Billy, Jonathan, thanks for your replies. I'm going to say straight off a thought that's been running through my mind since yesterday. I'm aware of the value of personal interaction in discussing these topics, but it's also struck me that if you're serious about wanting to get to grips with why Christians believe what they believe, just as if I wanted to more fully understand why atheists or those of other persuasions hold their beliefs, the best way is to get out there and read what's been written! I say this not remotely as a cop-out, but rather in the face of basic life realities: we all have limited time each day, and I, while having thought things through a fair bit, am one mere limited person; out there, meanwhile, there's a vast range of resources from Christian history right up to the present day of carefully thought out, reasonable, rational discussion of why Christians believe. I offer this as a serious challenge. Billy, I know you've read quite a lot. I'd be interestd to know what you make of what you've read. I recommend for starters 'Evidence that demands a verdict' (new and revised) by Josh McDowell, which I know you know Billy. I can almost anticipate you saying, 'It's rubbish'. But I really would want to know how deeply and thoroughly you've explored what is said in this book, the writings it quotes from, and the vast library of books of similar or greater learning out there. One more, 'The Dawkins delusion' (Alistair McGrath? - haven't yet read this myself) If particular others come to mind I'll let you know, but seriously, if you guys are geuninely curious you'll be able to dig them out - main libraries, bible college libraries, internet...
See my comment for brief responses to points raised in the time I have left:
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
.JPG)
11 comments:
See my comment for brief responses to points raised in the time I have left:
- Billy: evidence beside subjective feelings, external to me: I can tackle this bit by bit, but I'd say, go and read it up. Consciousness: I have a strong sense that reality is more than physical; for a rational argument, go read. Testable supernatural claims: God appears reluctant to subject himself and his works to scientific tests - consistent with how miracles are reported and handled in the NT - often done in repsonse to faith, not to 'prove' Jesus; he himself rejected this approach. Your 'circular reasoning' objection: I haven't even been attempting so far to offer a comprehensive reasoned argument - go read. You don't seem to treat areas of consideration outwith science - eg 'heart' in the manner they merit; you insist on trying to reduce and nail them down scientifically - that's my point about heart, mystery; your approach wd be widely viewed as inappropriate, category confusion - like trying to 'pin down' the impact a poem has on someone.
- Points I've still to address: jigsaw view of evidence. Quote full 'suicide' line to counter 'Cnity lacks substance'; scatter gun. Why don't you seek out Allah?
- Jonathan: physical evidence - I'll try and follow up, but again, plenty of good reading material out there. I'm not tying to make a simplistic 'life is meaningful therefore God' deduction - rather, simply suggesting that the mystery and poetry of existence direct the mind and imagination to contemplate reality in ways not reducible to the scientific method. Christian apologetics - defence of the faith - has far more of a track record than you give it credit for.
Bruce, your answer lacks any substance, and saying go read is a total cop out. I have read! McDowell is (not to put too fine a point on it) not all there. Why dont you present some of what you consider his better arguements and I'll show you what I mean. How about we both go to an alpha course and I'll show you how poor the arguements are there. McGrath offers nothing other than " you cant rule out the super natural because.... well, just because. So there!"
Johnatan and I do take this seriously. Go on to this thread for example and see us in action http://www.richarddawkins.net/article,323,The-God-of-the-Bible-is-No-Delusion,Christadelphianorg#67903 there are about 1500 posts on it and Mark T could do with some company. TO SAY GO READ REALLY IMPIES WE HAVE BEEN LACKING IN OUR APPROACH. May I ask you to provide a case?
I am busy today, but go read john 9 as an example of providing evidence, or that business about thomas. To say God does not allow testsing is also a cop out - exactly a quality I would give to an imaginary friend.
A strong feeling about consciousness is not evidence. I could say go read, but I provided some evidence of the physical basis of it. Your world wiev is dependent on this, so may I challenge you to justify that position - properly.
Now, you know that I have done all that spiritual stuff too, and made sacrifices in faith, so your claims do not add up to reality.
Also, if you deny tangible evidence, do you think all those Christians who try to witness to others are wrong to do so? They are saying "look, god cured me of x, y, or z" - more likely than not, a doctor or phsychiatrist was involved - go - figure!
Please justify the use of heart and mystery, and explain it more - it all seems rather abstract.
Hope you dont take the brief style as being rude or confrontational, I'm just very busy today.
Cheers
Billy
You mention about good reading materials, Bruce: I recommend you visit the Richard Dawkins website. Both Billy and I frequent it, and a lot of the articles that get posted there are from the religious perspective, which then get "critiqued" by the regulars. The Dawkins Delusion has been discussed there before.
I take your point about wider reading, and I will look into that, but I would still like you to answer my question about physical evidence for the existence of God. Wider reading will tell me what others think, but I'm not debating them! I just want to know what YOU think is good physical evidence. Please try and list some.
Drat! The second comment was by me, Jonathan. Helps if I sign my posts!
Jonathan.
It also helps if I could count. The unsigned comment was the THIRD, not the second. Nearly stole Billy's thunder.
Jonathan.
Cheers guys. I will try to follow up your requests and, indeed, check out the RD website more carefully, which I have been on. I do feel, perhaps in the need for speed, Billy, you sometimes misread or exaggerate what I say, eg I'm not aware of having ever denied the value of tangible evidence - I simply haven't yet got round to outlining it. And this is my point about reading: if you ask me, the book 'Evidence...' and others do provide plenty of evidence, even if you might need to follow some up. ('Evidence' doesn't actually deal with science) And my point was, such books provide the kind of clear comprenhensive argument and evidence you're both looking for if you really are looking for answers, as fast as you want it; whereas if you're looking for it from me you'll have to be a lot more patient... Having said that, I appreciate the desire Jonathan to hear what I personally think and will try to honour it. So I'm not copping out.
I just want to quote back to you Billy the line you wrote to a Metro contributor, as an example of what I consider a scatter gun of half-baked ideas - ie showing no understanding or respect for the aspects of Christian theology it includes - in this case all in one sentence:
'By your standards I can't see the difference between belief in an invisible god who impregnates virgins, becomes his own father and sends himself on a suicide mission because of some incident involving a talking snake or belief in fairies'
Granting you probably partly aimed for effect, by this standard I have to say what I've read in McDowell is a model of fair, thoughtful and considered comment. And you say he's not all there?
PS I think Billy you do have better understanding of Christianity than that line implies, so I look forward to seeing it.
Hi Bruce,
I’ve been fed and can now relax.
eg I'm not aware of having ever denied the value of tangible evidence
Actually, have said that god is not quantifiable or tangable in the past. You say that god and the supernatural are not open to questioning or testing. Therefore you are effectively saying there is no tangible evidence. But if you do think there is some, please point it out.
'Evidence' doesn't actually deal with science
Who said it does? Remember me conveying a feeling of frustration at you implying this is a science vs god thing? Well, you are doing it again. It is reason vs faith. Science is only a part of that.
I just want to quote back to you Billy the line you wrote to a Metro contributor, as an example of what I consider a scatter gun of half-baked ideas - ie showing no understanding or respect for the aspects of Christian theology it includes - in this case all in one sentence: …..
Then you misunderstand the point. The point is that it is an absurd belief system that has as much evidence backing it up as a belief system that we both agree is absurd. Now, and this is a weakness of Christianity – the fact you cant agree with each other – witness denominations and schisms- there are many who do take that literally. In that, we also have the idea of god being self-existent and being human and supernatural. We have the fall story and the suicide mission as an attempt to restore relationship with god. What do you think is theologically unsound about that? I just convey it as it is, and you rightly react to it, but I have not been inaccurate in what I said. It accurately highlights it in a way that someone without your faith would recognise as absurd – particularly in the absence of evidence.
by this standard I have to say what I've read in McDowell is a model of fair, thoughtful and considered comment. And you say he's not all there?
Well, I did ask you to provide his best argument so that I could show you, but you didn’t. I’m not one who usually makes comments that I can’t back up, so, from memory I’ll provide you with an example. Concerning the historicity of Jesus, I remember him mentioning Josephus, Suetonius and Tacitus. It is widely held schorarly opinion – including Christian scholarly opinion that the Josephus passage is at least partly – if not wholly an early Christian fraud – we can go into more details if you want. Now, this highlights a few problems with McDowell. One is that he has either not done sufficient basic research, or he is lying. If the former, he is either stupid of writing from a purely agenda based position. What he is not doing is presenting a balanced and reasonable case. If he is aware of the controversy, then he is being deliberately dishonest.
Tacitus only mentions the existence of Christians, and not Jesus! None of these writers were even contempories of Jesus, so again McDowell is either being stupid, negligent of down right dishonest. Even worse, Suetonius does not even mention Jesus, he mentions someone called “Chrestus” who was apparently inciting disturbances, resulting in an expulsion from Rome. Believe me, I was being kind when I said he was not all there – although I was hassled and hungry at the time, but I'm not retracting what I said. The rest of his stuff is of the same agenda based propaganda that is not clear, objective or accurate. It may even be wilfully dishonest. I would hope it is just that he's not that good at being objective and doing the background research properly.
Cheers
Billy
Fun fun fun...
Cheers Billy, I'll get back to you.
Have watched Hard talk Part 1 with Richard Dawkins. Thanks for the link Billy, http://richarddawkins.net/articleComments,1454,Richard-Dawkins-on-Hardtalk,BBC-Richard-Dawkins,page4#59050 His main point: bad things are often done in the name of religion eg. suicide bombers; no instance of such bad stuff done in the name of atheism. Even Stalin/Mao only 'happened to be atheists', they did their atrocities in the grip of a utopian vision more in common with religion. Just logging for future comment. Interesting.
Hard talk Part 2: RD objects to the 'labelling' of children of religious parents Christian or Muslim etc; you wouldn't call a child f racist parents 'racist'; religion is 'faith not based on evidence'; religion is afforded unjustifiable respect and unwarrantedly shielded from criticism.
Part 3: selfish gene; in evolution utility doesn't mean a belief necessarily true; RD's apparent 'faith' in science as the means of answering ultimate questions; acknowledges science may have to change to handle new evidence, but in the direction of ack'g the supernatural? 'Not Wotan or Yahweh'.
Post a Comment