I’ve watched knock-down, drag-out Internet flamefests before, where once the opponents finished strutting and posturing, they realize that they are arguing for the same side of a problem. Usually, the argument is speedily dropped afterwards.
What is frequently lacking, however, is what we in the computer industry call a “post-mortem”. Once the problem is dead and resolved, who sits down to figure out what happened, when it happened, and why?
I’m subscribed to quite a few mailing lists which interest me:
- A “Tungsten C” list about the Palm organizer I use
- An interfaith list helping people resolve issues in mixed marriages
- A list discussing how to educate children to think for themselves despite public education conformity training
- Another one discussing issues with a car I own, the Honda Insight
- Yet another one talking about Cakewalk Sonar
There are more, of course. Not to mention the forums I occasionally frequent when trying to find an answer to a question, those where I have a transient interest — like when I’m thinking of buying or have just purchased a new techno-trinket — and forums where I mostly lurk and only chime in when I think I have something relevant to say, which is rarely.
A common thread in many of these forums is routine arguments. Hey, we’re humans. Humans argue about stuff. It’s just part of what we do.
But it frequently turns out the argument is really about what to label something. Sometimes this is called “framing the argument”. Very often, the argument isn’t about what to do about something, it’s about what definitions to use so that we can decide what to do about it. These types of arguments often use loaded words that have many ambiguous definitions:
- Truth
- Faith
- True X (such as “True Republicanism” or “True Democracy”)
- Belief
- Knowledge
- Argument
This morning, I read an essay from an acquaintance of mine which finally nailed down three senses of one of these words. What about FAITH?, by Richard Packham.
Richard’s an atheist, and doesn’t tend to mince words with his opinions. He’s 72 now, and I figure he just doesn’t think he has time to beat around the bush 🙂 So you may not want to read everything he wrote if you’re easily offended by that kind of stuff. I’m a big believer, though, that just because I don’t like someone’s opinions doesn’t mean they aren’t valid. Anyway, he brought up three distinct categories of faith that, I think, really lead to better understanding. There’s:
- “Necessary”, unavoidable faith, or faith which is supported by evidence which is indisputable by most reasonable people.
- “Harmless” faith, or faith in things which cannot be proven or disproven.
- “Dangerous” faith, or faith held in spite of abundant evidence to the contrary.
I’ve often been guilty of lumping all sorts of faith into that third category, and attempting to eschew it in public and private writings and conversations. I just realized that I may have, sadly, painted all faith with too broad of a brush since August of 2002, when I first began publicly questioning matters of faith.
Ahh, well. It’s only a couple of years of stupidity out of a lifetime that, probably, will be filled with much more of it 🙂
Anyway, I’m sure folks can argue distinctions between the three. But in any case, his essay helped me clarify my thoughts on faith a bit:
- I support faith supported by provable evidence. To me, this kind of faith is what we all have. Faith that the sun will rise. That our computer will boot up. It’s the kind of brain-prediction mechanism we rely on just to get through the day, and includes a great deal of scientific inquiry.
- I think faith without evidence, or with arguable evidence, can be a fine thing. It often leads people to aspire to be more and do more with their lives. You can be born to a life of poverty, which statistically indicates you’re likely to remain in poverty, and you have faith that you can pull yourself up by your bootstraps. I might contest points with a person with this kind of faith, but I respect the right and desire to have it.
- I oppose faith in the presence of overwhelming contrary evidence. This, to me, is “blind faith”. There are certain inarguable things where I find people taking it “on faith”, flying in the face of the facts. Like New-Earth Creationism. Flat-Earth theories. Holocaust denial. etc. It’s anti-thinking and reprehensible, yet encouraged by far too many political and religious figures.
This last type is the one that worries me. Too often, people (including me in “people”) conflate the three types, arguing that we should ignore inconvenient facts which would deflate our pet beliefs.
It was fun to find a guidepost to distinguishing types of faith, rather than throwing out the baby with the bathwater of what I regarded as an over-loaded word.
Prediction
Given the past history of this blog, I predict that there will be no less than 35 comments in response.
Prediction
But do you have faith that there will be 35 responses or more?
— Ben
Faith
Just a quick response, since much of this has been talked about in other threads.
I’m too lazy to read Mr. Packham’s article, so I’ll debate your summary instead. 😉
In my opinion, the three categories (necessary, harmless, and dangerous) are anything but distinct. The best example I can give is that it is neither provable nor disprovable that Allah WANTS fundamentalist Muslims to destroy the Infidel, and yet this is the most dangerous form of faith currently in use. Far from harmless, and indeed, far more harmful than those poor deluded New-Earth Creationists.
— Ben
Dangerous
Richard actually covers that kind of faith in his “dangerous” category: faith that, even though it can be neither proven nor disproven, results in harm to people. Some relevant dangerous examples were:
I think most rational, tolerant folks will agree that this kind of “gullible” faith is dangerous.
I agree, the lines are frequently very fuzzy. But the revelation for me is that there’s a continuum of faith, from the obvious to the dangerous. As a person who intentionally chooses “moderate” courses wherever possible, it’s kind of cool to realize there’s a moderate course for faith. I listen to both left-wing and right-wing radio, and try to always read multiple sides to most arguments, figuring the truth is somewhere between extremes. Now that I had this little epiphany, I figure faith is the same way 🙂
Oh, and I think I figured out the secret behind faster-than-light communication in my car this morning. It was kind of cool. There are significant practical obstacles in the way, but I think I’m on to how to fix the major one. Science-fiction writers have been playing with the concept of spooky action at a distance (Bell’s Theorem) for decades, so it’s well-worn territory, but I think I may have figured out how to get past the major obstacle of modifying electron spin at a macro level. I need to do some more math and build something to play with, I think. But what do I know? I’m just a dabbler and a geek…
—
Matthew P. Barnson
More dangerous faith
I found a terrible example of dangerous faith in today’s news:
Uttered 5 days ago in a sermon in a Gaza mosque, broadcast live on Palestinian TV. Translated to English, of course.
Bigotry and prejudice. Two international languages.
—
Matthew P. Barnson
It’s interesting how desperat
It’s interesting how desperately we seek to put labels on every aspect of our lives. We label our careers, faiths, political beliefs, even the minutest aspects of our personalities. This in itself isn’t a bad thing, necessarily. Labels are our way of organizing the chaos that is life into understandable, managable groups. The most frequent problem, however, is that there is no set standard for what a given label means.
Case in point, ask anybody on this green earth what it means to be “Christian,” and you will NEVER receive the same answer.
Another problem, I think, is we’re prone to see certain sets of labels as mutually exclusive FAR more often than they really are. I’m frequently asked “How can you call yourself a Christian (label one) and still vote Democrat (label two)?” Or, my favorite, “How can you call yourself a Christian (label one) and be an actor (label two)?” Or, for that matter, “How can you call yourself an actor and be Christian? (asked this a lot in the theatre community)”
While labels can be very useful tools (I liked the three classifications of faith, for example) without which reasoning would be near-impossible, it’s important to remember that every label is human-made and as such CANNOT be defined absolutely.
Oh, and one final thought about the three Faiths (Necessary, Harmless, and Dangerous). Just as De Carte’s philosophy questioned *everything,* I think we must also be willing to question Necessary Faiths from time to time. Just because science or reason or whatever has proved something a thousand times before doesn’t guarantee it’s true. And, conversely, sometimes (though admittedly, not too often) a Dangerous Faith might turn out to be right.
Case in point, five hundred years ago for someone to assert that man and woman were equal beings would have been considered a HIGHLY Dangerous Faith, especially when there was so much evidence in society “proving” the contrary. It was an accepted, Necessary Faith that man was superior. Of course, we ridicule that concept now. But what Necessary Faiths of ours will people be ridiculing five hundred years in the future?
Dangerous Faiths are, in my opinion, the most powerful of the three, fueled not chiefly by reason but by passion, and they have the ability to fundamentally reshape the world for the better, though (sadly) it’s frequently for the worse.
Arthur Rowan
“There is nothing more frightening than a man who is absolutely sure in the righteousness of his cause.
Except spiders. Spiders freak the hell out of me.”
Labels
Very cool perspective.
(Hey, I’ve just labelled what you said a “perspective” and “cool”. Kind of a weird meta-analysis going on there.)
(And now I just labelled my thoughts as a weird meta-analysis. I must stop now.)
—
Matthew P. Barnson
Interesting..
I have to give credit where credit is due. It was in a faith discussion that matt coined the term “Matthewism” in my life, and it stuck. I have since used the term “Arthurism” with you, Mr. Rowan.
The fact is, that despite the labels, we all subscribe to a faith – “our own”.
Let me break it down like this. Matt argues for “Occam’s Razor” and for the provability of things. He subscribes to a “harmless” faith by this classification – a belief in a worldview free of supernatural or mystical elements. It moves into the dangerous realm if it refuses to carefully and thoughtfully examine the arguments for spiritual matters without adding the “skeptical eye” – immediately taking on the role of prosecutor, trying to convict religion as being false.
Mr. Barnson has skated that line once or twice, as have we all. Mostly he is fair and willing to participate in the discussion. That is the basis of Matthewism.
“Justinism” starts as a harmless faith based primarily on personal experience, backed by logical analysis of texts. The backbone of what I believe, as I am really a piss-poor Christian most of the time, is that there is too much evidence regarding the existence of Christ to ignore. You can’t write it off. And I have found that it would take a dangerous leap of faith to say that Jesus, Paul, the Disciples, the enemies of Jesus, and others would all be under the same spell of mass hysteria, or all just believed super strongly (to the point of death) in the same lie.
Essentially, Justinism as a harmless faith demands that these things must be considered along with other evidence, testimonies of people I respect, my experience, and a fundamental belief that SOMETHING must be true, and if that thing disagrees with other things, then they cannot both be true. (EX: 2+2=4. I believe the answer is 4. You believe the answer is “Apple”. It cannot be both. One must be true, the other, not.)
My faith becomes dangerous when I close my mind to these types of discussions for fear my faith won’t live up to the challenge. If I leave Justinism and practice hate or bigotry, or closemindedness, then I have drifted to “Dangerous Faith”.
So, I guess the point is that we all believe what we all believe, and it is likely none of us are totally right. We need to try to get as close as we can to the truth, and I have modified my faith immensely over the years. Still, I believe the Bible is the truth.
Dangerous Faith does indeed have the power to move things forward. (I love your analogy about women’s rights). First, I submit that if most faiths were true to what they believed that problems would be solved.
For instance, you can’t just look at the part of the Bible that says gays can’t inherit the kingdom of heaven, and ignore the part where it tells us as people not to judge. Or that many others will not inherit either. Forgiveness can cover all that – and you can’t reverse that and say “don’t judge” without also acknowledging that our faith has rules of right and wrong.
If the radical muslims were to keep in mind the peaceful teachings of the Quran, it might make them less likely to commit terrorist acts.
Food for thought…
Go hungry
Awesome
I would just like to state for the record that we are a bunch of intelligent mofos. Maybe it’s just that this topic particularly interests me, but damn we get some fascinating discussions here.
Rowan, welcome aboard. Your interpretation is excellent.
Justin, it pleases me to no end to know that there are still Christians out there who not only have brains, but aren’t afraid to use them. In light of the continuing struggles to expunge evolution from biology textbooks, I was beginning to get worried.
The key, as you more or less pointed out, is discernment. The ability to analyze your faith and the texts through which it is informed, and deciding for yourself which items of faith are beneficial, and which items are dangerous, and therefore which item supercedes the rest. God is Love? Nice, excellent thought, keep it. God hates fags (to quote Fred Phelps)? Not so much.
It’s been said that the sign of a genius is the ability to hold two opposing viewpoints at the same time. Others call this cognitive dissonance. But in today’s complicated world, if you want to hold on to some sort of faith (and it’s perfectly fine if you don’t), you have to embrace the paradox a bit. It’s possible to believe in your religion without believing that everyone who disagrees with you is going to Hell. That sort of thing.
— Ben
Cog Dis
Cognitive dissonance, as an adjunct to Leon Festinger’s “Cognitive Consistency” theory, is the process of resolving differences between cognitions. Cognitions are attitudes, emotions, beliefs, or values.
If you can hold two opposing viewpoints for a long time, you’ve achieved cognitive consistency between them. Somehow you have decided that they are not mutually exclusive.
So I’d argue that cognitive dissonance is not necessarily synonymous with holding two opposing viewpoints at the same time. If one cognition is replacing or modifying the other, then you’re in the process of resolving a dissonance, true. If you have, instead, arrived at the conclusion that two seemingly contradictory cognitions are harmonious with each other, you’ve arrived at a cognitive consistency. That consistency may not stand up to intense scrutiny, but if you choose to ignore it, you’ve still arrived at a consistent, non-dissonant state.
I just finished reading Jeff Hawkins’ On Intelligence. Fascinating book on the brain. Anyway, although he didn’t address cognitive dissonance specifically, I’ve done a lot of reading on the phenomenon, and I retrofitted some of what he said into what I thought about cognitive dissonance (another “Matthewism”).
I suspect that when we hold two opposing cognitions, they are actually stored using different synapse pattern recognition schemes. The dissonance comes when we attempt to address one cognition using the scheme of the other, and realize it doesn’t fit. We have a less-than-optimum path in our brain for addressing the cognition, yet the two cognitions are similar enough that we try to use the same pattern-recognition schemes for both. So the pattern-making chunks of our brain realign neurons to try to achieve a balance between the two somehow, or causing the old cognition to be subsumed beneath the new one.
Ahh, brain theory. I’m just an interested amateur, for sure.
Anyway, it seems that some people are really good at “compartmentalization”, which is another theory which hasn’t been nearly as researched as cognitive consistency theory.
Actually, I suspect it’s not a theory at all, now that I’ve done some reading on it, but more of a polemic used in discussing cognitive consistency.
Anyway, you’ll typically see compartmentalization in university instructors in the sciences who also hold strong religious beliefs regarding creation. They “compartmentalize” those competing beliefs away from each other, using totally different synaptic pathways to address them, so that they do not ever come in conflict.
I’m not good at that. Maybe that just means I’m not a genius.
—
Matthew P. Barnson
disassociation
That kind of compartmentalization is also seen in abused children. They are able to hold a deep hate and a true deep love for those who abused them. The do this through disassociation. Many abused children report that their memories of specific abuse situations exist as 3rd person images. I wonder if the same is true of other compartmentalization…
——– Visit my blog, eh! The Murphy Maphia
Cognitive Consistency
Hey, that works for me — thanks!
— Ben
Thanks!
Coming from someone I respect as much as you, Ben, it means a lot!
A thought I like to pose to my Christian friends when we get into the homosexuality discussion is:
“Look, right now there is a world that is turned off to Christianity because we’re seen as judgemental jerks, and you’re not winning anyone over to your point of view that way. Certainly, be honest when asked what you think, but moreover: help people.
Be there for them.
Show the world that the behavior you are modeling is good…
If you’re carrying a sign saying “God Hates Fags”, then I don’t know who you’re modeling your behavior after.”
Labels
Labels can be so detrimental. I have felt the examples given to be kinda funny, yet very true and heartfelt.
As a Christian, I believe we are all children of a just and loving God. He doesn’t hate any one of us. He doesn’t necessarily approve of our actions, or style of living, i.e. homosexuals, but he still loves us all. In fact, since no one is perfect, I’m certain that there are choices we all make that He doesn’t approve of. Because we are not perfect, we are taught not to be judgemental, (as has already been mentioned).
I’ve enjoyed everyone’s comments thus far. It’s fun when Matt has an epiphany and no longer lumps his opinion on one topic all in one basket!
As for me, I try to utilize two of the three types of faith as previously described. But “necessary” faith, I take with a grain of salt. For example science and medicine research is constantly changing, so my “necessary” faith is well thought out as to how it will affect me. If I am trying to figure out why I have certain symptoms, and I read somewhere or talk to someone that tells me I’m lacking for example in Vit. B, I continue the research and decide if I feel their conclusions are correct.
“Harmless” faith is a big part of my life in my religious beliefs. I cannot prove anything to anyone else of why I believe, you have to experience it for yourself. Yet no one can disprove any spiritual experiences that I have, either.
When it comes to “Dangerous” faith, I typically don’t go there. Matt will attest that I’m pretty stubborn. In fact we were discussing that last night. Anyway, I don’t follow other people’s faith as truth, I don’t “obey my husband’s every command.” I find out for myself the information I feel is necessary to believe or not believe.
Interesting stuff. And just so you know, Matt and I make our decisions together. Neither of us is the overseer. Sometimes we have to agree that we disagree and let it rest, but it works!–
Christy
Semantics of Faith
I like Richard Packham.
My own opinion, however, is to go ahead and grant religion the sole use of the word faith as it relates to his second and third categories (Harmless and Dangerous). Both of these types of faith can be lumped into a “belief without objective evidence” category. (As so eloquently described in the Bible – Hebrews 11:1.)
As for the “Necessary Faith”, there are other terms that can be used such as “Trust” or “Confidence”, that convey the same sort of belief but lose much of the religious flavorings.
A common tactic of the religious is to play upon the broad uses of the word “faith” to confabulate the “faith” of a scientist as equivalent to the “faith” of a Christian. However, the two types of belief systems are quite different as it relates to objective evidence. I think using the same word can lead to considerable confusion.
So in the interests of clarity, I’m comfortable with the word “faith” being used exclusively to represent “religious belief”. And, consequently, I don’t feel like I need to hedge in discussions thereof.
An interesting approach..
I appreciate your approach and your outlook, it makes me look more closely at my own point of view.
The only real issues i have is that I consider my faith to be focused on what I have concluded to be the next logical step (with some leap) after examining both my personal experience and the objective evidence. So I wonder where my beliefs would be placed on the scale when they exist in large part because of my examination of evidence.
Summing up?
Maybe the categories might best be described as:
Necessary: Faith with objective, observable, provable physical evidence. Harmless: Faith without objective, observable, provable physical evidence. Dangerous: Faith in spite of objective, observable, provable physical evidence to the contrary.
I’ve historically taken Troy’s approach, relegating “faith” to only be used in a spiritual/religious (read: harmless/dangerous) context. Not sure what I do today; I keep this blog in part to help me figure this stuff out 🙂
—
Matthew P. Barnson
Examination of Evidence
You’ve noted a few times that your Christian faith is based upon your examination of the evidence.
As a former Christian turned atheist, I also base my rejection of Christianity upon my examination of evidence.
Subsequently, I am inclined to ask, how thorough do you consider your examination to have been? Have you considered, for example, the Gnostic Gospels in their role for shaping early Christianity? What about the importance of the Council of Nicea in the determination of what is canonical and what is not?
Or, from the flip side, if you feel that the martyrdom of the early Christians is proof of the authenticity of their belief, how do you reconcile that against the great many martyrs for so many other religious beliefs?
I grant that there were those among the early Christians who sincerely believed in the divinity of Jesus and were willing to die for their faith. But so too, we have many stories of various other sorts of martyrdom for many other faiths. (Hardly a day goes by that someone somewhere doesn’t “die for their beliefs”.)
This would suggest to me that martyrdom is evidence of a strongly held belief – but no guarantee of authenticity.
Points…
Okay, first, let me clarify that I cannot speak to the Mormon faith, as my knowledge of it is secondhand, and while it is a faith I respect, I do not subscribe to it, cannot defend it, and wouldn’t venture to attack it either.
OK, with that said… The Gnostic Gospels are easy to discount, with the Gospel of Thomas, for instance, usually dated around 150-200 AD, while the remaining 4 (with mark as the earliest) were written around 50 to 80 AD (I hold to around 50).
These gospels are refuted based on age and lack of appropriate authorship: they can’t be apostles if it’s from 150-200 ad. I also looked up things like the Muratorian Fragment (Dated 155), and it seems that these gospels were not in play at this time while others were.
The Gnostic gospels as the “True” early church is a myth that is fun to watch in the X-Files and Stigmata, but is ultimtely false.
As for the Council of Nicea, I fully support their methods, which were both spiritual and logical, for determining what was canon. It is difficult to refute their methods, and it is pretty clear that the authors of the Bible were indeed who they said they were. History is proving that the times, points of view, and details were indeed correct. I have studied that period in Church history, and it is difficult to think of a better option available to them at that time.
Even now, it is difficult to find fault with their conclusions. The rejected texts (many of which don’t change the nature of Christianity) were rejected for good reason, and close examination today backs up the original decision.
As for martyrdom? Well, I don’t base my faith on the fact that martyrs exist, except to say that the disciples were martyred for believing they saw Christ come back from the dead. That fact makes little sense if they were deliberately pushing a lie they themselves believed to be true.
I consider that circumstantial evidence that works in favor of faith, but it is by no means the only evidence.
It is a “straw man” argument to say that Christians cite martyrdom as the “proof”, and then knock down the authenticity of martyrdom. I don’t cite Martyrdom as “proof”.
Food for thought? Sure.
Sole reason? Sorry, no.
Not to drag this too far off track…
You seemed to suggest that you believe that the Synoptic Gospels were penned by apostles, whereas the Gnostic Gospels were not:
“These gospels are refuted based on age and lack of appropriate authorship: they can’t be apostles if it’s from 150-200 ad.”
I apologize if I’ve misread you, but do you believe that the Synoptic Gospels were actually written by Jesus’s original apostles?
If so, I’d be interested in why you think so. As far as I know, nearly all reputable scholars believe they are derived from earlier oral and written traditions, perhaps having a single source known as “Q” – but that none of them have a single identifiable author. Much in the same way that the Gnostic Gospels appear to have come into being.
I’ll take a stab at that…
Regarding dating of the Canonic Gospels vs. the Gnostic Gospels… Well, that’s a whole mess of worms 🙂 Lee Strobel, in “The Case for Christ”, interviews Bruce Metzger about this topic.
Metzger’s position — and, I think, Justin’s — is that The Gospel of Thomas, specifically, can be somewhat accurately dated back to the second century AD. For a rough comparison, if one assumes the Dyonisian dating of Jesus’ birth, that puts the author of Thomas writing about Jesus in about the same timeframe as a person today writing about Abraham Lincoln. There’s nowhere near first-hand accounting, but if written by independent historians without a propagandistic bias, it could possibly be reliable.
If one assumes dating based on the Yeshu ben Panderas theory (background: here, and the catfights about same here) with birth in the second century BCE, and death in the first century BCE, that puts Thomas at somewhere around 220+ years after the fact. So it would kind of be like me writing a first-hand account of the life of George Washington.
Regardless, I think the phrase “a long freaking time afterwards” probably applies to the origination of the Gnostic Gospels.
I will caveat that I also suspect the Canonic Gospels of having a similar problem. When I read The Case for Christ, I began a step-by-step analysis of the book. One of these days, I think I may actually finish it, if I can find my original notes which aren’t influenced by subsequent reading 🙂
However, after I’d finished it and began reviewing my notes, I began consulting the Internet for some prior art. Alas, Scott Bidstrup — an acquaintance of mine, living in Costa Rica — already did a fairly broad rebuttal of several of the key claims of TCfC in The Case Against ‘The Case for Christ’.
Scott’s paper is not a “real” scholarly work, but neither is the original work it rebuts 🙂 However, TCaTCfC raises some interesting questions about TCfC‘s legitimacy outside of apologia. I suspect that accurate dates for the authoring of both Canonic and Gnostic gospels would have a dramatic theological and historical impact.
It’s really all up in the air still, though. I think a strong case can be made for the antedating of either the Gnostic or Canonic gospels.
—
Matthew P. Barnson
thundersnow
Where in the Bible does it refer to thundersnow? Thanks
I’ll bite…
What the hell are you talking about?
Why I love barnson.org
It makes me examine, and that’s a good thing.
Here is an interesting essay. Now, I’m sure it has its flaws and can be rebutted, and that argument can be made.
That being said, there is evidence to support the authorship claims, and it can be found here: http://www.tektonics.org/ntdocdef/gospdefhub.html
An excellent link!
There is much to consider here, Timpane. Thank you for providing the link.
One thing I try desperately to avoid in my own research into things is a tendency towards confirmation bias. It is easy (and perhaps quite natural) to seek bits of information that confirm the beliefs we want to hold rather than giving due consideration to alternate points of view.
For the most part, I have aligned myself with traditional and secular scholarship regarding the origins of Christianity and the Gospels. It will be refreshing to consider another point of view.
In the final tolling, however, I find the central claim of Christianity – That Jesus was divine and returned glorified from his cruxifiction and death – to be a stunningly remarkable claim. I would hope to find evidence compelling enough to substantiate this above the many other fanciful stories and myths of antiquity that tell tales of heroics or great sacrifice.
Thusfar, I have seen very little that gives me much confidence that the Jesus stories are more authentic than are those other myths.
But such is the role of faith, I suppose.
My problem..
Troylus, I appreciate your willingness to consider many points of view.
The difficulty for me is that I have had very personal experiences which I believe to be the work of God in my life. I know they are easily dismissed because I alone have experienced them and they are easily explained away.. yet I can mark the major positive turning points in my life as coinciding with the major turning points in my spiritual life. (For instance, meeting my future wife the week I converted.. or running to a Christian college when I was totally down and out and being really changed by the experience, or watching my former addict uncle become Christian and give up his addictions).
I know these things are not allowed in a logical discussion, so I don’t cite them as evidence to try to convince anyone else.. but they are intrinsic in why I fall on the side of the bias that I do.
I don’t think I’m a dumb guy.. and I question my faith daily. Sometimes it seems I pray and my prayers hit the ceiling and don’t go anywhere, and I question the existence of God.
The reason I stick around is that there is evidence that suggests the possiblility that this stuff is true. Now, I grant that there is not “proof”, and I wish there were.. it would make my life a lot easier. There IS enough evidence for me to consider seriously the possiblity of a God. When I combine that circumstantial evidence with my experiences, it becomes for me a stunningly remarkable claim that all of the circumstantial evidence is false, AND my experiences were just amazing coincidences, AND the experiences of many I care about are coincidences.. and, well, you get the idea.
I could probably never convince anyone that there is a God. I’m a piss-poor witness and I don’t know my stuff nearly as well as you do. I guess I just want the world (or Barnsonland) to know my faith is not so blind and my beliefs are not just based on authority or experience.. but that I have thoughtfully and I believe intelligently examined a lot of different factors and determined this to be the most likely.
Thanks again for what is always a rousing discussion.. I look forward to the next one.
Competing Arguments
Of course, being that there is so little objective information regarding the historical origins of Christianity, there is very little that Christian scholars can do but conjecture.
So I’d like to present an alternative view of Gospel authorship. This one is from a staff report from Cecil Adams’ “The Straight Dope” called “Who Wrote the Bible?” (I’m linking only the section on the Gospels, but the whole article is worth reading, as it’s fascinating.)
Now, I’d like to make the slightly unorthodox statement that I do not believe that any issues with the Synoptic Gospels, or indeed any flaws in the Bible or the Church as a whole (for there are many), negates the potential divinity of Jesus. I don’t personally believe that Jesus was the Son of God, but I also do not believe that finding error in the Bible or the Church necessarily means that he was NOT the Son of God. That’s a matter of personal opinion and faith. That said, here’s the article.
http://www.straightdope.com/mailbag/mbible4.html
— Ben
And just in time…
Just in time to make the discussion even more interesting, an anonymous poster chimes in on an old thread:
I’d say the assumption that others are incapable of feeling the same way I do is a strong step in the direction of “dangerous faith”. That kind of attitude is, in my opinion, one of the primary causes of the evil men do to one another. It’s dehumanizing and immoral.
—
Matthew P. Barnson
Yeah
It’s dehumanizing and immoral in a way Christians could never understand because they have Jesus 😉 ——– Visit my blog, eh! The Murphy Maphia
Not so!
Being judgemental, intolerant of others beliefs whether they be religious or otherwise is dehumanizing and immoral. It’s okay for one person to think that he has found great joy. IT is not okay for him to speak for all Christians.
Like Justin, I have enough personal proof that there is a God and Jesus Christ is the son of God. I do find great joy in my beliefs. But I’m also grateful that we live in a country where all my non believing friends (and spouse) are not being put to death for their beliefs, and vice versa.
Figure out what brings you joy and happiness, then stick to it!–
Christy
to be clear
Christy, I hope you didn’t take my comment the wrong way. I was laying the sarcasm on very thickly… to make a point about how rediculous the previous comment had been.
——– Visit my blog, eh! The Murphy Maphia
I have to admit….
your sarcasm was so thick I didn’t detect it. It did seem a little out of character for you, but I had to comment anyway to the comment before yours as well!–
Christy
Dehumanization
I think that’s key. I realize that I’m invoking Godwin’s Law by bringing Nazis into the discussion, but here goes 🙂
I suspect a primary reason 6 million Jews could be so easily put to death during World War II by the Nazis was because the party could so easily exploit the natural “us vs. them” mentality of human beings. We seem to have this desire, mentioned already in this thread, to classify things, label them, and think that, at that point, we’ve “figured them out” and that there’s nothing more to know about the topic.
Simply because we’ve applied the label, suddenly the object of our attention is no longer a person, but a thing from which we desire certain results.
In war, people can rationalize killing the enemy because he’s “them”. People can rationalize all kinds of atrocious acts, because in their minds, that person is not a “person”: it’s an object. A thing. A living mannequin from which they wish to extract some goal.
The best book I’ve ever read on this topic is the Arbinger Institute’s “Leadership and Self-Deception”. The goal of that book is to convince readers to view other people as having needs every bit as important as the reader’s own. I admit, it’s a difficult outlook to keep going 24/7, but by taking yourself “out of the box” (a term that really doesn’t have the connotation you think, unless you’ve read the book), suddenly you find that relationships really improve.
Admittedly, it’s not a philosophy that can — or should — be applied when you’re facing down the barrel of a gun held by a hostile person shouting at you 🙂
Nevertheless, it proposes a secular rationale for the moral standard of the “golden rule”. On further reflection, it’s about time for me to read that book again. It’s well-written in a novelized, “conversational” tone which is really easy to read, and very short.
But life-changing. And hey, Amazon’s dropped the price by fifteen bucks since the last time I looked.
—
Matthew P. Barnson
Wow, Godwin’s law is brillian
Wow, Godwin’s law is brilliant… everything makes so much sense now…
That also sounds like a heck of a book. I might just pick it up. It deals with something that has always bugged me about some of the people on both sides of the religious debate, or, for that matter, on political debate as well: they can’t see themselves in the other person’s shoes. That simple.
I’ve gone to lectures on abortion (seeking to be educated on an issue that is still largely unknown to me) and seen them turn into little hate-fests of those “@*#$(%*$ baby-killers,” all in the name of Jesus Our Lord. On the other hand, I’ve sat through countless discussions with my theatre compatriots in which it’s just “assumed” that a relgious or conservative person is either a bigot, a greed-monger, or an idiot. (“Except you, Arthur. You’re cool.”)
Willem DaFoe was once asked if he preferred playing heroes or villains in film. He answered “I don’t make a distinction; everyone thinks they’re the hero.” I’d be willing to bet that 99% of the people in the world are at least trying to do the right thing (yes, even in the case of terrorists). Our goal should not be to in any way demonize or ridicule those opposed to our beliefs, but to rather understand how they came to hold their beliefs.
Although I will also echo Matt’s point, and it’s a good one, that these are not the sort of philosophical musings to be entertaining while looking down the loaded barrel of a gun.
Arthur Rowan
Brother Katana of Reasoned Discussion Rebel Leader and Sternographer for the Unitarian Jihad
yup
As am I. I’m in no mood to be burned at the stake. 🙂
— Ben
33
Here’s the 33rd comment.
34
Here’s the 34th comment.
Patience, young Jedi
We would have gotten there on our own!–
Christy
35
Here’s the 35th comment. What do I win?
Prophet
I guess that makes you a prophet, since you predicted 35. That, of course, means that you should have already predicted what you are going to get.
Think hard…
Wait a sec…
Yeah, you just got it! Congratulations!
—
Matthew P. Barnson