I'm gradually responding to comments on this current strand thinking about God and faith. Thanks Billy, Jonathan and Jimmy. Billy, I'm aware how easy it is to offend or annoy when relating this topic to personal experience, and am sorry to the extent I did that. I was trying to make a very objective point though that applies to everyone, as Jonathan - thank you - recognises: that experience does shape and affect the formation of belief. You do, Billy, further on acknowledge this, saying how it lead you to question your faith and personally conclude it didn't stack up - a process which I respect even if I disagree with your conclusions.
A few starter responses that need expanding.
I, doubtless along with many people of faith, am uneasy about the apparent limitedness of your approach in addressing the topic of God. This relates to my above point about experience. It is a widely held Christian conviction that a prime arena for God's interaction with human beings is through the heart, and experience. That's not to deny there's a very important role for thought and intellect, and it's perfectly okay to discuss the very existence of God in this manner. But no believer would claim you can prove God in a solely rational, scientific evidence-based manner, as you want them to do. That discussion is one part of a jigsaw.
I've jotted down my other initial reactions below. At present they look like tabloid headlines - they need a lot of unpacking. I stick with my intention to discuss this bit by bit.
You're not accounting for the mystery and poetry of existence. Heart and emotion important - powerful influence. Nothing wrong with questioning, I grant. Selective and sometimes distorted, silly assessment eg Jesus' death a 'suicide mission'? Impression at times of a demanding and combative stance and scatter gun of half-baked ideas; complex topic needs to be addressed carefully. The 'evidence', yet to be discussed, is like a jigsaw with many pieces: doesn't aim to 'prove' God but provides strong springboard for faith, stronger than for the alternatives when considered comprehensively from all angles. Centrality of heart - makes sense if God wants to know and be known by people of varying intelligence and education. I'm on a quest too.
Finally, check out John Humphreys 'In God we doubt':
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/faith/article2367028.ece
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/faith/article2367056.ece
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
.JPG)
4 comments:
Bruce, you still provide no evidence other than feelings. If I want to believe that Elvis is alive enough, I can delude myself into believing that. I can even take on the character of Napoleon if I focus myself on the task. The brain can be fooled. None of this requires anything other than me.
You keep referring to experience shaping your view of evidence. I still don’t see you providing any reason to believe. What is this evidence that you erroneously claim that experience has made me unable to see?
I challenged you earlier to substantiate your claim that consciousness is more than physical. Your world view rests on this claim. I ask you again, can you back that up? The truth is that we can alter consciousness with drugs that affect single molecule, we can induce visions and out of body experiences in people by stimulating the correct part of the brain, we can even predict what age garriers of the Huntington” gene will lose their minds, based on the number of 3 “letter” repeats in their gene, so I have to ask you to back up that claim. It is very important.
I, doubtless along with many people of faith, am uneasy about the apparent limitedness of your approach in addressing the topic of God.
You have not addressed the issues of prophecy, prayer, healing and interpreting tongues, which are all testable supernatural claims. You have now attempted to shift focus. You also need to show that there are other valid ways of looking at god, without resorting to the circular reasoning that you are so far employing. That includes demonstrating that “heart” is a valid argument.
It is a widely held Christian conviction that a prime arena for God's interaction with human beings is through the heart, and experience.
It is widely held by creationists that the earth is 6002 years old. That does not make it so. Good evidencesays otherwise.
But no believer would claim you can prove God in a solely rational, scientific evidence-based manner, as you want them to do.
Want me to introduce you to some who do claim that? What I find puzzling here though is the fact you say that you are implying that there are rational “proofs” yet you say that evidence is not like that. Could you clarify? If such evidence exists, why are you not discussing that?
You're not accounting for mystery, poetry. Heart and emotion important - powerful influence.
What’s your point? So are drugs. Justify!
Selective and sometimes distorted, silly assessment eg Jesus' death a 'suicide mission'?
Wasn’t it a suicide mission? However, if you take it in the proper context in which it was said, it was part of a statement to show that Christianity is as lacking in substance as is belief in fairies.
Troubled by demandingness and combatative stance.
Why shouldn’t I demand evidence? After all, there are plenty of fundies out there who think I live my life according to the ways of the Devil – surprising given the behaviour of certain Christians. You may feel I’m combative, but facts are facts regardless. Speed still = distance time regardless of whether I put you in a head lock and scream it at you (which I don’t), or whisper it in your ear. Please concentrate on evidence.
Why don’t you seek out Allah? Why don’t you believe in him?
Scatter gun of half-baked ideas
Got any evidence for this? That sounds like you “know” you are right.
Evidence is like a jigsaw but doesn't prove God - but wd say provides strong springboard for faith, stronger than alternatives - considered from all angles. Centrality of heart - makes sense if God wants to know and be known by people of varying intelligence and education.
Yet, you provide no evidence. Please provide some. Also, back up these allegations.
Catch you later
Billy
Hey Billy, just edited my post as was aware the last paragraph of impressions was a bit in your face as it stood. I'll reply properly in due course.
By the way, "In God we doubt! is on Dawkins' site. feel free to join the discussion. http://richarddawkins.net/article,1593,In-God-we-doubt,John-Humphrys-Times-Online#67643
my favorite quote from it is this :"Some believers are undoubtedly stupid (witness the creationists)
"
Bruce, you say "But no believer would claim you can prove God in a solely rational, scientific evidence-based manner, as you want them to do. That discussion is one part of a jigsaw".
I have encountered many statements like these made by the religious, and it strikes me that this is in fact a tacit acknowledgement of the weakness of your position. Obviously, I agree that a hypohetical spirit-being like God cannot be wholly discussed in terms of evidence, although I think it should play a larger part than it does at the moment. Would you agree, however, that references to the heart and experience are often an attempt to divert attention away from the physical evidence? After all, if th scientific evidence for God was strong, how many believers would dip into evidence through personal experience? They would just say, "look at that, and that". This attempt to divert or at least diffuse the focus is probably unconscious, but I find it quite telling.
"The mystery and poetry of existence"- that could mean anything. You'll have to go into more detail there. However I will say that I do "believe" that life does not require an omnipotent deity in order to be meaningful.
"Demanding and combative stance". I won't deny that some atheists exhibit this. But I will say that the idea of atheists being demanding and combative stems from the fact that religion is simply unused to being questioned. For many centuries religion enjoyed a position of dominance. Now it is being challenged from many different quarters. Unused to this, the reaction of many is to label the challengers as combative, simply because they are unused to having to justify what they believe in to a wider audience.
"Centrality of heart"- again, need more detail here!
"scatter gun of half-baked ideas"- which ones in particular? I'll be happy to discuss the merits of ideas once you specify the ones you mean.
I realise that you said that these were just headlines, but I decided to get my initial impressions down while they were still fresh in my mind.
I'll leave it for tonight on the following note. I know you have said that physical, scientific and intellectual evidence is in your opinion but part of the debate as a whole. However. Can I ask you to lay out for the benefit of myself and the others what you think is the strongest physical and scientific evidence for God's existence. If I can establish where you stand on that aspect of the debate, it'll make it much easier.
Bye for now,
Jonathan.
Post a Comment