Dr. James F. McGrath on the Evidence of History for Faith

I've been defending the idea that historical studies are a slender reed to hang a faith like Christianity on. McGrath shows us what this means when it comes to the burial of Jesus in his new book The Burial of Jesus: History and Faith. From what he wrote on his blog here, and then again here, I think there would be much I can agree with him about.

31 comments:

Jeff Carter said...

Christians in general do not face a conundrum. It is the Pharisee Christians and Pharisee atheists (Sadducees?) - both biblical and historical doctrinaires - who want to make biblical and historical evidence the foundation of the gospel – who have the problem.

As Michel Henry notes, “If you want to question the Gospel (or history) about the salvation of your soul, you would not merely, as in Kierkegaard’s ironic remark, have to await the publication of the very last book on the question, you would have to put everything else aside and throw yourself into study, which death would surely interrupt before you could obtain from so many realms of knowledge and exegesis even the first word in an answer to the single questions that matters.”

Biblical and historical doctrinaires have set themselves up in a ludicrous position.

The root of their problem is a complete understanding of belief and faith, i.e., “Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ….” The belief required is not belief in a historical fact, like “I believe that Columbus discovered America in 1492”. It is trust, belief in a person.

How does one gain trust in a friend? Do we gather birth certificates and social security cards and first try to prove his existence? Do we eyeball every move through a magnifying glass? Do we take their care and love for us and try to weigh it in a beaker? Do that and you won’t have many friends.

The scientific / historical approach to God is ludicrous. The only approach to God is personal, since he is a person.

Anonymous said...

Jeff, come on now. Buber's distinction between I and Thou, eh?

Let me reason with you by using your own words, okay? See how it sounds to you.

The scientific / historical approach to the fairy godmother is ludicrous. The only approach to the fairy godmother is personal, since she is a person.

Jeff Carter said...

In what way are you asking me to believe in this fairy godmother - as a historical fact? as a physical existence? or are you asking me to trust in her in a relationship? How are you claiming that this fairy godmother presents herself to me - as an object or as a subject?

Does your question indicate that you believe that the basis of Christianity, if true, MUST be historical? The implication is that God would be calling us to a lifetime of endless research with little hope of an answer. This is Love?

Anonymous said...

In what way are you asking me to believe in this fairy godmother...

In the same exact way you are asking me to believe in your God. You tell me what you mean when you say what you do in reference to God and I'll just apply that to the fairy godmother. Fair enough?

Jeff Carter said...

Then this "fairy godmother" is spirit - completely non-physical and non-objective, undetectable by scientific / historical means. "The truth of [Christ] has precisely no relation to the truth that arises from the analysis of texts or their historical study."

My claim is that my subjective interiority, where I discern my own self, is the only place where this spirit can present itself and be detected by me - since my self is not objective but subjective. Again, quoting Henry: "Only one to whom that revelation is made can enter into [the truth of] it."

This means that I cannot ask you to "believe in [my]God" in any meaningful, persuasive way. Either Christ presents Himself to you and you may accept / reject Him or He does not present Himself to you, in which case you are under no responsibility to believe in Him.

The essential questions for a man thus become, "Has Christ made Himself known to me? Am I absolutely sure that He has not made Himself known to me or am I denying my encounter with him due to selfishness, bittnerness or some other prejudice?"

Anonymous said...

Okay then. I believe in the fairy godmother.

This fairy godmother is spirit - completely non-physical and non-objective, undetectable by scientific / historical means.

The truth of the fairy godmother has precisely no relation to the truth that arises from the analysis of texts or their historical study.

My claim is that my subjective interiority, where I discern my own self, is the only place where the fairy godmother can present herself and be detected by me - since my self is not objective but subjective.

This means that I cannot ask you to "believe in the fairy godmother in any meaningful, persuasive way. Either the fairy godmother presents Herself to you and you may accept / reject Her or She does not present Herself to you, in which case you are under no responsibility to believe in Her.

The essential questions for a man thus become: Has the fairy godmother made Herself known to me? Am I absolutely sure that She has not made Herself known to me or am I denying my encounter with her due to selfishness, bittnerness or some other prejudice?


Shall we proceed? I believe in the Mormon god. I believe in Allah. I believe in Thor. I believe in Re. I believe in Apollo. I believe in Zeus.

What would be your response to someone who said these same things?

Anonymous said...

Shall we proceed? I believe in the Mormon god. I believe in Allah. I believe in Thor. I believe in Re. I believe in Apollo. I believe in Zeus.

Indeed. Isn't it rather sad how religious apologists, regardless of their particular sect or creed, rather conveniently assume that having faith means believing in the (alleged) way to salvation that they happen to believe in? What if I decide to take a Kierkegaardian "blind leap of faith" and become...a Mormon or a Shi'a Muslim? What then? Well in the views of many, I'm still hellbound....thus so much for the 50/50 odds of Pascal's Wager!

Even though it doesn't seem that they could be ignorant of such a thing, people like Jeff Carter seem painfully unaware of the fact that we live in a world of competing truth claims. Thus even if I were convinced that the origins of the universe and life on earth necessitated an intelligent Creator God, that would still beg the question: Which God? Not only that, but then there's the question of which religion is His one true religion.

If I can't use my (allegedly) God-given reason to decide which religion to believe in, and even which sect within each major religion to believe in, then what do I do? Seemingly the only other option is just accept that it's all in God's Hands, that faith is predestined and just wait for Him to put the correct faith in my heart. However, this doesn't seem to square very well with reality, since 99.9% of the time, the type of faith that a person gets is based on the type that their parents had. Thus if I want to embark on a search for truth in a world of competing truth claims, I would have to find a way to be discriminatory and judicious...ideas that have probably never really been considered by people who just assume that their own sect/cult/creed is right and everyone else's is wrong.

When I hear religious folks issue statements like Jeff Carter makes above, it just makes it glaringly clear to me that they've never even tried to undertake an unbiased search for religious truth. The past twenty years of my life has taught me that if you attempt to open your mind and search for religious truth by reading widely, you'll go through a period of anguish that eventually results in agnosticism and then atheism. I hate to be the one to break the news to Jeff, but here it is anyway: It's all delusion and fairy tales, so save yourself the time and frustration and just give it up. The liberating feeling of finally being honest with yourself and coming to terms with reality will be me much more rewarding and exhilarating than any feeling that religion ever provided.

Keep up the good work, John, since I love your blog and check it regularly!

Charlie said...

Stumbling Block,

thus so much for the 50/50 odds of Pascal's Wager

Pascal's Wager works relative to an agent's epistemic context. As a matter of historical fact, Blaise actually never intended for it to be used in a pluralistic society like ours, so the many-gods objection strictly speaking attacks a strawman. If the choices were restricted to Christian theism and naturalism, the wager is actually not bad as a rational decision making procedure.

Charlie said...

It's all delusion and fairy tales, so save yourself the time and frustration and just give it up. The liberating feeling of finally being honest with yourself and coming to terms with reality will be me much more rewarding and exhilarating than any feeling that religion ever provided.

Um, I thought sermons weren't allowed here?

Stumbling block, let us know when you're ready to demonstrate with logical argumentation and evidence that theistic (or deistic) belief is delusional and amounts to "fairy tales". Also, let us know what you mean by "reality" and when you're ready to argue (logically) that your atheism, in fact, corresponds to reality.

Until you do so your statements will be rejected by rational readers as mere dogma.

Also,

The past twenty years of my life has taught me that if you attempt to open your mind and search for religious truth by reading widely, you'll go through a period of anguish that eventually results in agnosticism and then atheism.

I bet I've read 10x as widely as you have, and I went from Christian fundamentalism --> atheism --> agnosticism --> currently agnostic with serious leanings toward theism (or, at least, agno-panentheism). What was it that Francis Bacon said once? Oh right, "It's true that a little studying in philosophy will incline one's mind toward atheism; depth in philosophy brings one's mind toward God."

I wonder if he was right.

Evan said...

Charlie are you seriously suggesting that Pascal was unaware of classical paganism, Judaism or Islam?

Charlie said...

No. Read.

Anonymous said...

If the choices were restricted to Christian theism and naturalism, the wager is actually not bad as a rational decision making procedure.

Charlie...ugh...well if "the choices were restricted to Christian theism and naturalism" that just gets us back to the main point that I mentioned (i.e. conveniently assuming that their theism is the default choice in a world of competing theisms). Thanks for confirming my assertion!

As to "fairy tales", this was directed at the scriptures of the three Abrahamic faiths. If you don't know that they're full of fairy tales, then I suggest that you read them.

I bet I've read 10x as widely as you have, and I went from Christian fundamentalism --> atheism --> agnosticism --> currently agnostic with serious leanings toward theism (or, at least, agno-panentheism).

Well that first part is rather presumptious, based on the fact that you have no idea who I am. Your path seems that it was a bit short and narrow. What about Orthodox Judaism? And Orthodox Christianity? And Shi'a Islam? Sufism? Ash'arite Kalam? How much time have you spent in the Middle East? Israel maybe? Or Ethiopia? Or North Africa? Personally, I feel that an accurate understanding of any of the Semitic faiths is impossible without spending time in the Middle East and being at least conversant in one of the languages. Sigh...

Evan said...

If the choices were restricted to Christian theism and naturalism, the wager is actually not bad as a rational decision making procedure.

Having read your statement, I am still at a loss as to why you would make it. Please educate me; why would Pascal have imagined Christianity and naturalism were the only choices unless he were unaware of classical paganism, Judaism and Islam.

Scarecrow said...

Jeff says: My claim is that my subjective interiority, where I discern my own self, is the only place where this spirit can present itself and be detected by me -

How is that indistinguishable from merely your imagination? By what discernible method can you tell the difference?

Philip R Kreyche said...

For someone who claims to be "agnostic," Charlie's been fighting pretty hard for Christianity, here.

Now I'm actually sorta the same way he is. I'm agnostic, and am completely open to the idea of the supernatural and a god (or gods,) but with me I find myself arguing the atheist's side here since I find their arguments to be (sometimes, not always) good, or at least better than the Christian's side. Sometimes I wonder though, like others have, if this site doesn't sometimes lose track and start veering from anti-Christianity to anti-theism, when that's not at all the stated purpose of this blog.

Because to me, it's sorta funny how even though the majority if Christian philosophy is spent on formulating arguments for God, it doesn't really matter - their real problem comes trying to prove that that's the Bible's god. I've no problem with a deistic, Aristotelian idea of a Creato/Prime Mover, or even the whole pantheism thing, although to many Christians I probably just come off as a strong atheist. But since they think their idea of God is the only reasonable one, technically I would be.

Sorry, this is just sort of a musings comment.

But I'd be interested to know how many others on this blog are in fact agnostic, since throughout our discourses it seems that people are split into atheists or Christians, though it's not the case.

Anonymous said...

Jeff, if salvation can be found through a personal relationship with christ then doesn't that defeat the purpose of having a bible? What questions can't you answer by communing with the holy spirit directly?

It seems to me that the bible only complicates the situation and christianity would be better off without it. Wouldn't you agree?



Phillip, I'm an agnostic/pagan/ex-christian and christians often assume that I'm an atheist. (Probably because I use big words and complete sentences. [wink, wink])

The issue you mentioned about arguing against theism instead of christianity is not, I think, an accident. Christians would much prefer that their detractors be baited into attacking something other than the god of the bible.

Atheists (who are inclined to not accept either type of god) that fall for this find themselves chasing their tails as the christian will jump back and forth between "you can't prove that god isn't possible" and "the god you are talking about isn't the christian god".

But then christians, by and large, aren't trying to engage in honest discussions - they are trying to secure and defend their faith and will do anything to do so.


Charlie! You're still here!

And still trying ever so stridently to sound like you have a valid point to make.

Here's a little hint: The quickest way for a christian to lose their credibility is for them the start asking for logical arguments about beliefs and reality.

Scary Jesus said...

it's sorta funny how even though the majority if Christian philosophy is spent on formulating arguments for God, it doesn't really matter - their real problem comes trying to prove that that's the Bible's god.

Phillip that's an amazing point. There is a deep and wide ravine between "there is a god" and "that god is the one spoken about in the bible". In fact I'll go on the record as a strong atheist and say yes, there possibly could be a prime mover, an original force a creator, god (even though I have seen no evidence of it). However that prime mover, god if you will being the one described in the bible is patently ridiculous.

In summary you guy's havent even proved a God exists, much less that he's the one from the Bible.

And honestly the Bible could be the worst evidence for a god we have. It undermines the argument at every turn.

Jeff Carter said...

My response: So you believe in the Mormon god. Or Allah. Or Thor. Fine by me. I can’t convince you otherwise. I have never claimed that I could prove God or Christ to you. In fact, he would be a pretty puny God if he could be proven, like a geometric circle or the angle of a figure. I have been consistent in my assertion that the existence of God or the truth of Christianity cannot be proven to man by man.

And, it’s not my job to convince any man, anyway. That’s the job of the Holy Spirit. Each man is responsible for what comes to him and only what comes to him. I am not responsible for you. You know whether or not God has revealed himself to you or not. I don’t.

So I’m not conveniently assuming anything. I would say that taking a “Kierkegaardian blind leap of faith” would be foolish if the God in question had not made himself known to you, in which case I would hardly call it a leap of faith.

I am well aware of competing truth claims in the world. And I know you are desperately seeking for some way to sort those claims out, and you are even more desperately believing that there is some objective, scientific way to do that, but I can’t help you out. There are some things that don’t lend themselves to the scientific method and it seems like anyone that has read a bit in philosophy would know that.

Let’s be clear. Most of you talk as if I have claimed I can prove God or Christ to you. I never said I could debunk you or convince you of anything. What I said was that you couldn’t debunk my Christianity, and so your enterprise fails. You are the ones making the claim you could debunk Christianity in its entirety. The problem for you is that you have no way of knowing or demonstrating whether God has revealed himself to me or not. Only I know for sure.

The majority of commenters on this blog continue to lift up reason as the ultimate deciding factor. They seem to be unaware of other tools or prejudiced against them or unable to defender reason as the ultimate arbiter. This, despite the western philosophical history of problems with reason to address metaphysical matters and even a lot of physical ones. (Can reason determine both the position and momentum of an electron at the same time?) Why do you choose reason over other tools, such as experience or intuition (see Henri Bergson). Again, I assert that the sole discriminating power is the revelation of the Holy Spirit to the individual.

To Stumbling Block - I would be careful about making assertions about me not making an unbiased search for religious truth. I have read very deeply in the past THIRTY-FIVE years not only of Plato, Aristotle, Descartes, Hume, Kant, Kierkegaard, Nietzche, Husserl, Heidegger, Wittgenstein, and Sartre as well as much of the Koran, Bhaghavad-Gita, the Upanishads, the Tao Te Ching, and the Baha’i scriptures as I could. I would love for you to enlighten me on all your serious investigations, but if you merely assumed that the reality of Christ is a fairy tale just like you assumed that I have not made serious investigation, I would be a fool to take your advice.

To Carbon Based: Seriously, not sarcastically, how can you tell your own self from imagination?

To Tigg13: Elsewhere on D.C. I have made statements that the Bible is worthless to the unbeliever except possibly as a historical document. Its purpose is for the Christian – the new, growing Christian who is learning to hear the Spirit. It serves as a guide with the ultimate purpose that it be put down and the mature man completely following the Spirit. Unfortunately, many if not most Christians tie themselves to the Bible like a security blanket and allow their spiritual growth to be stunted.

To reiterate – a person is wasting his time if he is trying to formulate a method to prove that God exists or that Christ is the one true God among competing claims. Only the revelation of his person to the individual can do that. Stop relying on the analytical philosophers alone and broaden yourself existentialism (that comment is not for everyone - I know John has experience in that philosophy) and phenomenology.

Anonymous said...

test

Anonymous said...

Jeff, Jeff, Jeff!

If what you say is true then you are the grandest fool of us all. You know for a fact that this is a big waste of time and yet, here you are, wasting as much as anybody.

You know christianity can't be (and doesn't need to be) defended, and yet, here you are defending it.

You know that the bible has no basis in fact, and yet you maintain that it is worthy of having faith in.

You insist that, unless you experience the holy spirit you cannot truly know or understand what it is all about and then attack us for not knowing or understanding what the holy spirit is.

You've basically admitted that, if the evidence doesn't agree with your beliefs, then you will ignore the evidence. You somehow consider this to be an enlightened point of view when in fact it is just arrogant and bigoted.

And if you want to take reason out of this and just talk experience and intuition, I'll put my Mother Goddess up against your father god and his zombie son any day of the week.

Or, better yet, why not take your own advise and stop wasting your time trying to prove that your beliefs are worth believing in.

Scarecrow said...

Jeff says: "To Carbon Based: Seriously, not sarcastically, how can you tell your own self from imagination?"

I live in an a reality that is objective. I share my reality with others that are also object based. My cats appear to share this view since they respond to the same universe that I do. They don't walk through walls etc.

Since your relationship with Hey-zeus is all in your head and not in the objective reality I would be suspect of your claims.

Again how do you discriminate between your imagination and the objective reality we all share?

Scarecrow said...

Jeff says; "I have read very deeply in the past THIRTY-FIVE years..."

All well and good but did you read extensively with the idea all religion's are suspect so lets see what makes sense. Or did you read as a person raised christian and compared their views against what you already believed?

I would bet you hardly made an objective choice but one of tainted by what religion you were raised in.

Jeff Carter said...

All-
I just caught up in overtime work and usual personal issues, so hang tight, I will answer all as soon as I can.

Scott said...

Jeff Carter wrote: To reiterate – a person is wasting his time if he is trying to formulate a method to prove that God exists or that Christ is the one true God among competing claims..

Jeff,

Is it your position that, based on our current level of knowledge about God, one should stop trying to prove that God or Christ exists? Or are you saying that, regardless of what we might learn or what God could reveal to us, it would be impossible to prove that God or Christ exists?

Only the revelation of his person to the individual can do that.

Actually, I can think of several scenarios where God or Jesus could clear things up rather quickly - without using revelation. But it appears that God's observable influence and agency has retreated at same pace as our knowledge about the universe has advanced.

As such, you must assume that God is purposely limiting his direct interactions with us or that God is intentionally hiding detailed information about his nature from modern day humanity.

If you take these options off the table, then you've conveniently painted yourself into a corner. But you must depend on revelation to put yourself in a position where it's "necessary" to depend on revelation to reveal God to you. It's circular.

You must have faith that God wants you to take it on faith that he is the one true God among many or that he even exists.

Jeff Carter said...

Tigg – Let me explain why I am not wasting my time. On this website, the proposition is that Christianity can be debunked. I take the negative – that Christianity cannot be debunked. To be successful, I simply have to demonstrate that Christianity cannot be debunked. I do not have to prove that God exists or that Christianity is true.

Here’s how the debate has proceeded thus far (with some gratuitous remarks by me – feel free to respond):

(1) I asserted that biblical, historical, scientific, objective methods of verifying / falsifying claims are wrongheaded, since the truth of Christ is not of the type that can be objectively verified. I have pointed out numerous times in other threads that Western philosophy has a rich history of philosophers that demonstrate the limits of reason - especially in metaphysical regards, among them, Hume, Kant, Kierkegaard, even Russell and Wittgenstein, and others.
a. The truth of God reveals itself within a person in a subjective, non-objective manner. Science has no way of verifying this claim. Thus, God can truly reveal himself to me and you will have no way of verifying / falsifying this claim. The truth of God is revealed not in the known, but in the knower.
b. There are truths other than those than can be objectively verified.
c. A few examples may be helpful here. Example 1: We know “objects” in an objective way. Light is shined upon objects such as apples, cars and human bodies and they appear to us. Fine and good. Is light shined upon light to discover it? Furthermore, physical sight works by the fact that there is distance between and object and the eyeball – the light is refracted off the object and then travels to the eyeball. What would happen if there was no distance, no distance all, between the observer and the observed?
d. Science works well with objects, that is, that which can be known. What happens when the desired known is the knower, which there is no distance between the knower and the known? We are speaking of the difference in the qualities of objective and subjective truth. Note: I am NOT using “subjective” in the sense of flimsy, ephemeral or arbitrary. I am talking about consciousness within consciousness, not consciousness of objects outside of consciousness.
e. In full disclosure, there have been philosophical attempts to establish that everything in reality is physical, which would refute my assertions. The latest, greatest attempt at this – that I know of – was Gilbert Ryle’s “Concept of Mind”. Interestingly enough, this was not published until 1949 and it was written because Ryle, was admittedly trying to rid philosophy of the mind/body or soul/body problem (the “ghost in the machine”) which he claimed was an embarrassment for western philosophy. The question is, did he succeed?
(2) DC Response: If Claim (1) is correct, then we have no way of distinguishing between God and a fairy godmother.
a. My Response: That’s your problem, not mine. I’m only responsible for what is presented to me. That this is a problem does not debunk Christianity.

What followed this was no real counter-assertions, just many questions.

Tigg - I am not attacking you for not knowing what the holy spirit is. I am refuting your use of reason to determine a non-objective truth. You don’t have to know the holy spirit to understand that. My assertion is that it’s within the bounds of intellect to see that I can’t measure physical characteristics of consciousness, love, joy, etc. As I have admitted to Lee Randolph elsewhere, you might want to center your debate on that assertion.

Instead of being arrogant and bigoted, I’m being quite rational. It is irrational to use a tool for a job when you see that the tool is inadequate to perform the task. Is it arrogant and bigoted to point out to a builder that he’s not going to be able to nail that nail with a hacksaw? Perhaps what is arrogant and bigoted is to keep on trying to nail that nail with a hacksaw.

Question from Carbon-Based: How do you discriminate between your imagination and objective reality?

Objective reality can be measured with a physical descriptor like mass, length, speed, etc. Imagination belongs to a realm that that is non-objective. Or are you denying that imagination exists?

Thus, so far, I don’t see any debunking of Christianity. To the extent that my position is that Christianity can’t be debunked, I have been successful.

If you’re going to lay claim to reason, why don’t you use it instead of degrading yourself by name-calling or making wild assertions with no support: “You’re sad” “You’re painfully unaware” “You’ve never made an unbiased search for truth” “your father god and zombie son” “Hey-zeus is all in your head”. “It’s all fairy tales” “I would bet that you hardly made an objective choice but one of tainted by what religion you were raised in.” You call that reasoning? debunking? I can always tell when my arguments are effective because the debating stops and the name-calling and insults begin.

From Scott:
Is it your position that we should stop trying to prove that God or Christ exists?

From a philosophical standpoint, no. I enjoy the intellectual exercise of debating the arguments. But rational proofs cannot ultimately succeed in what they are called upon to do. Let us say that an absolutely convincing proof of God could be postulated. Then you would know about God, but you wouldn’t know God. What can bridge this gap? As Stephen Hawking writes: “Even if there is only one possible [grand] unified theory, it is just a set of rules and equations. What is it that breathes fire into the equations and makes a universe for them to describe?”

I am not just assuming that God purposefully limits his interactions with us – I’m asserting it. I don’t see it at all as painting myself into a corner at all. As I have said before, God doesn’t want to be “figured out.” He doesn't want to be treated like an object or a thing. I don’t have to have the type of faith you are speaking of when God presents Himself directly to me, and He has done this through the Gospel of Christ. Scott, please try again. Maybe I didn’t grasp what you are trying to say, but I did try.

Philip R Kreyche said...

Jeff,

By denying the validity of reasoning and science when it comes to this, you're not convincing us that you're using rational arguments. In fact you deny the idea of rationality when it comes to the subject of God.

Your argument hasn't convinced us, because what we affirm to be the only dependable method of knowing, you simply say "nuh-uh can't use that" and deny that it should be used when determining claims about the supernatural.

Now do you see why you're unconvincing? Because your entire claim is that we can only be convinced if God wants us to be convinced, and that we're powerless. So why bother coming out here? If God wants us, he'll let us know. No need to waste your time. Because in the meantime, you're making Christianity look even worse with your epistemological contempt for science, which to this day has been the only device with which Man has significantly advanced at all.

Scarecrow said...

Jeff says; Objective reality can be measured with a physical descriptor like mass, length, speed, etc. Imagination belongs to a realm that that is non-objective. Or are you denying that imagination exists?

I'm glad we agree on the difference between objective reality and your imagination. Your imagination only exists in your mind. Claiming that the spirt is only reveiled to you in your mind is claiming thats it's your imagination and not part of reality.

Unknown said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Anonymous said...

Jeff, lets try an analogy.

I tell you that I just saw a flying saucer land in my backyard.

Now, even though you might be suspicious of this claim, you can't logically deny it because you can't know what I actually experienced. You can't objectively evaluate my subjective experience.

But you can question me about my experience: what did the space ship look like, did it leave any marks or burns on my lawn, have I been taking any narcotics lately, etc., etc...

You can also check with the national weather service and the local airport to see if there have been any atmospheric anomalies or unusual air traffic.

Now maybe you won't find anything that would explain my experience, but if you did then you could discount my experience and it would be debunked.

But, that doesn't mean that I have to accept your alternate explaination. I can hold tight to my subjective interpretation (no matter how ridiculous it might be).

I can assert that my experience (since it was subjective) is not debunkable and that you need to just accept that my flying saucer is real.

And my unicorns.

And my fairies.

And my authority as emperor of the solar system.

In fact, you must accept any claim that I make as truth so long as I believe it to be true.

Unless you don't consider my subjective experiences to be worth anything to anybody but me.

Your holy spirit is your holy spirit. If you want to believe in it, great. But the moment you say that I (or anyone else) has to believe in it then you are confusing a subjective experience with objective reality.

And while I might not ever convince you that your holy spirit is crap, I can still prove it to myself and anyone else who cares to listen. (Thus debunking you.)


Now, I think there is a larger issue here, Jeff. Do you realize how much of a minority you represent in the christian community?

The vast majority of christians do not consider god to be a subjective experience. They consider him to be a real, solid, historical, measurable, objective thing.

And because of this they have started wars, waged crusades, conducted witch hunts and inquisitions, wiped out indigrnous cultures, practiced slavery, tried to infringe upon peoples rights (abortion, school prayer, creationism, stem cells, etc. etc.) and are now threatening to put Palin in the White House.

These are the people that need to be debunked. And, since they are asserting an objective god with a rational definition, doesn't it make sense to debunk their religion with reasonable arguments?

Scarecrow said...

Well said Trigg.

does that make me a sock puppet? I hate when that happens. Hey get your hand out of there....LOL

Scott said...

Let us say that an absolutely convincing proof of God could be postulated. Then you would know about God, but you wouldn’t know God. What can bridge this gap?

Do you think that God created the universe? Human beings? If so, then part of "knowing" God would be his physical interaction with the material world. Sure, God could plant this "experience" in our minds, but he could plant every single experience, fact on conclusion he wanted to convey in our minds. None of this would be necessary.

If God created the universe and Christ existed as a physical being, then they can present themselves to us physically so we can become aware of their physical nature and influence.

As Stephen Hawking writes: “Even if there is only one possible [grand] unified theory, it is just a set of rules and equations. What is it that breathes fire into the equations and makes a universe for them to describe?”

That's an excellent question, but I don't see how you can get from singularity that creates time and space to a personal God or Christ.

I am not just assuming that God purposefully limits his interactions with us – I’m asserting it. I don’t see it at all as painting myself into a corner at all. As I have said before, God doesn’t want to be "figured out." He doesn't want to be treated like an object or a thing. I don’t have to have the type of faith you are speaking of when God presents Himself directly to me, and He has done this through the Gospel of Christ.

Yes, this is indeed an assertion. You're asserting that God does not want me to see him. You're asserting that God doesn't want me to understand him. Don't you find it strange that God hasn't told me that? Especially since I'm the one you claim is confused about how God wants to be perceived? Clearly, God knows that I can't read your mind. What gives?

(2) DC Response: If Claim (1) is correct, then we have no way of distinguishing between God and a fairy godmother.
a. My Response: That’s your problem, not mine. I’m only responsible for what is presented to me. That this is a problem does not debunk Christianity.


While I do not deny that you're experiencing something, how do you know this something is God? Again, why would God, given his supposed goals, present himself to you but not me? When you say that God wants us to be saved, but he does not reveal himself to me as he did to you, then this becomes "your problem" as your interpretation of God's goals and his actions outside your subjective view do not match.