entertain alternate theories any longer than it took me to disprove them at all costs in my mind.

Once you are disillusioned, and can explain to all comers exactly why you don't believe in their gods, it is an insult for anyone to suggest that you simply forget all you've learned that tells you they're telling you a tall one and just believe.

If you have someone pop out from behind a bush and startle you often enough, you take to walking around in a heightened state of hypersensitivity. By the same token, if you frequently catch people trying to pass something off as truth when they in fact have nothing to back it up, you become generally untrusting.

My anger and resentment will go away only if I can be convinced--with logic and hard evidence--that my parents were right. (Actually, I'll probably still be resentful on some level, because if they were right, what was to be feared from letting me get all of the story and draw logical conclusions? Why did they go to such lengths to shelter me from all opposing opinions?)

I'm angry and defensive because I was fed a line growing up, and frequently catch people feeding me lines now. In the face of all this, for me to suddenly start taking people on their word would be just stupid. I don't see it happening, short of my being whacked in the head with a baseball bat that reduces me to the mental capacity of the scripturally praised "trusting child."

Much like losing your virginity, once you figure out that people are telling you lies, you never can go back to just believing what you're told.

Go tell that little raped girl to just forget her feelings that what her father did to her was wrong. Tell her she'd be happier if she just admitted to herself that he was right.

d

Jobar

Hi diana. Your subject here is a toughie- it might belong here, or in Moral Foundations & Principles, or in Misc. Relegion. For now I'll leave it here, and if it starts centering more on morality than on EoG I will move it.

My take- looking at it from the EoG angle- is that your friend believes only from his own conditioning. Point out to him that were he raised by Muslims, he'd find the Koran to be historically and morally justified, and those facts would then support his Islamic belief. It's emotional, not rational.

If you want to center this conversation on the question of the Christian God's existence, and I presume that's why you put it here, I would say try to take it more towards what he conceives God to be. Find out his theology- and then as gently as you may, show him how it contradicts itself. (It almost always does.) Make it clear to him that blind faith is what some people use to insist the earth is flat, as well as to infer the existence of God; that faith can be used to support diametrically opposite statements. That if all the religions on earth were extremely similar, faith in the existence of God would be supported but not proven; the fact that religions vary wildly is a very strong evidence that no God exists.

If your Christian interlocutor comes here, let me know and I'll give him my warning about how he is risking his faith, OK?

diana

Thanks, Jobar.

I wasn't sure where to put it, really.

The best idea I had was to divide it into some of the myriad subjects that are broached and place each in its respective forum. Perhaps it isn't too late. Hmmm....

And the thing about real faith (if such a thing exists) is that it is not based on evidence or logic at all--so I'd think real faith would not be at risk no matter what evidence is presented.

I'll go back and see if I can't chop it into more manageable chunks.

d

Jobar

After discussing this with diana, she asked that it be moved to MRD.

HelenM

diana

I think it's funny that you weren't sure where to put this because after reading it once yesterday I couldn't find it - I eventually rediscovered it in EofG - now here, of course.

Anyway - I read it because I like reading your posts - they're thoughtful and insightful - but then I wasn't sure what to say.

I guess, this is how I feel. His suggestion that faith would resolve your anger and resentment seems rather like a sales tactic and the obvious questions from your end are: do I have inappropriate anger and resentment? To which your answer seems to be, no. And the other one is, is faith really the solution - and right now you seem definite that the answer to that is no, also.

So this is not a product you are going to buy, as it were.

But - I'm sure that if the right product came along, something you knew you needed and you knew would help, you'd buy it.

It seems to me that sensible shopping starts with an assessment of what we need and then we see if there's anything out there that can help.

An assertion from someone else that you'd be better off with 'less anger and resentment' doesn't really prove anything. That's for you to decide, based on looking at your life. How much time do you spend thinking about what your parents did to you? Does it interfere with the rest of your life? Does it hinder you enjoying life? Is it a kind of settled background thing that you often don't think about, these days, or is it there in the forefront of your mind...? Are you angry with your parents in a way that affects your relationship with them or are you more angry with what was done to you - because it was wrong - than angry with them - given that they thought they were doing what was best? (Sorry, that was probably a bit of a loaded question )

Anyway, even if you do decide that it would be best to find a way to put the past more in the background of your thoughts and life, that still doesn't by any means indicate that 'faith' is the solution.

So, I think he missed out a bunch of steps as he considered your 'problem' from his point of view, and the 'solution' from his point of view.

I hope none of this sounded patronizing. It wasn't meant to be. I have great respect for your thinking processes...

take care
Helen

Celsus

I'll just adress the point where he's challenging you to investigate the Bible. If anything, he should. There's plenty of resources to throw at him from the Library, so here's a short summary of personal conclusions that I made when investigating the Bible as a Christian:

1. What is the Bible?

I don't know. Christians don't know. They accept the Bible based on church authority and tradition, but have no consistent means of accepting one book over another aside from whether the books follow their personal, socialised notions of what is "correct" theology.

See:
<a href="http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/larry_taylor/canon.html" target="_blank">The Canon of the Bible</a>

2. Even accepting whichever version of the Bible they wish to accept, has it been transmitted faithfully?

Archaeological evidence shows that the Old Testament is basically Iron Age propaganda (see all the numerical exaggerations and differences in comparing the books of Samuel, Kings and Chronicles) with hints of polytheistic beliefs (e.g. in 2 Kings 3:26-27, the Moabite king sacrifices his son which results in the defeat of the Israelites). In the NT, there's enough debate on the historical Jesus as it is, and developing theologies can be traced quite clearly. The fact that Matthew and Luke copied from Mark, changing the details is enough to show that Matthew and Luke didn't believe in the inerrancy of Mark, nor in some the theological conclusions. The whole issue of Christian forgeries of the early church (of which most of the New Testament must be included) show that early Christians were quite keen to exaggerate, win theological battles based on false authority, etc.

See:
<a href="http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/gerald_larue/otll/index.shtml" target="_blank">Old Testament Life and Literature</a>

3. Can we live good lives by following the Bible?

Probably, but there is also room for leading misogynistic, authoritarian, and insular lives by following the Bible (e.g. 1 Corinthians 11, 1 Timothy 2:11-15, etc.). A "good" life is not the only possible outcome from following Biblical teachings. Christians owned slaves who were encouraged to suffer for Christ (1 Peter 4), Christians killed witches, Israelites (apparently) committed genocide, etc. all under the auspiced of Biblical teachings.

4. Is the Holy Spirit a reliable guide to helping us resolve these problems?

Aside from millenia of conflict between different factions of Christianity, we can see theological conflict as early as Acts 15 (the filtered version) and Galatians 2 (the polemical version), with the whole problem of faith, circumcision and the Law. If Paul, Peter and James were having trouble figuring out which was God's will (although history vindicates Paul), what chances does a Christian have 2000 years later?

Why bother with faith when reason is so much better: internally consistent, applicable to any situation, does not rely on blind trust, gives just as much personal satisfaction, and can never fall prey to the pedagogue?

diana

Hi, Helen!

You just explained very nicely what I was trying to find a way to say: there's no necessary connection between anger/resentment and faith. Thank you.

Thanks! (And I did come across as quite volatile, I realize. Sometimes I find myself too close to a subject to express my disagreement non-confrontationally.)

True...I do insist that my anger and resentment toward my parents in this respect is justified. But I suspect his obvious reply could be that I'm simply in denial, or misdirecting my anger. (You might suspect I've had this conversation a time or two before. This is why I attempted to find an analogy to explain it this time instead of simply denying the implied charges.)

Pretty much, yes. I'd go one further and challenge him (and he'll be joining us in the next few days) to explain how faith is the solution for anyone's anger and resentment.

No argument. But in my mind, deciding to accept a doctrine one has already determined to be indefensible--so one must then live with congnitive dissonance in addition to one's anger and resentment--will only fester the sore.

And just an aside, but perhaps some anger and resentment is a good thing. It motivates change and improvement, does it not? Because I can see how unfair it was for my parents to give me one explanation as though no other explanation existed and tell me to believe it, I am reminded to offer my opinions as such--not as fact. I'm constantly reminded to ask questions when people tell me something, to see if what they're telling me is established and demonstrable fact, or if it's just their opinion.

Perhaps I should thank my anger and resentment.

Not much. It generally only comes up when someone pops out with a doctrinal comment like my parents might say, such as "faith will absolve your anger." This sort of comment is not based in reality, but is instead part of that person's belief system.

No.

Not at all. If anything, it creates interest and fuels my purpose: to help people to think for themselves and stop just believing what they're told.

No problem. I know they did what they thought was best. One thing that does infuriate me now is that they are so thoroughly steeped in their belief system (and brainwashed through it) that they refuse to even consider the possibility that I might be onto something. If it's about religion, they're right, period.

But outside that, I love them and am quite capable of enjoying their company without the past spoiling things.

I just thought of something: Another analogy that might be easier to grasp. Let's say you're a Democrat. You've come by your decision from doing your homework. You've studied all available information, weighed the evidence, and decided that this is the party that best represents what you feel is good for America. Your father, though, is Republican. If you discuss this with him, both of you grow heated. Why? Because both of you care, and both of you feel you're right. Moreover, you discuss and defend your position against any Republican you encounter, because you feel your cause is just. You feel they're mistaken and that if they have their way, America will fall.

Would I be out of line if I were to say to you, "You know, you have so much anger and resentment toward the Republicans. You'd be much happier if you just accepted their doctrines"? (Switch parties in your reading, as necessary, to identify.)

Would you consider this a reasonable cure for what ails you? Would you feel insulted? Or would you just think your opponent was just out to lunch?

And it bears thinking about: are we right to be angry and resentful toward things we feel are wrong and harmful?

That was aimed more at him than you, Helen. You appear to have a very good grasp on what's missing in that argument.

d

diana

Because reason is (apparently) linked to all that anger and resentment, I guess.

Great post, joejoejoe. Thanks for your thoughts.

d

HelenM

Thanks for your reply, diana.

Evidently your 'anger and resentment' is not a major problem to you. So there's the first big hit to your correspondent's sales pitch...

I understand that such negative emotions/sentiments can move us in ways that are ultimately positive for us and others. That's why my approach would be to say "Is this messing up my life or not?" It seems to me that the best place to focus our attention, is on anything under our control which is messing up our lives. Those are the things worth trying to change, in my opinion.

As to your analogy - I'm very much in favor of analogies. You could even take this further by theorizing some Republican responses to your Democratic correspondent such as "You simply haven't taken time to understand the Republican philosophy and that's why you're erroneously rejecting it" or "Why don't you just give them a chance?" or "I know that you're unhappy about the way your father treated you when you were a child but that's not a rational basis for rejecting his politics!" ...and so on

Did you mean your correspondent is going to come post here? That would be interesting - I hope he does!

take care
Helen