A few reflections from recent discussions. It's struck me how crucial are humility and an effort to establish common ground for fruitful discussion. We all alike as human beings experience to a large degree the same physical, emotional and psychological realities in our path through life, and within this debate we share similar reasoning skills. We would all admit limitations to our knowledge and awareness: in short, none of us knows everything. Key question you might ask then: what keeps me resolutely pursuing a path of faith? So a spot of testimony. I'd approach the question from several angles. For starters, life gives me both a desire for and sense of meaning (M), not meaninglessness; and also a sense that personhood(P) and relationship(R) are foundational, critical dimensions of life. From the thinking and reading I've done, I've seen nothing that seriously philosophically undermines the idea that the M, P and R here are fundamental to reality (the Francis Schaeffer Trilogy of books is good on this, influential in the formation of my faith worldview). A heart-level sense of this, combined with intuition of eternity, moves me to seek personal relationship in ultimate reality, like a child's impetus to put hand into father's and trust. And I find a profound response: revelation in the bible that ultimate reality is personal and reaches to embrace humanity. So faith is kindled and the journey of faith embarked on. Not blind, not just a subjective notion like that fairies live at the bottom of the garden, because underpinned by testimony, history and a body of truth, handled in community, passed down the ages, with strong grounds to be considered divinely revelatory (in support of which plenty of good reading material can be highlighted and explored). And sustained by a sense that by stepping out on this journey, I'm allowing myself to be fully alive, not just in mind and body but in spirit. Like sap coursing through a tree nourishing life and growth, or being in a dance or romance. God is not a chemical or physical property that you can analyse with cold neutrality in a test tube. In that sense he is not testable. But when given the chance to be God, when the risk of faith is taken at the end of a path of honest truth-seeking at whatever intellectual level is required, then yes, in relationship I believe God and his goodness most certainly are 'testable' - can be found in experience to be real. Matt 7:8 ask, seek, knock, 'he who seeks finds', and Psalm 34:8 'Taste and see that the Lord is good', or Jesus' invitation to Thomas to touch his wounds as illustration of a personal response to doubt (but not a closed heart), John 20:24-29.
Finally, a word about what I see as barriers, real or potential, to having a condition of heart that could be open to God. I think intellectual debate, while it has its place, can be one: the mentality of excited 'win/lose' competition and camaderie it can generate is potentially inimical to the calmness, humility and receptivity of heart needed properly to consider God. And remember the fable of the man whose tightly wrapped coat the wind and sun competed to remove, and which of the two in the end succeeded. An insight which seems relevant here.
It's a viewpoint, anyway. Happy Christmas.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
.JPG)
17 comments:
Bruce, How does M,P and R logically conclude that god exists? For example, how does wanting a meaning mean that there is
a) A meaning
B) that there is a god behind that meaning.
I want lots of things, but the act of wanting does not make something real.
I could say that I want to taste blue - but blue has no taste. What is the logicthat you are using here - I wont comment on the bible quotes just yet, lets just assume for now that I strongly disagree with ask, see, knock - for I did and I lost faith.
How do you know god cant be measured? If that is the case, you are being inconsistent, because by that view, you can not claim that god leaves traces - that excludes the telological argument, the argument from morality and the argument from personal experience.
No trace, no evidence. How do you rationally reconcile this?
when the risk of faith is taken at the end of a path of honest truth-seeking at whatever intellectual level is required, then yes, in relationship I believe God and his goodness most certainly are 'testable' -
this contains numerous fallacies. You can not logically reach this conclusion, because you are effectively saying that those who dont find god are not being honest. This is just plain wrong.
You are saying there is something wrong with non christians here - do you think that is a rational argument. This thinking is typical of religions.
1 you start assuming the answer
2 you say it is the fault of others who do not believe
3 Therefore you have a circular argument.
How do you know that we do not seek properly? I have to ask you for proof of this. How do you know?
I suggest that you dont believe in Allah or fairies because you dont want to. What would your response to that be?
You state that MPR are foundational, critical dimensions of life. While that may be true for you, and for humanity in general, it doesn't necessarily follow that it is true for the whole of existence. There is no evidence that meaning, personhood and relationship are fundamental to REALITY, as you say. Where is the personhood in the Universe? Point to it.
"A heart-level sense of this, combined with intuition of eternity"
Subjectivity again. I won't bore everyone by repeating what I've already said about that. And what gives you this "intuition" of eternity? Perhaps it is simply that you find it and its implications a more comfortable concept than finiteness (if that's a word).
"And I find a profound response: revelation in the bible..."
Most religions have such revelation. What makes yours correct?
"...that ultimate reality is personal and reaches to embrace humanity".
And what is "ultimate" reality? See my question about personhood. And why, even if there were personhood in the Universe, would it manifest itself as God, specifically YOUR God, and not another faith's?
"because underpinned by testimony, history and a body of truth, handled in community, passed down the ages, with strong grounds to be considered divinely revelatory (in support of which plenty of good reading material can be highlighted and explored)".
These grounds should be interesting. And another suggestion to go out and read, rather than attempt to define it yourself.
"And sustained by a sense that by stepping out on this journey, I'm allowing myself to be fully alive, not just in mind and body but in spirit".
Subjectivity again. This seems to say that you feel faith makes you complete. Can you then admit, at least in principle, that you overlook some challenges to your faith because they are challenges to your sense of completeness?
"Matt 7:8 ask, seek, knock, 'he who seeks finds', and Psalm 34:8 'Taste and see that the Lord is good', or Jesus' invitation to Thomas to touch his wounds as illustration of a personal response to doubt (but not a closed heart), John 20:24-29".
Ironic that these verses you mention are descriptions of physical evidence, the sort that you are so adamant that God CANNOT be examined by.
Happy Christmas.
Billy
You'll probably discount this easily, but there is the C.S. Lewis argument that people only have wants for things that actually exist; e.g. people get hungry, there's such a thing as food, same with lust and sex. I can't conceive of a genuine impulse to want to taste blue, even including my experience with the vocabulary of mental illness.
No trace, no evidence - God , being by His nature of the miraculous, can leave traces without necessarily implying a scientific existence that can be measured.
Personally I don't believe in Allah because I looked into Islam and have found the God presented there is less loving than the Christian one; since God is by nature perfect the latter is more likely to be a true reflection of reality than the former. The Archbishop of Canterbury's recent radio interview (prefaced by a comical exchange with Ricky Gervais) touched on the fallacy of conflating God with the tooth-fairy or Santa Clause; the latter entities did not generate great art, civilisation or moral behaviour. Of course, this doesn't make Christianity true but it does suggest it should be treated as something different than, say, the easter bunny.
There are a lot of difficult days in the Christian walk - one of my theological heroes Cardinal Hume made the point that he can't guarantee that on any day he will not know tears - and I should confess that I spend a lot of time thinking that Christianity is merely not that much of a waste of time and it's better than going to hell. But it does offer the regenerative highs that Bruce speaks of. His analysis is not negated by my experience of being unable to get on with St.Silas people.
Incidently, did you notice that in the most recent National Secular Society newsletter they mistakenly called Christopher Hitchens *Peter* Hitchens, mistaking the former for his right wing God-believing brother? Made me laugh.
Hi Bruce,
I’ll try and touch on the areas that Billy has not (merely to save repetition – I know you want it concise)
A few reflections from recent discussions.
You reflect while I get myself another beer…
We would all admit limitations to our knowledge and awareness: in short, none of us knows everything.
I know nothing…
Key question you might ask then: what keeps me resolutely pursuing a path of faith?
"resolutely"? It makes me wonder, but each to their own.
I'd approach the question from several angles. For starters, life gives me both a desire for and sense of meaning
Well, if life didn’t do this, I guess you might as well be dead?
People can find meaning in many things, isn’t life great?
A heart-level sense of this, combined with intuition of eternity, moves me to seek personal relationship in ultimate reality, like a child's impetus to put hand into father's and trust.
Sorry, what is this “ultimate reality”? Does it smell of roses or peaches? Is it yellow or blue?
I like to think it is black with the smell of oil and steam from an old locomotive?
Does this make any sense?
Not blind, not just a subjective notion like that fairies live at the bottom of the garden, because underpinned by testimony, history and a body of truth, handled in community, passed down the ages, with strong grounds to be considered divinely revelatory
So you have more evidence for your God than fairies? Excellent… what is it?
“underpinned by testimony”? So you believe in alien abductions and ghosts then by the same token… and why not, these people have photos, video and weird machines that go “Bing!” – how much evidence do you need?
Can you tell me why you would reject such evidence? (if you do) I can tell you why I do…
Oh… and wasn’t there pictures of fairies at the bottom of the garden? (Ask Ozzy Osbourne and he will tell you that they wear boots – wrote a song about it.)
God is not a chemical or physical property that you can analyse with cold neutrality in a test tube. In that sense he is not testable.
OK… as before, for the sake of argument I will say that you cannot put God in the test tube… but like the electron (if you remember) the interactions from God should be testable – if not, then you have no way of observing the interaction yourself. If you cannot observe the interaction, then it might as well not exist (which is probably the case)
God’s interactions can/should be testable… no matter how weird, strange or “undefined” you wish to make your God. If you say they cannot, then what have you got? A weird, strange undefined God who cannot be observed in anyway…. Erm – might as well not exist then?
Finally, a word about what I see as barriers, real or potential, to having a condition of heart that could be open to God.
I would have not problem in accepting the evidence for God… just none is found. Not my fault.
This afternoon I was watching the “Emperor’s New Clothes” with my son… so a thought has come in my head - are you saying only the foolish cannot see the evidence for God?
I think intellectual debate, while it has its place, can be one: the mentality of excited 'win/lose' competition and camaderie it can generate is potentially inimical to the calmness, humility and receptivity of heart needed properly to consider God.
Yep… it seems so – so can I be the “fool” then who says that the Emperor is naked?
Lee
You'll probably discount this easily, but there is the C.S. Lewis argument that people only have wants for things that actually exist;
I want to fly…
I want aliens to visit us from a galaxy far, far away…
I want mediums to be able to talk to dead relatives…
I want to be rich…
I want to bring about world peace and feed the hungry…
I want to live forever…
I can want for a lot, doesn’t mean it is true, possible or likely.
Wishful thinking does not make it true.
Lee
Personally I don't believe in Allah because I looked into Islam and have found the God presented there is less loving than the Christian one;
It doesn’t matter if god is loving or a evil bar-stool (I will not swear)… your personal preference does not change a thing.
There is no evidence for ANY theistic god or any designer interacting with the universe. This is the important part.
Lee
Here's a Christian response to Dawkins which you might find stimulating:
http://www.freechurch.org/issues/2007/jan07.htm
Parentheically, do Atheists give themselves Christmas Day off from arguing with Christians ;-)?
Parentheically, do Atheists give themselves Christmas Day off from arguing with Christians ;-)?
Only if I’ve been good…
Actually I love Christmas… a good old pagan “knees up” with the aligning of the stars the key to the event, though over here it is a bit weird, today I even pulled out the oldie BBQ for a traditional Christmas Eve meal?
Having BBQ steak, pork and sausages with salad followed by fresh raspberries and ice-cream outside is still a little wrong to me… but the son loved it and the beer was cold – cheers!
Merry Christmas…
Lee
Hi Ryan,
You'll probably discount this easily, but there is the C.S. Lewis argument that people only have wants for things that actually exist...
I dont know about that, people follow all sorts of gods - do you believe they are all real.
My point about tasting ble, is that if I really want to taste it, I cant. It was an analogy to explain to Bruce that a want for something does not make it real.
No trace, no evidence - God , being by His nature of the miraculous, can leave traces without necessarily implying a scientific existence that can be measured.
Why does everyone insist on mentioning science? There are historical, literary, logical and philosophical reasons to reject god too. Can you back up yourstatement though? Since I dont believe in him, I dont think talk of what miracles he can or can not do serves any function in regard to evidence.
Personally I don't believe in Allah because I looked into Islam and have found the God presented there is less loving than the Christian one
I dont see how you can consider God loving - read the threats for disobedience in Deuteronomy 28 for example - people will eat their children!
Also, why do you think reality sould be nice? Is the reality of a bot fly eating a living human brain nice, or a child born with cancer?
since God is by nature perfect the latter is more likely to be a true reflection of reality than the former.
This raises a few interesting questions.
How do you know god is perfect?
What is perfection?
Are you able to recognise perfection if you are not "perfect"?
I feel to claim god is perfect requires a great deal of thought that can only lead to the conclusions that perfection (in a human sense) is relative and reflects our biases. If god were to exist, and really be perfect, we could have no means of knowing it, so the claim becomes meaningless, as to make the claim is to do so without a complete understanding of perfection.
If god is perfect, then again, it is relative, because he defines perfection - in you view, therefore perfection is again a matter of taste and still meaningless.
latter entities did not generate great art,
Actually, people make art, and I'm sure I remember people drawing the tooth fairy in primary school. Have you seen some of Dali's work? I dont think anyone would say they are of something real. I dont think that is a refutation of the tooth fairy analogy, but my point for bringing it up was to see if Bruce could recognise what he had done by effectivly saying only people who go about it properly find your god.
I also contest that christianity causes moral bahaviour - well, at least not any more so as any other belief system. It has also been responsible for a lot of immoral behaviour as we have already mentioned.
but it does suggest it should be treated as something different than, say, the easter bunny.
I dont see how, children believe in the easter bunny, and ther is no solid transferable evidence for either. No one has seen god or the easter bunny, and "the bunny" does leave eggs.
Bruce may get highs, but so does one of my muslim friends, so do addicts. Chocholate even gives some people highs - it's all neurochemistry. IT also causes many lows forpeople as you acknowledge - for me, it was a permanent low. Again, I dont consider a god who would allow that or send someone to hell loving. If you are following Pascal's wager here, it wont save you, it is unbiblical - god apparently want people who love hi, not people trying to save their skins. It also wont save you if Allah turns out to be god.
I dont really follow secularism - I dont believe in God and that's as far as it goes. Didn't know his brother was a christian though
Lee Said:
are you saying only the foolish cannot see the evidence for God?
The bible does label non believers fools. It also says that only a simpleton believes everything they are told (prov 14:15) Wish it could make up its mind.
It is interesting the different appoaches christians use. Some claim there is hard absolute evidence that god exists, others claim that god can not be demonstrated through anything other than subjective means - after you decide to believe in him.
Why does the creator of the universe come over all shy about telling his followers?
Ryan, we are very familiar with David Robertson - he hs an obsession with Dawkins - as well as trying to start fights, telling lies, avoiding issues, being abusive etc. I have even been on his site before he "censored" it. but thanks for thinking of us :-)
Billy
I don't believe all Gods are real, but the religous *impulse* is proof of something real that there is satisfaction for.
I'd be interested in hearing more of your historical, literary and philosophical arguments against God.
The Deutoronomy 28 bit (v53)is revolting description of the Israelite's response to a siege. And if God created us then we should owe Him worship, and also deserve punishment. Satan is the Prince of the world which is why our reality is often not nice. I believe that God is a God of love which is why ultimate reality should be good though.
We can imagine from limited comprehension of a subject and extrapolate that so, although I of course can't fully grasp God's perfection, I know things that resemble it and that God outstrips them, in the same way knowledge of goodness and kindness suggests an ultimate source of these virtues.
People aren't just in Christianity for the highs. A lot of time it's a struggle and personally I can draw a contrast between my past states (such as the hedonism of alcoholism, or depression warranting medication) which were clearly brain chemical related and Christianity.
Pascal's Wager does work because one can *choose* to love. Certainly the Church wouldn't be living up to Christ's calling if people just loved people they liked anyway. Plus in Islam Hell apparently isn't eternal so it's far better to choose Christianity over Islam because if you're wrong the negative repurcussions are less than if you choose Islam and Christianity's right.
God isn't shy and certainly doesn't expect us to believe everything we hear. The Gospel is compelling, although not everyone will respond.
Billy
Are any of the other anti-Dawkins arguments (you'll know there's a book out called The Dawkins Delusion) any good?
Lee
Wanting to fly might be claused as psychologically problematic. Wanting to be rich supports Lewis' argument; you want to be rich, well there is such a thing as wealth. And so on.
I'll come back to these comments guys; just wanted to do a wee seasonal post. Keep the comments friendly on that one as I'm sending it to a couple of egroups! Happy Christmas to one and all.
Hi Ryan,
None of the ones I have read bits of have been any good, although, there are many. Most have had bad reviews from atheists - although a book should not be judged on its reviews. The problem is that many assume god exists, which of course is useless when trying to argue against the claim that he does not exist.
I have read most of Robertsons letters, and he really is just appealing to the converted.
Have a good day tomorrow and dont listen to too much sir cliff. I see from your profile that you have a better taste in football teams though :-)
Hey Billy
So are you a fellow Rangers fan then? Cool. I suppose your name was a clue. Glad you checked out my profile - feel free to email me if you wish.
I must admit that Sir Cliff is not my thing. I got the twentieth anniversary edition box set of the Joshua Tree for Christmas which is cool, and I primarily like Hip-Hop (Jay-Z especially), along with Radiohead aforemention U2 and R.E.M. You? Also listening to the Kanye West album (Graduation) which does mention Jesus favourably, although much of the language is not (shall we say) the sort of thing one would say in Church.
Post a Comment