A Painful Addiction
by Andrew Hanson
By Andy Hanson, September 17, 2013
You might say I must be addicted to official church publications. I’m the only one in my circle of Adventist friends that religiously, pun intended, reads every issue of the Review, World, and Ministry Magazine. I use the word “addicted” because I don’t seem to get through even one issue without experiencing intellectual and spiritual heartburn.* Consider the following:
The elect are reviving and reforming while cruising the Mediterranean, Inland Passage, or vacationing in Israel, along with Adventist media personalities while conversing about the future of Adventist faith.
Angel Manuel Rodriguez affirms the historical fact of Creation and the Flood. Ellen White is quoted: Without Bible History, geology can prove nothing. Clinton Wahlen, an Associate Director of the Biblical Research Institute, claims that once the biblical account of Creation is undermined, it is easier to find reasons to reject its message regarding the two original institutions: marriage (between a man and a woman) and the seventh-day Sabbath. He concludes that higher criticism…is robbing God’s word of power to control, uplift, and inspire human lives.”
Clinton and Gina Wahlen argue that God is not a moral monster even though “the Bible does contain some troubling images of God, but faith helps us grapple with [God’s command to exterminate] the Canaanites.”
Frank M. Hasel obviates: To insist on Scripture alone (sola scriptura) is more than giving Scripture primacy over other sources in theology. Sola scriptura affirms that Scripture is the sole source of its own exposition. This makes Scripture foundational for theology. Only a symphonic reading of the whole Bible will do justice to the multiplex phenomena of Scripture under the unifying guidance of the Holy Spirit.
Richard Litke invites pastors to read a National Geographic Magazine article to see the mummified face of the woman who tried to adopt the boy Moses as her own son, and who later failed in her quarrel to make him the next king of Egypt.
Then there is the new Doug Batchelor book, Revelation: the Bride, the Beast & Babylon with a cover that features two seductive women and a spooky dragon with wings and seven snake-like appendages.
The Idaho Conference is sponsoring the seminar for today’s world based on Daniel 11’s Time of the End prophecy.
Cliff Goldstein believes that absolute truth is a transcendent metaphysical standard by which everything is judged such as what the Bible teaches… And if one culture teaches you to love your neighbors, another to eat them, who determines which one is superior? And Jovan Ilijev agrees that if there is no God, there are no objective moral values.
Because living creatures die, Cliff warns his readers to base hope on religious belief, no matter the waft of cherries and the glitter of new galaxies…cherries often rot on the bough and the “new galaxies” might have already died…Our hope can’t be in the natural but only in the supernatural because the natural now leads only to an eschaton of worms.
Grenville Kent testifies that some atheists want honest dialogue…have reason and intuition, the ability to love, some innate knowledge of right and wrong, a sense of purpose—because they are created in God’s image, whether they recognize it or not.
Michael Doernbrack urges readers to believe that Genesis 3 is not the chapter that shows how God kicked Adam and Eve out of Paradise. It is a chapter that draws a beautiful picture of the character of God and ultimately reveals the gospel.
Martin Proebstle discusses an incident in which God wanted to kill Moses because his son was not circumcised. Moses needed to circumcise his son and exhibit the covenant sign in his family before he would lead Israel out of Egypt. Touching Moses’ genitals with circumcision blood seems then to be a symbol for Moses’ reinstatement into God’s covenant. Thus his son’s circumcision saved Moses’ life.
James Park opines that an individual’s or a country’s openness to the gospel is greatly affected by the amount of change or trials they are facing. He quotes George Knight:
Whenever riches have increased, the essence of religion has decreased in the same proportion…But as riches increase, so will pride…and love of the world in all its branches…So although the form of religion remains, the spirit is swiftly vanishing away.
Must Love God. Those words, in bold type over an inch high, dominated the cover of the February 14, 2013 Review.
*Reader, if you care enough to want references to any of these passages, I will be happy to provide them via email. aphanson@csuchico.edu If you want to know why each of these extracts gave me heartburn, cite a specific passage online, and I’ll provide an online answer.
As I have said elswhere, belief trumps facts for the true believer.
This is worse than the blind leading the blind. If there is a judgment where will they be when accused of deception in the name of the church?
A conundrum here, why are follower of THE TRUTH so allergic to truth?
There is too much emotional investment in maintaining a position that once convinced of the truth, becomes blinded to any information that questions those beliefs.
There is too much emotional investment in maintaining a position that once convinced of the truth, becomes blinded to any information that questions those beliefs.
Years ago when I announced to my mother, a life-long SDA, now deceased, that I was leaving the church and the ministry, it was a terrible blow to her. She said in pain and anger, "You mean I have done all this and kept the Sabbath for nothing?" When one is satisfied they have achieved the nirvana of The Truth, there is indeed an emotional toll to having it tarnished, by questions or by exit of loved ones from the "Remnant Church." I think, like my mother, a comfort level, devoid of skepticism, is what most SDA's want and they don't want that partition of their life disturbed.
Your mother, sadly, represents too many SDAs. When someone has chosen to leave the church, the comments are "you have left the truth, where will you go"? and similar comments.
The superiority expressed was taught and is obviously demonstrates what too many SDAs believe: to leave the SDA church, is to descend in atheism and at times, hedonism, adopting all the worldy styles Adventists were taught were so sinful.
How callous this sounds. People say all sorts of inappropriate things they don't mean or haven't thought through when they are hurt. Some people say all sorts of inappropriate things even when they aren't hurt!
Truth (with a capital T) is Christ; truth is something else. Many reject Truth and accept truth as the secular world sees it. One might know everything, but when they exchange Truth for secular truth they lose.
Additional note: Your mother's response reflects an old idea (that really was never stated officially) that a person was lost if they left the church or even ministry. That became traditional thinking and has caused much heartache. But it would be the "fruits" or results of that leaving that would be indicative. Salvation for the Christain is in Christ; it's about rejecting Him (not a church).
"Truth" in the religious world is whatever believers want it to be. So it can mean different things, and often does, to different people. It's an opinion.
Truth in the physical, scientific, world passes through a crucible of proposition, theory, testing, and conclusion. The end result is not an opinion (the exception to this is in the strange world of global warming were belief has been elevated to truth, the outcome of which is a from of religion), but a conclusion that can be reached by others by application of the same verification process, or other testing methods that arrives at the same outcome.
You say: Truth (with a capital T) is Christ; The Muslim would say Allah is truth.
You are very sincere in your religious conviction, which is just fine, However, your version of truth is not universal, but is what you like (along with others who share your opinion).
Every one should recognize they have the right to speak only for themselves, and without prejudice give each other the same liberty, and wish them well. As the individual traditionist believer believes GOD is LOVE, and has accepted JESUS CHRIST as LORD GOD SAVIOUR of their souls, they will not be forsaken. No one knows the future. We are all subject to inerrancy of every possible subject of creeds, and mark & tittle of interpretative understanding. Our God of Love has invited all to come unto him with praise and thanksgiving. He will not slight us if we believe in the Saviour.
Wow, Andy – You are really a masochist! What kind of pills do you take while you're reading that stuff?
Your examples remind us of just how multi-polar Adventism has become, not just on its fringes, but among regular active church members like me. It also reminds me of how important it is to have an outlet like Adventist Today.
"If you want to know why each of these extracts gave me heartburn…"
Would love to know whats the (your) issue in the following statement:
"(Frank M. Hasel obviates:) To insist on Scripture alone (sola scriptura) is more than giving Scripture primacy over other sources in theology. Sola scriptura affirms that Scripture is the sole source of its own exposition. This makes Scripture foundational for theology. Only a symphonic reading of the whole Bible will do justice to the multiplex phenomena of Scripture under the unifying guidance of the Holy Spirit."
Thanks and have a blessed Sabbathday!
So Scripture has only one interpretation? Why so many denominations who also use the same text?
That quotation says absolutely nothing that any church or individual can use to support his beliefs.
I think we interpret the Bible according to our picture of God.
Once you introduce "interpretation" into a discussion, only blabber follows. Mind games, entertainment, joy of argument, meaningless consensus, are some of the outcomes. "Truth" is not a product, except as defined by the participants.
There is no picture of God. Yes one can have a mental image, but it is drawn with ones on pencil. Strangely, all images of God that I am aware of look like the white bearded great grandpa staring down with guilt inducing eyes. Super Guy, I call that human creation.
If God is love, there is no image available since love is an experience.
Ella,
What a succinct and what I would consider an axiom. So what comes first? The picture of God or the bible? If I only read the OT my picture of God would be dour indeed. However, if I was first introduced to God from say a new testament reader my picture of God would be very different, would it not? Then if after being introduced to the NT God, would I then be able to go back and alter my view of the OT God? I enjoyed reading the strident quotes that Andrew put in his summary. The people writing such things sound angry to me and certainly after reading some of these statements by those such as Goldstein, I would not come away with a view of a loving God.
Regards
Dr F
Isn't it quite a paradox that we first teach our children in cradle roll the OT stories of David and Goliath, Noah and the flood; then go to the NT and tell them about Jesus walking on water, and how he loves little children? But never, never, tell them that Jesus' Father destroyed all the little children in the great flood, or killed them in a plague in Egypt, or Herod's order to kill them in the NT.
The church has, and will always continue to be plagued by their insistence on combining both Jesus and God; the OT and the NT into one synchronous story. Nearly 400 years later when the bishops decided to create a three-in-one God in an unusual symbol of unity, they created an impossible paradox that still cannot be explained or offer any evidence for this new entity.
Dr F
Have you read Good Book by David Plotz who decided to read the Bible to see what it says?
As a Jew he says near the end: "I came to the Bible hoping to be inspired. I have been, sometimes. But mostly I've ended up in a yearlong argument with my Boss. ..Yet the argument represents a kind of belief because it commits me to engaging with God. I don't have the luxury that Christians do of writing off all the evil parts of the OT. They've got Christ and the NT to fall back on. Jews have no such liberty.. We're stuck with it. So what do we do? We argue with it, and try to fix it."
It's one way to look at the OT. I appreciate OT honesty as expressed by these primitive exslaves. Religions were all mixed up then, and it seems God would do anything to separate these "called out" ones. Almost all of its ugly parts and bizarre (to us) rules seem focused on keeping them away from the pagans who were even worse in their practices (i.e., sacrificing babies, religious orgies, etc.). If the Jews were absorbed by the others, perhaps there would be no more communication with the One God.
Christians also find many prophecies pointing to Christ among the seemingly meaningless metaphors, paprallels, and symbols of the OT.
Sorry Ella, my first sentence should read "What a succinct statement and what I would consider an axiom."
Andy: I read most of these publications, and find things that make me grimace; but I also find inspirational material. There must be some things that you like. Perhaps these quotes are taken out of context. To take them at face value seems a bit gullible. It would help if the publications they came from were noted. (I admit to not reading Doug B. He is out of my ballpark.)
Where did Richard Litke get that info? I will check for a footnote. On the other hand I am one who feels that it is what something means in a spiritual sense rather than if it actually happened as stated in a literal sense. And I also have to tell myself, who am I to argue with someone who has a theological doctorate? It also helps to understand the overall purpose of the Bible and the weight of evidence of the whole thing (is God love?).
Is it possible that critics of the Bible are of the same mindset as those they consider ultraconservative? The two extrmes think in literal and absolute terms. That makes healthy spirituality difficult.
As for Moses and circumcision, that is one interpretation, and he is free to have it. Who can prove him wrong? I have heard others. One is that the ancients had no concept of the adversary at that time, so everything that happened was attributed to God. The destructive adversary concept "evolved" as in progressive truth.
Suggestion: write a letter to the editor on a specific point; the editors tire of only getting letters from the elderly who live in the past.
If you are reading this stuff to find faults though, it seems a waste. What can you read that you will agree with 100 percent? Is the glass half full or half empty?
Bugs “Truth in the physical, scientific, world”
I have dedicated many years to first hand research and I never cross the word truth in science. In science we express the observations in other terms such as possibilities, probabilities etc.
Yes, "truth" is not a term normally used in a scientific context. The earth was created in seven days. In my context that is not truth. And as a statement of verifiable fact it isn't observable, it isn't possible and it isn't probable.
As you know, my point is that religious discourse and scientific rhetoric are worlds apart. There is a luxury of unbridled flexibility in religious talk not allowed in scientific conclusions.
If the religious folks here think religious skeptics are snarling pit bulls, step into the scientific world with a proposition that is derided.
David,
"I have dedicated many years to first hand research and I never cross the word truth in science. In science we express the observations in other terms such as possibilities, probabilities etc."(sic)
Then, you would heartily agree that if, even in the field of science where claims or theories can be tested, verified, validated, or dismissed, that in the field of religion where claims cannot be so tested, verified, or validated, any claim to truth, even with a small "t", is not possible.
Jesus said: "I am the way, the truth and the life." [John 14:6]
C25
Because in science we avoid the word truth doesn’t mean that truth does not exist or con be demonstrated. For example, is true that I wrote this message and can be demonstrate.
In my understanding of Christianity truth is beyond of the acknowledgment of facts. Truth is Jesus.
I wouldn't want to sit in your class to study logic! Wow.
Truth in the absence of facts, and yet science cannot claim truth in the presence of facts?!
Jesus is a good reality in my life and I’m pretty confortable with my conviction. It makes sense .
I tried other “logics and realities” they are for me.
You are talking past each other–you look at truth from different dimensions. There is a spiritual dimension and a material dimension.
"But the natural man does not receive the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him nor can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned." 1 Cor 2:14
And a modern rewrite of 1 Cor 2:8….
We speak wisdom among the mature, yet not the wisdom of the secular world or its unbelievers who will come to nothing. But we speak the [spiritual] wisdom of God in a mystery, the hidden wisdom which God ordained before the world began for our glory which none of the rulers of the world knew or they would not have crucified the Lord.
Excellent observation Ella regarding the dual dimensions; which leads me to ask cb25 if he considers his approach to the observable as that of a material(-ist), natural man?
From what I have read of his current views of that which can be observed and tested by man, and from my exchanges with him, I certainly would; in which case 2 Corinthians 2:14 and 1 Corinthians 2:8 put everything into context.
This goes for a number of others; and leads me to conclude that some of us have been talking past each other on this site for a while (since spiritual things are “foolishness” to some).
Spirits? Yes, Godly/Light & life and Evil/Darkness/ & death.
Spiritual Dimension? Out of many, the only one that causes science, heart failure.
Spiritual communication? Much preferred. Favored by most animal species.
ESP? Clairvoyance? Dixon, Cayce, were as accurate as some prophets with high RBI"s.
Silent communing? HUMMMMM, HUMMMMM, the harmonic music of the Cosmos. What could be more natural?? Doesn't it speak to you? Does it have nothing to say?
Rejection of the dimension of spiritual powers & communication, and of supernatural happenings and events,is the missing ELEMENT of those who say "show me a rock and i'll believe". Omitting the spiritual element, by prejudice, from the equations of life origins, is alike to "?=MC?".
We all should be beholden to Andy for his "adiction." The only warning that might be offered is that reading too much of the Adventist instituional output is likely to contribute to religious depression unless one realizes the propaganda purposes of the controled Adventist press. Notice the number of times that a photograph of the current GC president appears. The Adventist Review is following the lead of Pravda in how it spins what is happening in the Adventist Church..
Ella M's comment about "talking past each other" is totally on point. And then she notes why this is so. She notes a "spiritual dimension and a material dimension." May I suggest that the "spiritual dimension" only makes sense to certain personality types. The "truth claims" of the "spiritual dimension" are relevant only in the private lives of those whose who have the"faith gene" and no one else. It really can not contribute to solving the institutional problems facing our church.
For those who do not have the "faith gene," it seems to me that the "spiritual dimension" makes little sense. Another name for the "material dimension" is the real world where we live.where there are real problems that need real solutions..
It appears to me that the so-called “faith gene” is irrespective of personality types. Believers appear to come in every “type.” The variety of personality types is wider in the church than in the two huge corporations for which I have worked.
The church is clearly a faith community. If the church is not a faith community, then exactly what is the church? Why should a faith community not rely on faith in dealing with its issues?
I would submit that Paul’s distinguishing of "the natural man" and his/her perspective has nothing to do with a personality type.
Amen to Stephen:
Ervin: I would suggest the spiritual world is more "real" than the "material" which is based on our distorted senses and brain function. There are truths in the quantum world that seem to reflect that, or at least point in that direction.
I don't believe in a "faith" gene that can't be overcome if one so desires. I believe in a Spirit than can change our environmental and birth determinism, if we so choose. Some will have a more difficult time, no doubt, as they would an addiction, also of genes and experience.
A spiritual dimension makes no sense to one who is not open to it or is settled in the truth of the material world. And the condition may be hard to accept (that's the beginning of change). I am of the opinion (as per modern psychological studies) that one must desire and act on faith for it to become real.
As for the church leaders at the GC, I have no reason to question their "propaganda" as part of their personal belief system. They really do believe what they say. But the human mind is self-deceptive, as the Bible says, and for some it is desire for power and influence. Also they may think they make decisions for the betterment of the church, but in reality they are out of touch with the world they want to save.
Organized religion, including Adventism, is basically a business. CEO's at the headquarters of each are primarily focused on keeping the investors un-offended and happy. Income is the god that rules.
From what I have seen this is only partially true and depends on the individual or individuals making a decision. It can't be made as a blank statement.
Church was interesting today. An excellent sermon, but at other times there were moments I felt like Andy describes in his blog.
When introducing the offering the person noted that God does not need our money, but it is good for us to give… I had this wicked thought, no, he does not need our money, but his managers do. Then I got off wondering whether minders, or some other word would be better than "managers"…
The sermon was based on an excellent talk from TED.com about the power of vulnerability. The original source (Brene Brown) is not a Christian. What struck me about the follow up discussion to the theme was how many listeners tried to spiritualize the whole thing. Here was a sermon and a talk which brought the issues and humanness of vulnerability, authenticity and belonging down to a very practical, real level. It did not need to be cast into the spiritual "domain". In fact doing so cluttered its meaning and sucked the life out of its simplicity.
I like what Dr Taylor said about the material dimension:
Another name for the "material dimension" is the real world where we live. where there are real problems that need real solutions..
I so agree.
And, so, Stephen, no I would not call myself a materialist. The main reason is that for most readers here it is loaded with all kinds of ill informed and incorrect baggage. I'm a realist!
Just last week in my trip interstate I was talking with an Eckist (Ekankar). For such people the spiritual, non rational, dimension is the ultimate meaning. Only found when one lets go of all attempts to reason and rationalize.
To cut a long story short, let me tell you folks, the moment one subscribes to the theory of the existence of a "spritual dimension", or this drivel about spiritually discerned (I used to preach it!) vs natural man etc etc, there are more forms of delusional thinking than you can poke a stick at. Ek is one. Every one of these such social phenomena make Truth claims of their own. All are equally unfalsifiable, unscietific, and vacuous.
To quote David, the most they should dare to do is offer vague probabilities and possibilities. But, no, they shear money from their sheep on behalf of their god. The minders get fat and the flock are fleeced… All in the name of "T"ruth.
Perhaps someone here from among the proponents of this "spiritual" dimension could offer a few shreds of empirical evidence for such a thing actually existing.
The point of my question and Ella’s comment (if I may be so bold) is that “realists” represent “the natural man;” in terms of Paul’s perspective (1 Corinthians 2:14). You have either missed the point or you are sidestepping the issue intentionally.
Paul’s bottom line is this: there’s absolutely no use trying to demonstrate or prove anything to “the natural man” regarding the spiritual dimension, period; and any and all attempts to do so are bound to be totally futile, because “the natural man does not receive the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; nor can he know them…
Perhaps I can’t/shouldn’t speak for Ella, but I now interpret “the natural man” as what you Chris would call a “realist.”
Stephen,
I no longer accept the view that there is such a thing as an UN-natural man/person. Just because you, on Paul's authority, declare there is such a thing, and define it as a "spiritual" man, does not make it so.
Such thinking underlies most the assertions of nauseating Truth points Andy reminds us of.
You should be well aware that the burden of proof lies with the one making the positive claim. Hence, I asked for even a shred of evidence that there is a "spiritual dimension". If there is not, the idea of a "spiritual man" is simply delusional thinking.
I do not have to prove there is not, you, or anyone making the claim does.
Of course Paul's claim about the spiritual things being spiritually discerned is pretty much like The Emporors New Clothes. Anyone who cannot "see" the "spiritual dimension" simply does not have enough faith! The more I defend my position, the more I confirm your judgment that I am a "natural man". I cannot win that argument because it is a totally unfalsifiable claim you are making and depending on.
However, there is no empirical evidence for such a thing, and it has no more merit than to claim some people are aliens.
I am human and so are you. Exactly equal to, and with, you. Any other claims of religion, race, culture, ideology etc etc that attempts to set you and I or anyone else as different, only plays to bigotry, arrogance, intollerance and pride. Religion is full of such it.
To get back to an old argument: if anyone denies this, let them first show why they have the right to declare "Truth" and not some other religious delusional guru. Yes, I know what Ella said: It's the Bible and so it is Truth. I respect such sincerity, but others have pointed out the futility of such claims.
So, Stephen, for me to say "Yes, I'm a natural man", is to accept a whole lot of baggage attached to the title to which I object. It is a nonsense, divisive, judemental distinction that has no place in a world of human equality.
I see what you are saying Chris, but you having studied whatever your specialty gives you some idea, no matter how mistaken, or bigoted, or arrogant, or intolerant, or proud it may be, that you are more equipped or better qualified or ‘more equal if you will, to opine about that topic, whatever it may be.
How is that different than what Paul is claiming about spiritual things of God?
If say, you are a scientist, and claim that anything that cannot be tested or falsified cannot exist or be proven; how is that different from a man of God saying that only those open to spiritual things can understand spiritual things?
Why isn’t any assertion that such (spiritual) things do not exist 'equally' as nonsensical, divisive, and judgmental as what Paul asserted? (He didn’t accuse you of “delusional thinking.”)
Stephen,
"How is that (me offering an opinion) different than what Paul is claiming (is a claim an opinion?) about spiritual things of God?"
Well, apart from my suspicion that opinion and claim are of differering "strengths", claim being the more "certain", they are no different. Both should be subject to evidence. Which leads to your second question.
"If (I)…. claim (There is that word again. See below) that anything that cannot be tested or falsified cannot exist or be proven; how is that different from a man of God saying that only those open to spiritual things can understand spiritual things?"
First, you need to split "cannot exist or be proven". Re Exist: Something that cannot (yet) be tested or falsified, may in fact exist, we just may lack the tools or applicable methods of study atm. eg Higgs Boson. First theorized in1964, confirmed in 2013! God? First theorized (claimed), what 30,000+ yrs ago, confirmed…? still waiting. Not only still waiting, but unable to find any shreds of empirical evidence. I have never "claimed" that things that cannot be tested or falsified cannot exist!
That leads to "proven". Of course, if something cannot (yet) be tested or falsified, it cannot be proven. either way! That is a claim I will make; logic demands it. That is my very point about a "spritual dimension". Evidence please!
Now, you ask "…how is that different from a man of God saying that only those open to spiritual things can understand spiritual things?"
In at least two ways. The basis upon which the assertion is being made, and the subjective nature of the "test".
Re basis: A man of "God", who? I am making my assertions based on reason, logic and the idea that evidence must play a role in determining how I see reality. The "man" of God is basing his "authority" on an unprovable, untestable, potentially imaginary being. Why should that have any more authority than someone telling you their unicorn said go sacrifice your son?
Re subjective: Not only can this not be tested, it brings it down to a subjective personal claim. It is really no different to me claiming that I can see unicorns because I am spiritual and you can't because you are not. Rather silly don't you think?
You know, I used to think that the universal nature of religion was evidence for a God source. Now I suspect that universal nature of religion is evidence of the commonality of human nature. The vast array of religions and faiths in the world is evidence of this subjectivity at work. It is also strong evidence for the absence of a non subjective source. ie God. If we allow such subjective claims to be the test of "truth", the only limit to the potential number of religions/faiths is the number of people living! Every person is free to create their own god in their own image(ination.)
Chris
This makes no sense to me. Perhaps you will consider rewriting it some.
Be that as it may, I am convinced that 2 Corinthians 2:14 references “realists;” and that Paul’s saying that spiritual things cannot be accepted without an acknowledgement of the spiritual dimension is essentially the same as what he said in Hebrews 11:6.
You are asking for evidence of that which can never be proven to you.
Correction: I actually meant 1 Corinthians 2:14.
Stephen,
Ok… sorry, it was a bit long and detailed. The core of what I was trying to say is that what Paul says is based totally on subjective things. Ie that God exists and that Paul is correct. What a scientist may say is based on what can be studied, assessed and confirmed or denied.
The other key thing I am saying is that saying a spiritual dimension may not exist is different to saying it does exist. There is a strong absence of evidence for a spiritual dimension, yet people make all sorts of creative factual statements about it as if it were a fully proven, totally understood fact. Some of those claims are little short of delusional. On the other hand to say there may not be such a thing is rational, not delusional.
Now, yes, or course it cannot, at this point be proven to me re what Paul says, but that is the problem. If it can't be demonstrated, even with a few shreds of evidence, how can we build fantastic theologies upon it?
Even more to the point, how can I be accused of being a natural man, unable to understand spiritual things, just because some guy sets up an unfalsifiable, catch 22, damned if I do and damned if I don't, scenario that makes objection futile?
Actually, ‘The Guy’ who presented the saved if you do, damned if you don’t believe scenario wasn’t Paul (see John 3:18).
Check out Paul’s definition of faith again; then consider for what you require “evidence.” Paul’s scenario is a catch 22 if you insist on being a so-called “realist.” He would call you “the natural man.”
In Paul’s thinking a realist, along with love, acknowledges faith and hope. Romans 8:24, 2 Corinthians 4:18, and 2 Corinthians 5:7.
In todays world there are many theories out there. When theory becomes fact –fact becomes truth.
Yes, there are lots of so-called spiritual theories, and I didn't mean to give the idea that the material is bad. God made a material world and called it "good." To be far gone on the spiritual would be to join the Gnostics of the Bible. That's why we have a Bible–to protect us from false spirituality. Its principles on how to relate to the material are for every age but with specifics that change. Yet there are mysterious spiritual metaphors and parallels in the Bible not laid out in detail, thus the risk of misinterpretation (which denies the love of God). A spiritual dimension does not deny the material, but may supercede it.
False spirituality targets the "inner self" –focuses on self and feeling. It ranges from goddess worship by women to self-awareness pursuits in sweat lodges by men.
Here is an example of false spirituality denying the practical. Many people and religions connect TM transcedental meditation with spirituality. Yet it's merely a physical relaxation, mind calming exercise that helps heal both. It works whether done by a Hindu or a corporate CEO. Dr. Herb Benson years ago introduced it to the wider public (ideal of 15 mins 2x a day). Now to some it is their religion, and they feel they don't need God. That is the con.
The pro is that it could help all of us. Prayer and music can also be used with the deep breathing. The church leaders who denounce it rob us of an exercise that could make life better for many. It's like telling us we can't use gym equipment, or do aerobics or any other exercise (like stretching which is all yoga is).
Just because some cultures use these as part of their religion doesn't make it "of the devil." I've never heard of an SDA joining an eastern religion because of it.
The material source: Some Brahman or even Bhudda discovered that deep breathing and focusing one's mind on an object or word, made him feel good–thus enlightenment began! It's more natural and healthy than drugs. (BTW Bhudda was agnostic, but made life better for his followers, who in turn made him a god of sorts.)
As Nate suggests, you really do need to take heavy medication to wade through the mainstream SDA media these days. For the thinking person who has not been coerced into drinking the KoolAid, it is not Andy's glass that is half full, it is the church's determined old guard's glass that is half full of inbredded thinking that grows layer upon layer on it's own sandy foundation, as the subscribers try desperately to justify untenable theological positions to maintain their inner peace about being "right". To admit anything else brings down the whole deck of cards, and that cannot happen when you have "the Truth".
What did he say?
I tend to agree with you on the terminology used. It's theoverbage and not easily understood by the nonprofessorial lay person. Unfortunately that is how much religious writing is expressed. (I presume it was from Ministry.) It's like a nonscientist reading the details of Einstein's theory written by someone with a doctorate in physics.
I've seen comments like this on here!
It is somewhat amusing, and disturbing at the same time, that some of the comments on this blog have taken a materialist turn – as if that is the only antidote to the self-serving, pietistic jargon of some SDA church officials that Andy has identified.
I remember reading a book by Charles Murray a few years ago, entitled Human Accomplishment. Toward the end of the book, he offered an anecdote from a college class in philosophy that he had taken on human freedom. At the conclusion of the class, one of the students asked the professor the following question: "We now know what the great philsophers throughout history believed about human freedom. But we still don't know what you think. Will you tell us?" "Well…," the professor mused, "I really don't know. But what I do know is that every sentient human being, including myself, wakes up each morning and goes about the day as if he believes in human freedom. So I guess I ought to believe in it as well."
By analogy, a moment's reflection makes it overwhelmingly obvious that the most important, driving realities of human lives are spiritual realities – love, courage, fidelity, honor, self-sacrifice, beauty, humor, pleasure, etc., etc – and yes – hate, vengeance, depravity, mental and emotional illness as well. So the materialistic bootstrappers on this thread can bray out the ultimacy and exclusivity of material, empirically verifiable reality. But I am very confident that their lives, if we knew them, would quickly render such claims risible and self-delusional. Whether they like it or not, they behave as spiritual beings, a reality to which their participation in these blogs ironically and richly attests.
Nathan,
You are moving the goal posts. You want to define the driving realities of being human, such as love, courage, fidelity, honor, self-sacrifice, beauty, humor, pleasure, hate, vengeance, depravity, and mental and emotional illness as "spiritual realities"?
It may come as a surprise to you: I have never denied these subjective, driving "realities".
Just do me a favor and explain why these are not simply human qualities?
It just so happens that these driving realities are present for every human on this planet, and even to varying degrees for many animals. Just a moments reflection makes it overwhelmingly obvious that these realities are empirically verifiable human experiences. For example, humans need to eat. If you don't think this has been empically proven, just go without food for a few months and you will have your own evidence! Humans experience the list of driving realities you gave above. But, on what evidence do you declare these spiritual? Eating, sleeping, mating, breathing are no diffenent, and the list could go on. All are human qualities.
And, yes, my/our presence on AT attests to our common humanity. How in your wildest dreams does it attest to "spiritual beings"? Is it not risible and delusional to attempt to separate, arbitrarily certain driving realities of being human and declaring them spiritual just to satisfy the ego of the religious?
btw. It is pretty clear I am a target of your little rant. If you don't want to engage me, so be it, but if you want to engage in a drive by shooting with bullets that suggest my name is on them, you may as well address me.
Have a read of my reply to Stephen above. Also have a read of Andy's info about the Hasel statements. Classic examples of a creative human making God, (in this case biblical interpretation) after his own image(ination)!
But Chris, faith is also an empirically verifiable human experience. It is the reality underlying that experience that eludes empirical validation, just as the reality underlying the experiences that I suggest are spiritual cannot be empirically verified. I believe that physical needs – food, air, water, sleep, sex – are very different from the spiritual realities I cited. Our common humanity – what separates us from other mammals – is in my opinion our spiritual qualities.
Actually, I didn't just have you in Mind when I made my comment, Chris. Erv expressed similar sentiments. And it was not a drive-by. It was a direct response to the issue raised by you and Erv. You delight in proving my point. Your derision of spiritual reality is objective Truth. But my derision of materialism is a "little rant." Do you realize how petulant you appear? Statements like that demonstrate, whether you like it or not, that indeed, the common humanity that you share with us is very much spiritual.
Nathan,
"It is the reality underlying that experience that eludes empirical validation, just as the reality underlying the experiences that I suggest are spiritual cannot be empirically verified."
Precisely the essence of my point to Stephen. While you're trying to verify a reality behind these things you choose to call spiritual, perhaps you can use the same evidence to check whether unicorns are real?
I have no idea how me calling your "input" a rant demonstrates a shared spirituality common to humanity? What did you smoke this morning? Just because you can make a statement does not make it so..
As for your point David. The greatest person who ever lived on earth? I'm still looking for evidence he lived, let alone was the greatest… I guess I should respect your sincerity, but then, if I do I should equally respect the sincerity of the radical Muslim who claims that Mohammed was the greatest person to ever live, and kills in his god's name, and I refuse to do that. So, I'm sorry, but as much as you like your opinion, I cannot respect it as a fact.
If I recall your story, Chris, you were once quite passionate in your devotion to Adventist dogmas. Like most fundamentalist true believers who reject their past, you seem have embraced the opposite extreme with equal fanaticism. Questioning the objectivity or consistency of your reasoning seems to make you very angry. And if you have "no idea" what someone else is saying, it never occurs to you that you may be blinkered. No, the other person must be stupid. If you don't see the non-materialistic, essentially spiritual, world view that leads you to apprehend and react to the statements of others with haughty derision, explaining it to you won't really do any good.
You're quite correct that just because I say something doesn't make it so. But when you keep saying things that validate my observation, it increases my confidence that I might be on to something.
Nathan,
I'm not angry, let alone "very" angry. I am being direct, but angry? I didn't feel so at all.
Equal fanaticism? How many times have I stated, I am totally open to evidence and sound argument or reason. If and when I am wrong, I will accept such and say so. What I don't appreciate or respect is people telling me I am wrong based on subjective assumptions and illogical arguments.
And I confess, the statement"..if you don't see the non-materialistic, essentially spiritual, world view that leads you to apprehend and react to the statements of others with haughty derision.." also makes absolutely no sense to me. I see no logic in the point, or applicablility to this discussion at all.
Non materialistic? Essentially spiritual world view? Honestly Nathan, what on earth are you talking about? I am not trying to be derisive here. That just seems a nonsense statement to me.
Essentially spiritual world view? Blinkered? At risk of offending you more, maybe you are self diagnosing?
Beats me…
To whom I will believe, to unknown opinionator in AT or to the greatest person who ever lived in this earth, Jesus Christ? This is no brainer
Jesus stated, “Very truly I tell you, no one can enter the kingdom of God unless they are born of water and the Spirit”. The spiritual person will have the fruit of the spirit: love, joy, peace, forbearance, kindness, goodness, faithfulness gentleness and self-control.
If the answer is materialism, then what is the question? The explandum is perhaps free will; do we have it? If the answer is yes, then this is the beginning of the definition of 'spiritual' Chris.
Yes, Darrel. I think your observation and question is key.
Darrel,
"If (we have free will), .. then this is the beginning of the definition of 'spiritual'.."
Only if and because you pre suppose a spiritual reality to which you desire to point. If you begin with the available evidence and proceed from there it seems to me to offer no such beginning.
Of course, whether we have free will is not a simple yes anyway, so any "yes" is a shaky place to begin.
Apparently for some of us, "reality", i.e., the real physical world, is not enough. For those individuals, there must be more than the obvious surface reality. There must be a "spiritual" reality. Now talking about the real physical world that we can perceive with our sense organs as processed by our brains is complex but there is a real world out there (at least, we assume that). Of course, over the last few hundred years, there has been an dramatic increase in knowledge of the nature of that physical world and it turns out to be not only complex but very, very complex and, in some of its manifestations, rather strange, at least to us. But those who systematically study physical reality (they are called scientists) continue to learn more and more about that kind of reality.
However, I would ask those who talk about a "spiritual" reality to indicate if there has been any corresponding increase in knowledge of the nature of their kind of "reality" over the last say, few hundred or even few thousand years? What evidence beyond a subjective experieince do you have that such a reality exists? Have those who study that kind of reality developed any increased insights in the how their reality works? Or do only "special" kinds of people with unique personality types have the ability to examine, understand, and talk about that reality?: Do these people have a special vocabulary whose words and phrases have any specific meanings attached? Or do you not have to worry about using words with actual meanings attached? If you use certain special words in talking about that reality and you feel better or have "warm feelings",does that validate that those words are talking about something that actually exists?
I look forward to being enlighened about the nature of that other reality..
In Christian doctrine derived from the Bible, there is no enlightenment about the nature of the invisible reality available without an acknowledgement that there is a (literal/spiritual) God.
Thus is it confirmed that only "special people" are able to access the "spiritual." and be "enlightened.?"
If by “special people” you mean those who simply acknowledge the existence of their Creator, we may be in total agreement.
So those "special people" who believe in a spirit realm, would also include pagans and even aborginal people who also believe in spiritual realm? This would include the majority of people who have ever lived on this earth, wouldn't it? Only perhaps excluding those who seek objective confirmation of things?
Yes Elaine, generally speaking, I would agree; it would include the majority of people who have ever lived on this earth. In fact, in terms of those who have ever acknowledged the existence of a Creator, it probably includes the vast majority.
To the neutered Über Materialist the best answer to these questions comes from Einstein: “My religion consists of a humble admiration of the illimitable superior Spirit who reveals himself in the slightest details we are able to perceive with our frail and feeble minds.”
“Before God we are all equally wise-equally foolish.”
“Everyone who is seriously involved in the pursuit of science becomes convinced that a Spirit is manifest in the laws of the universe—a Spirit vastly superior to that of man.”
“The scientist is possessed by the sense of universal causation…his religious feeling takes the form of a rapturous amazement at the harmony of natural law, which reveals an intelligence of such superiority that, compared with it, all the systematic thinking and acting of human beings is an utterly insignificant reflection.”
“Science without religion is lame; religion without science is blind.”
Archives of Origins
Albert Einstein 1879-1955
If one wishes to quote Albert Einstein on the nature of God, one might wish to first consider Einstein's definition of God. PS. "Neutered Uber Materialist"? Very original.
The point, Erv, is that Einstein obviously believed in a spiritual reality. Your point, that knowledge of the physical universe has increased, while knowledge of the spiritual realm has not, is interesting. I agree wholeheartedly. Moral knowledge has not significantly expanded. We have no greater or deeper understanding of the good, the true, or the beautiful, than did Plato, Aristotle, or the writers of Wisdom Literature. And yet those realities endure. And they continue to be the primary drivers, sustainers, and threats to human life. It would seem to me that the ever-changing explanations of the physical universe offered by science would cause you to be a bit more humble, rather than more confident, about the substance underlying your faith.
Some additional Einstein quotations:
"I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it."
"Only two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure of the former."
For what it’s worth then, it appears that Albert Einstein DID believe in a causative, intelligent, purposeful Legislator and Executor of “the harmony of natural law;” of which “all the systematic thinking and acting of human beings is an utterly insignificant reflection.”
Because He did not believe this Intelligence to be personal is immaterial (pun intended).
If it is stipulated that Einstein did not believe in a personal God that is supposed to answers prayers, etc, etc., it would seem that we have now established that Einstein's "God" was not that of any of three monotheistic religions. (And there are those that say that the discussions on the AT blogs don't result in any specific agreement about anything.)
Actually, for whatever it’s worth (not much), Einstein’s “God,” in terms of the perspective from which he perceived ‘Him’ (super intelligence/designer), is the same God that Judeo-Christians acknowledge. Einstein, for whatever it’s worth, did not acknowledge the personal aspect of His attributes; at least to our knowledge, that is.
Let's see..According to Mr. Foster, Einstein's God is the same God that Chrisitans worship. Hmm. Einstein was quite clear that he agreed with Spinoza on the subject of "God." If you want to believe that the God of Spinoza is the same as the God of Judeo-Christian tradition, be my guest. That is your absolute right to believe that. But Elaine has it right — as usual — what Einstein did or did not believe was his business. I am not sure why his views are more relevant than anyone else on this topic.
Well, there’s nothing like being misunderstood; for which I take responsibility in this instance. Perhaps I did not emphasize a couple of qualifiers of my opinion quite enough.
First, I have repeated the phrase “for what it’s worth” with regard to whatever Einstein believed, or we think he believed. I did say parenthetically it’s “not much,” meaning that it doesn’t matter much or it’s not of much worth or value. So I agree that his views on this topic, in the final analysis, are not necessarily more relevant than anyone else’s.
Secondly, I also stated parenthetically that Einstein’s perspective and perception of “God” in terms of His attributes of super intelligence of which all of human intelligence is reflective, and as legislator and executor (my terms) of “natural law” represent the same God that we Judeo-Christians acknowledge—without the “personal”—at least in terms of those attributes.
Dr. Taylor may or (more likely) may not agree, but my opinion is that that Spinoza’s view of “Nature” or “God” as infinite and self-caused and eternal and Einstein’s view of the non-personal super intelligent designer represent attributes of God to which (most) Judeo-Christians not only relate but subscribe; again, not that it really matters much—and not that they even acknowledged it.
Stephen,
You may find this quote usefull re Spinoza and Cause:
"Though Spinoza calls God the cause of the universe, he takes the word "cause" in a very different sense from its usual meaning. His idea of cause is identical with his notion of substance; his conception of effect, with that of accident, mode, modification. God, according to him, is the cause of the universe as the apple is the cause of its red color, as milk is the cause of whiteness, sweetness, and liquidness, and not as the father is the cause of the child's existence, or even as the sun is the cause of heat. The father is the external and transient cause of his son, who has a separate existence of his own. So, too heat, though connected with the sun, has an existence apart from the star producing it: it exists alongside of and outside of the sun. The case is not the same with God as related to the world; he is not its transcendent and transient cause, but the immanent cause;(19) i.e., if we understand Spinoza correctly, God is not the cause of the world in the proper and usual sense of the term, a cause acting from without and creating it once for all, but the permanent substratum of things, the innermost substance of the universe.(20) God is neither the temporal creator of the world, as dualism and Christianity conceive him, nor even its father, as Cabalistic and Gnostic speculation assumes; he is the universe itself, considered SUB SPECIE ÆTERNITATATIS, the eternal universe."
http://www.webpages.uidaho.edu/mickelsen/texts/weber%20-%20history/spinoza.htm
But in the long run, what difference does it make what Einstein or your neighbors think or believe? It is a very personal choice and attempting to convince people of one's own choice has little persuasive power, as shown here.
Be happy and content with your own spiritual beliefs, and give others that same privilege.
Elaine,
In part I like what you've said re not attempting to persuade others and being happy with ones own spiritual beliefs etc.
There is something that worries me about it. In keeping with Andy's theme, it would seem to me that every writer he has quoted is doing the opposite of what you suggest. They are in fact seeking to persuade.
On a more serious note, if you take the ideal you present, where do we stand with seeking to "re-educate" terrorists, radicals, and other people who have become a danger to society by nature of their ideologies or thinking?
I used to fully support this view of religious tollerance, live and let live, each to his or her own etc, but I seriously question it now. While I very much disagree with Nathan's use of the word "spiritual" (at least as traditionally understood) to describe these driving forces wihin humanity, I do agree they are both sustainers and threats to human life.
I really wonder that we may not have come to a point in human history where we can no longer afford the "luxury" of granting one anothers religious views immunity from scrutiny and even challenge. It seems to me there are far too many "fruitcakes" around the world now for such freedom and immunity. Just look at the shopping center event the last few days in Nairobi. I am sure every one of us would agree that the spiritual beliefs of those gunmen should and must be confronted. Al Shabaab have another 7000 where they came from…and growing. Do you see my point? The religious and spiritual "banter" on AT holds no candle to the intensity of such views, but it seems to me a principle carries across the board. That is, that each of us should, and perhaps must, be prepared to hold our views up to the light of reason, science, and a common human ethic that goes beyond religious persuasion, indoctrination, or brainwashing.
Just some thoughts. I'd be interested in how you marry your "live and let live" with the issues our world faces on this front.
Chris,
You are equating religion with terroists. Terrorists come from all persuasions and it is the perversion of all religions that have been responsible for terrorism and wars. No religion preaches violence; all preach peace, but because all have not lived by those principles does not indict religion. The first religious "war" was begun by Christians: the Crusades, and Christian history is colored with the blood of thousands. For several centuries Christians, Muslims and Jews lived peacably in Spain until Pope Innocent II gave Torquemada the order to rid if of "heathen" Jews and Muslims by sword or conversion.
The U.S. and its allies have meddled in the Middle East for at least a century. We have supported Iran and then Iraq in the past, then turned on them as enemies. We invaded and began a war on deceptions by our leaders in government and killed thousands of its citizens; we invaded and killed the Afghan people when only one man with his followers lived between there and Pakistan.
Had our country suffered the same by foreign hands what would our response have been?
Terrorism is not defined by the perpetrators: Sandy Hook and the recent Navy Yard were caused by home-grown "terrorists."
These terrorists in Africa are less based on religious belief than on the age-old disparity between poverty and total corruption by its leaders. They could just as well be of no religion. Remember the SDA pastor who caused the massacre in Uganda; no one would call it SDA terrorism, would they?
To expect everyone to hold hope their religious views to "the light of reason" is asking the impossible, when even far better formally educated people are unable to do that; so it surely cannot be expected of those who are largely illiterate to think and behave rationally.
There is a current documentary shown on TV, based on the book "Hubris" which is the detailing of how the White House cabal: Bush, Cheney, Wolfowitz, Rice, and others planned the invasion of Iraq and how their lies were able to convince the public that Iraq has WMD and must be invaded to destroy them.
Elaine,
No. I'm not equating religion alone with terrorists.
You may notice this line: "...terrorists, radicals, and other people who have become a danger to society by nature of their ideologies or thinking.."
I realize there are a myriad of such forms, not just religion. The context here or course is religion.
Re this line you wrote: "…No religion preaches violence; .." I really do think you need to re examine Islam.
Yes, I know "it" lived "peaceably" in places and times, but examine Islam when it has power and I am not sure that is ever the case.
Here is a kind of TIC site that is worth the read, and perhaps can cast a new light on your statement: http://sheikyermami.com/who-is-sheik-yermami/
Follow some of the links about the site and how its promoters see Islam, especially the rheems of "texts" from Suri and Koran etc. I don't think anyone can read such and continue to consider Islam a peacefull religion at its core. That is not a comment on the many Muslims who are liberal or nominal; not hard core fundamentalist etc.
As an observer Aussie, I personally don't buy into the use of the term "lies" re the Iraq war. Yes, there is more to it, I get that, but I don't think it is so simple as some would have us believe.
Anyway, good to hear your view on it. I'm away as of tomorrow, so if I don't respond, I'm not being rude:)
Does Christianity preach violence? Should we judge Christianity by its violent record? The U.S. is often called a "Christian nation" (wrongly), but how many wars has it participated in? How many nations have they invaded not in their defense?
The state of Israel is the one point of Muslim contention. The U.N. Resolution in 1967 required Israel to return the lands it captured in return for a guaranteed, lasting peace. Israel not only did not obey those, but settledd hundreds of Jewish families on the land and subsidized them to hundreds of thousands of dollars; Israel also pays many Orthodox scholars to do nothing but study, and the settlers are largely prolific Orthodox.
Israel has elected barriers (like our southern borders to keep immigrants out) and makes it very difficult for entry into Israel where the Palestinians work. When questioned, most of the Muslim terrorists are fighting because of Israel, and America is its ally and largest financial supporter; in fact, Israel is the largest recipient of American aid. The Zionists and Christian Right are the largest supporters of Israel.
Admittedly, as an Aussie, you are unable to view the U.S. action against Iraq as we do. Your nation has escaped most of the wars suffered by the U.S. Experiences affect one's views.
No Elaine. Western Civilization is the point of Muslim contention. And when they can't get to the West, Muslims are happy to kill other Muslims. By far the greatest target of Muslim terrorism is other Muslims. Is Israel responsible for the violence in Africa, fomented by Muslims? How about Syria? Is that Israel's fault? How about Iraq? Was Saddam Hussien Israel's fault? Were the wars between Iraq and Iran Israel's fault? Was Israel to blame for Hussein's WMD's? To suggest that there is any kind of equivalency between Christianity and Islam as threats to peace displays a staggering moral obtuseness and wilfull blindness.
Do you think U.N. guarantees mean anything at all? If Muslim countries surrounding Israel were to miraculously disarm, what do you think would happen to Israel? That's right. Israel would be secure; Arab nations would be secure; and there would be peace in the Middle East – at least temporarily. Now, if Israel were to disarm, while surrounding Muslim countries remain armed to the teeth, what do you think would happen? That's right – Israel and it's inhabitants would be incinerated in a heartbeat.
Sorry, Elaine. You do not speak for the nation. "We" means you, not other Americans, and certainly not me. And I am every bit as much an American as you. Most Americans do not share your radical views of America's use of military force. America, to a degree unknown in history, has used its military power to liberate, not to conquer and plunder. Does that mean America has always been right? Of course not! But it is ludicrous to equate military action by freedom loving democratic republics, to secure liberty, with violence and terrorism encouraged and sponsored by totalitarian theocratic states to secure a worldwide caliphate.
In saying there is no research or "proof" about faith, at least its influence on humans, I found the following information:
Brain scientists today are discovering more about how our brains work. Dr. Newberg from Thomas Jefferson University has spent decades studying spiritual experiences. We can even see through brain imaging how prayer and meditation affect brain activity. Dr N injects a harmless dye that migrates to parts of the brain where blood flow is strongest—the most active part of the brain of persons in deep prayer
In prayer increased activity is observed in the frontal lobes and the language area of the brain. Dr. Newburg believes that for the brain, praying to God in the Judea-Christian tradition is similar to talking to people.When studying Buddhist meditation where they are visualizing something, there is increased activity in the visual part of the brain.
However, in observing atheists meditating or thinking about God, there was no brain activity in the frontal lobe at all. Dr N concludes that all religions create neurological experiences yet God is not imaginable for atheists. For religious people, God is as real as the physical world. Their experience is neurologically real.
Studies point to a link between religious and spiritual practice and mirth. For one, happiness habits like expressing gratitude, compassion and charity are generally promoted in most spiritual conventions. And, asking the big questions helps to give our lives context and meaning. A 2009 study found that children who felt their lives had a purpose (which was promoted by a spiritual connection) were happier.
Ella, what kind of reseach were you looking for "about faith?" Neurological effects of meditation and belief would tell little "about" faith itself I believe. Faith is a logical extrapolation beyond the evidence, but in the logical direction the evidence points. Sister Elaine and others will say faith and logic have nothing to do with each other.
They are prevented from seeing the connection due to a powerful stereotype, a mental meme if you will, that teaches faith to be simply 'a wish.' I think Ella you might however be asking, what evidence is faith (or a faith item ) based on, in any given circumstance. Am I near to your point? There is research in this area!
Ella, yes, there are benefits from a spiritual life. But many of us know that religion can be toxic, also.
It is two sides of the same coin.
A person who has assurance and self-confidence bequeathed by parents and school, will have great benefit. While a child who was brought up in fear of committing sins, unconfessed, with hell as many religions have taught, will not experience peace and serenity.
You can take what you want from this research. As I said before meditation alone, no matter if it's repeating a word or phrase, praying, or listening to music, is a physical relaxing method. For best results it needs to be accompanied by deep breathing (between 5 and 10 breaths a minute). That's the practical part. But spiritual prayer has an effect on the brain that doesn't happen for the unbeliever. Research shows that those who have a healthy faith belief system are happier.
I am pointing out that faith has a positive effect. It would then seem logical to listen to the call to faith and prayer.
I don't deny that there are evil people with evil religious beliefs or have twisted good doctrines into evil ones.
Darrel said: what evidence is faith (or a faith item ) based on, in any given circumstance. There is research in this area!
There is pleny of evidence for faith all around us, but as for specific research on it, I haven't looked for that. Do you have something?
Elaine: One of the biggest evidences for true faith is that many people raised as you have described and much worse, actually do change, have a happy life and many prosper (even with residual problems if they acknowledge them). The wonderful thing about our God is that He can bring peace to the disabled and even the mentally ill who believe.
I agree with all you say Ella. Maybe the research most helpful is an Absorption of the Gospels and the life of Jesus Christ and the prophecies in Daniel Nine and Is. 53 regarding His mission and message.
Leaving organized religion is often necessary to discover peace. If one's religion brings worry and fear, to leave it is to escape into freedom. God is not in any organized religion; something we all should remember.
Whenever an individual reports of experiencing a miracle, who are we to deny his personal experience?
But it is not a demand that we also believe a miracle occurred any more than someone who has experienced falling in love; it is own personal feeling, not ours.
To me there is too much "feeling" in evidence here. Falling in love may at first be infatuation; it only proves itself as love after years of commitment, loyality, trust, caring, foregiveness, going through ups and downs, etc. It is really not based on a feeling, though that may be part of it. I think true faith is like that, and maybe that is a way to explain spirituality for the believer–a love based on commitment and being close to Someone over a period of time until nothing can divide.
I feel uneasy with the use of the terms "religion" or "faith" as opposites of materialism. In reflecting on the adequacy of materialism, I have been using spiritual in a philosophical sense to include reality which is not subject to traditional methods of empirical/scientific confirmation.
Even the atheistic philosopher, Thomas Nagel, rejects the regnant materialistic and reductionist account of nature. The author of Mind and Cosmos: Why the Materialist Neo-Darwinian Conception of Nature Is Almost Certainly False, recently wrote a column published in the New York Times – The Core of Mind and Cosmos, in which he argues that we cannot begin to understand or explain the mind until we transcend the built-in limits of scientific orthodoxy. "Biological evolution," he says, "must be more than just a physical process, and the theory of evolution, if it is to explain the existence of conscious life, must become more than just a physical theory."
For many naturalistic believers, the sort of teleological naturalism that Nagel proposes may offer a potentially safe haven from the storms of doubt that threaten to capsize totalitarian neo-Darwinism. Personally, I do not believe we can get to a "unified field theory" that naturalistically explains spiritual reality from our time bound, finite perch on planet earth. But the recognition, by at least one highly respected atheistic philosopher, of realities that are by their very nature beyond the grasp of traditional scientific naturalism, is refreshingly candid, and should give pause to those who would deny and distort realities which do not fit within their procrustean beds.
A question for those who deny a spiritual reality or a God who intervenes in our lives.
What do you say to someone who has experienced a very real event of intervention? I have heard many in my years. One most recent is from a pastor I know well and know he wouldn't make it up. When confronted by soldiers in a remote area in a foreign country who did not know English, he talked to them in the presence of witnesses. His English came through in their language, and they let them go.
There are numerous examples of persons hearing English in their language or another language in English. A recent example was a student at the New Hope church who was in Korea who heard the Korean sermon in English at a time she needed it. There are other kinds of recorded interventions as well–some by angels who provided the proof of their reality.
Someone in our church should record and study this phenomena. People can provide "proof" by how God works in their lives, whether it be by intervention or life witness.
You can say these people are lying, but I don't believe it. I have had a couple myself. I don't know the answer of why they don't happen to others or more frequently. Perhaps we put up barriers, or perhaps our trust is all we need whatever the outcome. His people have an eternity ahead regardless.
Ella,
How do you suggest that "someone in our church should record and study this phenomena"? For what reason? Would it encourage faith in others? It's like giving "proof" of your love; how does that work? And who would be convinced other than the one who is loved? There is a world of difference between subjective stories and objective accounts.
There are certainly exceptions, but there is no need to say that someone who reports some type of supernatural intervention in his or her life is lying. May I suggest that anyone who argues that way is missing the point. Of course, the whole Bible is full of people reporting the intervention of God. Did it really happen the way that the Bible reports or the way anyone living today says it happens to them? With rare exceptions, from an objective perspective, there is no way to know.. If someone reports that God did something in his or her life, who are we to say that did not happen? That is a totally subjective experience. The problem comes when an individual says "Because I received some special visit from God, now everyone should believe what I heard God say to me." Then we have a whole new set of problems with which to deal.
That is a totally subjective experience
I am trying to see the difference in other than numerical terms. If we trust all scientific claims and observations as truly objective, why is it so hard to accept unusual interventions as objective? Even when there are witnesses?
Yes, I do think if someone decided to track down these stories, investigate them, and have the persons involved confirm them, they could be faith-building for those who have difficulty accepting Christ and God as being involved in human life. I am not talking about "subjective stories" but "objective accounts."
At the same time, it would do little good to those determined not to believe. As Jesus said to poor Lazarus–even if one were raised from the dead, they wouldn't believe.