Irishbrutha

Been lurking in this thread and I just wanted to respond to this. I think intellectually honest Christians are those who seek to be able to "give an account for the hope that lies within [them]". I'm a philosophy student and I used to (and still do to an extent, but with a very nuanced perspective) think as you do. That I had to always be willing to accept another set of "principles" if greater evidence or better argumentation was made known. But this isn't really aligned with the reality of what it means to be a Christian. We are not holding onto a premise or a set of conclusions. In this way we differ greatly from the atheist. That is why the ad hominem attacks made by such posters like Rhea, who believe that scientific method is the only meaningful epistemic apparatus, are all strikingly similar. The epistemic "failures" of the theist always are remarkably related to either a lack of understanding of "scientific method", or "fallacious reasoning". These methods, empirical investigation and reason, both yield the only kind of evidence pertinent to the atheistic proposition.

But we are committed to a person with whom many of us have a relationship. And sure, foundationally that person's existence may require some "evidence" or rational criterion by which our belief-forming mechanisms were at some point propelled toward belief in Him. Being an intellectually honest Christian is being ready to admit that possibly our belief-forming mechanisms were wrong when it comes time to "investigate" those beliefs. But the quest of justifying our beliefs internally, is not a life-quest. It is a part of maturation, but only a part, that has no specific time-measurement on it. This question must be answered in order for other pursuits to bear fruit. No doubt we will continue to use our mind and rationally explore not only our faith, but all things, after the question is answered. But to continually be "trying" to change one's faith would rob one of the ability to live the Christian life. To attempt to live practically as a "Christian" skeptic involves a great deal of contradiction. If there is no firm belief about the metaphysical issue of God, there cannot be a firm belief about whether or not you should pray to Him. Nor is there a firm belief as to whether you should follow/obey/serve Him. In all activities relating to His existence you would be powerless to answer whether or not you should be doing them. If you simply did them, then these actions would not be predicated on reasons. They would simply occur, either out of emotional necessity to continue the "relationship", or out of habit.

Nevertheless, I do agree with you that we should be open to proper rational refutation of our belief. But that belief must be already established for it to be meaningful. That's my whole point. My other point is that we must recognize what it really means for the Christian belief to be "properly refuted". A legitimate refutation of the Christian premise, for the Christian, cannot simply be a deductive syllogism, evolution, a carbon-date, or the LPE. As I said we are talking about a person, with whom we (forgive my presumption if you do not) relate. It would take much more formidable argumentation to convince me that my brother is merely a figment of my imagination than it would for someone to convince me that Napoleon never existed (merely an example, it is not a strict analogy). In fact it would probably be fair that I would require certainty-yielding evidence before I would accept that my brother did not exist . And we all know how difficult it is to come by evidence that yields the certainty of an entity's non-existence...

-Shaun

HelenM

It makes sense to point out that for many of us, Christianity is centered around a relationship rather than simply believing various things to be true that atheists don't believe are true.

Shaun, did it take certainty-yielding evidence to convince you that God exists in the first place then? Or would it take more evidence to convince you of His non-existence than it did to convince you of His existence?

I'm just curious.

Helen

agapeo

Enquiring minds want to know!

Interesting thread. Interesting Christian! I can relate to what Rational BAC has discovered by coming upon the SecWeb. Usually, a Christian will ensconce themselves in the particular theology of their respective denomination and give very little (if any) thought to the beliefs of others. Anyways . . .

If you can't say what the "a lot" was could you at least say what a portion of it (what you've learned) is in relationship to the a lot?

Oh and btw -- I'm one of those Christians that frequent this site and puruse the contents of it to learn. Very rarely will I participate. So call me a "lurker" but don't call me a fly-by-nighter, or you might get me started

True. But you got to start somewhere so . . . where did ya start learning "a lot" and what was it?

Radorth

Lewis' The Screwtape Letters would shed light here I think. Screwtape tried about every subtle argument contemplated here, but God wizens the Christian to see them for what they are.

"Now the serpent was more crafty than any creature...."

If ""he takes the wise in their own craftiness" is so, then yes I'd say God himself has no problem with this forum, and I for one hope it stays up although several others I've been on have self-immolated.

Rad

keyser_soze

Well, then you are in luck, because I think this one will remain forever.

lpetrich

Rational BAC, I'm not sure what sort of site you'd like most. Maybe some modernist/non-fundie church site that discusses very highbrow theology.

mike_decock

I think the point is that you have to believe that God/Christ exists before you can have a relationship with Him. As an ex-Christian, I understand that this relationship seems very "real", but I know now that it wasn't.

-Mike...

Infidelettante

I lied again--

Another thread. Probably not too long. At least I hope not.

I can find a vast number of sites dedicated to every aspect and form of Christianity on the Internet. Your local library and book stores should provide you with enough information about your religion to allow you to understand it better.

Given that there are sources of information regarding Christianity, other than this forum, to which you have access (assuming you don’t live in an extremely isolated area) I wonder that you chose to deprive yourself of them in favor of learning at the feet of atheists and conclude that you are either very unimaginative in your quest for knowledge about your religion or that you choose to tweak our noses instead of debate us.

I think I will go with the “tweak our noses” concept as you have failed to offer any evidence of just how this forum has enriched your religious life and have refused to do so in the face of requests from other members of this forum.
You have obviously not spent enough time reading this forum to know why posters are sometimes banned. It leaves me to think you could not have read it enough to gain the benefits you claim. Tweak on Rational BAC, tweak on.
JT
P.S. To have seen “Golly jeepers and “chicken poopy” in one post is a moment I will long cherish. Thank you.

HelenM

I didn't want to conclude that myself but I can't help suspecting it too since Rational BAC seems unable or unwilling to give the slightest hint of the 'awful lot' he claims to have learned here already.

Helen

Goliath

Rational BAC,

I am getting sick and god damned tired of seeing you thumb your nose at xians who are not in your particular sect! Every xian is just as much of a xian as any other xian!

Sincerely,

Goliath