Truth, Your Truth, and Cliff’s Truth
by Ervin Taylor
by Ervin Taylor
March 26, 2014
My good friend Cliff Goldstein’s “Cliff’s Edge” epistle in a recent issue of the Adventist Review (March 20, 2014) is vintage Cliff. Like a fine wine, you can really depend on him to provide a unique insight or “taste” of what dedicated, traditional Adventists are expected to think. And, if you want to keep up on what the current GC establishment wants Adventists to think, it's required reading.
He is a very polished apologist and point person for classical Adventism.(1) As an added benefit from reading his columns, one gets exposed to a lot of new words and the names of well-known thinkers. This week, the list includes Gottfried Leibniz, David Hume, Richard Dawkins, Charles Darwin, Christopher Hitchens, and Emmanuel Kant. It seems that if Cliff Goldstein didn't exist, contemporary institutional Adventism would have to invent him or someone very much like him.(2)
While the title of his recent piece is “The Reality of God,” I suggest that someone should have edited the title to better reflect what it is really about, perhaps something along the line of “My Definition of Truth.”
Now of course, he does not quite see it that way. In several epistles written several years ago, he insisted that his understanding of Truth (notice the capital “T”), classical Adventism’s take on Truth, and Truth itself are essentially the same. But that was when he was a relatively new Adventist and perhaps reflected a convert’s tendency to talk in those terms. Perhaps upon more mature reflection, he has modified that view. I certainly hope so. Or perhaps, he will insist that I continue to mischaracterize his understanding.
Given his comments this week, however, it appears that he still believes that or something very close to it. Let me explain. In his column, he poses a very interesting question: “With so many faiths, views and religions out there, how do I know Seventh-day Adventism is the truth?” [his italics] He says that his answer is a quote from an individual who was his initial contact with Adventism when he was converted to our small Protestant denomination 34 years ago: “Well, it’s certainly not unreasonable to think that with all those views out there at least one of them is true [his italics]. Cliff comments: “I so appreciated his answer then. And today, 34 years later, I still fall back on it.”
But, someone will say, that’s not an answer to the question. For purpose of discussion, let’s assume for the moment that there is “One Truth” and there is a way to know that “One Truth.” On what basis are the answers provided by Adventism for that “One Truth”? Cliff’s “answer” does not address that.
Much more interesting is his next comment, which I quote verbatim: “I can hear the so-called progressives scowl and protest about how arrogant, triumphalist, and narrow is the attitude that we have the truth. Oh, let’em squawk. [his italics] I’m used to the sad fact that in my 34 years in the church, I’ve faced more opposition to my faith from so-called Adventists than from anyone else.” Readers will note the phrases “so-called progressives” and “so-called Adventists.”
He does not reflect in this column on why he faces more opposition from inside his adopted faith tradition than from outside of it. But, of course, he would have to characterize that opposition as “so-called Adventists.” If they disagree with him, they can't be “real” Adventists. Or perhaps they could be “cultural Adventists,” a category of Adventist he particularly deplores. According to him, if he wanted to have a quality cultural experience, it would not be of the Adventist variety.
But back to the issue addressed in his recent epistle: I leave it for those who wish to comment to respond to the question: “With so many faiths, views and religions out there, how do I know Seventh-day Adventism is the truth?” Cliff’s column did not provide an answer. Who would like to take a stab at answering that question? Please do not “scowl” or “squawk” while you are responding.
________
1 “Classical Adventism” is here defined as the dominant American Adventism of the 1920s-1950s as represented by what was preached by American Adventist evangelists. It includes standard sectarian Adventist understandings of the prophecies of Daniel and Revelation with special focus on the highly inventive 2300 days/Investigative Judgment doctrine, the “Mark of the Beast,” the “Spirit of Prophecy”(i.e. EGW), and the “Remnant Church” concept.An optional characteristic would be a concern as to who the “King of the North” is. Classical Adventism would also include the traditional written and unwritten Adventist subcultural vocabulary (i.e., “in the Truth”), customs and values associated with Sabbath observance, diet, dress, and, my personal favorite, “adornment.”
2 My apologies to Voltaire:"Si Dieun'existait pas, ilfaudraitl'inventer." (“If God did not exist, it would be necessary for us to invent him.”)
We should be grateful that few Adventists of this, and ascending generations ever read the Review. Cliff has a very narrow reading group and largely among those who fuly agree with him. We can only assume that the church leaders have given him the "attack dog" position vicariously, rather than their publicly siding with his positions. He has little or no impact on the larger SdA church whre few even recognize his name. "Cliff, who?"
Cliff is as shallow as Voltaire is deep who had more depth in each sentence he wrote than Cliff has in volumes. Voltaire still speaks to us today, Cliff will be unknown in another 50 years.
Elane, great answer!!! I LIKE IT!!! Go Elaine. Ye Voltaire rocks!!! He was a deep Thinker. I mean he was really DEEEEEEEEEEEP!!!!!!. Very very wise. I mean one of the wisest things he said was that "In 100 years this book (talking about the Bible) will be forgotten, eliminated" And of course this happened didn't it Elaine. Wow a prophet!! I think I'll erect a statue to Voltaire in my garden. Elaine, I think you got the truth or should I say Voltaire and Elaine have the TRUTH!!!
Oh, i nearly forgot, 100 years after his death, his house was used as the headquarters of the Geneva Bible Society. But of course no one should know this. I'll keep it a secret.
The most interesting question is why do we seek truth?
Why is there an assumption that we seek truth? Most people seek happiness and many other things before truth.
It is the SdA church, of all others, that has claimed to have and teach the "truth," and this has even become a euphemism for Adventism. No one owns the truth and it is like the pot of gold at the end of the rainbow: a goal that is never reached.
Perhaps Elder Goldstein sees himself, and is seen by others, as favoring a more impersonal style of "Truth," one written out extensively in books, amenable for intellectual consumption. By contrast, perhaps Dr. Taylor sees intellectual religion as a complete oxymoron and favors a more sociologically driven, cultural and personal articulation of constantly adaptive "Present Truth." I use these fine gentlemen for illustration purposes only and urge them to remain good friends through it all. In the end, both may be equally "truth-filled", but their positions may be profoundly distorted to our view because of the light years of cultural separation caused by the gravitational enormity of their oppositely polarized, powerful intellects.
My immediate reaction to Cliff's statement – "Well it's certainly not unreasonable to think that, with all those views out there, that one of them is true."? That sure sounds like the evolutionists' defense of their theory when, as quickly occurs, it leaves the realm of empirically proven fact. Isn't this the kind of thinking that prevails in every self-contained, self-referential, ideological echo chamber? That's just my gut reaction. I'm sure Erv will help me think about my reaction more clearly.
Such thinking that it's certainly not unreasonable is a very poor reason to adopt any position. Might as well do the "eeny, meeny, miney, mo" and choose. What a poor reason to choose any belief. But maybe that is how Cliff chose his.
If I've learned one thing in my experience with God it is that what we see as His revelation of "truth" is limited and partial. So whatever view we hold is, at best, based on incomplete revelation that God is fully capable of surpassing whenever He sees fit. Further, I am not always the channel through which He makes that new revelation. So I take the view that the more important question we should be asking is not whether what we can identify something as absolute or superior truth, but whether we are growing in our relationship with God so we are teachable and open to what new revelation He may have waiting for us.
I would agree that 'The Truth' cannot be a 'religion' or even a philosophy; if The Truth exist
it by definition would and must be the nexus of all being. Truth is the universe or matter from which
all things come, or the Mind from which all things come. Truth is a person not a particle!
It would appear the SdA "Truth" still hasn't passed the mouse trap test.
Regardless of Goldstein's latest Energizer Bunny circular reasoning efforts.
Dear Mr Barr
Just trying to brush off Mr Goldstein by accusing him of 'circular reasoning' based on what non-believers or third party's may say about his beliefs is circular reasoning itself. How 'bout showing where you think he is wrong?
That's pretty easy, Trevor. The statement is just ridiculous on its face. Lots of people reason that way, but few actually admit it. I'll try to be logical, but it is difficult when something seems so self evident.
First of all, within the Christian world view, Jesus Himself refuted the idea that any "view" is truth. He said, "I am the way, the truth and the life."
Second, the fact that it is not unreasonable to believe that, among many possible views, one may be true, does not logically permit an inference that any of them are true. Allow me to illustrate: I am walking through the woods. I see many varieties of berry bushes. It is not unreasonable to think that some of those berries may be edible. But the reaonableness of that belief is of no relevance to a determination of whether it is in fact safe to eat from at least one of the berry bushes.
Finally, Goldstein's statement makes no sense historically. Throughout history there have been thousands of views about truth on all sorts of levels. Seldom has any view stood the test of time. In fact, let me go out on a limb and propose what I will call "Nate's Theorem": There is an inverse relationship between the number of views on a given subject and the likelihood that any one of those views is true to the exclusion of others.
What makes Goldstein's statement so risibly circular can readily be demonstrated by the following statement: "Well, it's certainly not unreasonable to think, with all those evolutionary views out there, that one of them has to be true."
The more interesting question for me is why Erv has such an obssession with holding his "good friend" up to ridicule. Beware when Erv prefaces his remarks by characterizeing you as his good friend. When Erv calls you his good friend, the odds are about 98% that he plans to have some fun at your expense. 🙂 In this case, he succeeded well.
Dear Mrs Nelson
I kinda like your "eeny, meeny, miney, mo" line you've used – but in terms evolution theory and all the "eeny, meeny, miney, mo" stuff that goes with it. Perhaps the US uses this when they bomb other countries that don't bow down to capitalist democracy's jihad on Islam – "eeny, meeny, miney, mo-hammed."
To strongly suggest (or scoff/mock) that Mr Goldstein uses this same method of reasoning to me reeks of a deep seeded bitterness towards traditionally held Adventist Beliefs. The big question of course is what if Adventists like Mr Goldstein are right? Will you come back to Adventism?
Does Cliff represent beliefs of all Adventists? Or is he only one of many who speak their beliefs and have a bully pulpit? Who decides if he is representative of the SdA church or other spokesmen who disagree with his thesis? There are hundreds of SdA scholars who would not state publicly what he has written, and many are teachers at the seminary. Are they less qualified than Cliff who has no terminal degree in theology and whose undergraduate education was at Wildwood and Weimar?
What comes to my mind is, if Adventism does not have the Truth, then why are we all calling ourselves Adventists? Shouldn't we all just run for our lives in search of truth? Why are we waisting our time within the Adventist Church, calling and identifying ourselves as Adventists?
If we're claiming to follow Christianity, then we must know that no one can be saved by any name under the Heavens, except by the name of Jesus Christ (Acts 12). The Bible reveals God, as long as we seek Him with all our hearts (Jeremiah 26:13). The text is clear. We will never be able to find the Truth as it is in Jesus Christ while a part of our hearts dabbles in our perception of Christianity while another part of our hearts contemplates other thruths and decides that the Truth as it is in Jesus Christ can be also found in ideologies and philosophies and writtings of those we considered to be 'deep' but who did not follow the Truth purely as it is in Jesus Christ… I marvel at the thought.
I've always been hard press to find the logic behind the reasoning which some professed followers of Jesus Christ find when deciding that there must be Truth outside of Jesus Christ. That's a deep contradiction. Christianity makes very bold claims, just one of them can be found in Acts 4:12… How, as Christians, can we seek the enterity and the purity of the Truth as it is Jesus Christ outside of Him and His Word is beyond me.
As a woman in her twenties who loves God, I want to seek Him with all my Heart. If I am going to be a Christian, which by definition means one who follows Jesus Christ, then it stands to reason that I must know whom I follow and earnestly strive to be close to Him, to abide with Him, to emulate Him. By default, that love for my Saviour Jesus Christ, that deep appreciation for the sacrifice He made for me and that gratitude for the gift of salvation He gave me, will undoubdedly lead me to His Word. And when I pick up His Word, I better believe it is unequivocally and unmistakably His Word, otherwise I am just foolishly wasting my time. Once I'm reading His Word I am able to appreciate Thruths such as the Sabbath and a Second Coming and that there's no Eternal Hell and that niether there is no Rapture, I start looking into Daniel and Revelation, comparing it to other writtings and beliefs, and I'm able to see the one Protestant Denomination that makes sense is Adventism. For me, it was a no brainer. There's a reason why I call my self a Seventh-day Adventist and I choose to congregate on the Sabbath Day with my fellow SDA believers. Intellectually, it makes sense to be an Adventist. We have to freedom to follow whatever ideology and to worship whatever God we choose. Yet the majority on this post choose to call themselves Seventh-day Adventist. They do so for a reason.
What is truth? If we are seeking truth, then there must be a lie. As an elementary school teacher I have dealt with children who will argue about something, sometimes leading to a physical encounter. When dealing with the problem I have had to separate the facts from fiction. We have a choice. We can choose Christ, who is Truth. We can choose Satan, who is fiction. Truth is found in the Bible. The challenge comes from Elijah on Mount Carmel when he said, "How long will you halt between two opinions? If the Lord is God, follow Him; but if Baal, follow him." I Kings 18:21. I don't think there should be any question about what truth is. Truth is the life that Jesus led showing us the true Character of God. Written with a Chuckle.
Food for Thought: In 1947 Bertrand Russell wrote "When one admits that nothing is certain one must, I think, also admit that some things are much more nearly certain than others." We'll go with Jesus as the way and the Truth…
For those of you who are hung up on the question of whether Adventism is true or not, please remember, that is not the issue that is contested here. The issue is why Goldstein would choose such fallacious reasoning to advance that hypothesis. See my response to Trevor earlier today.
“With so many faiths, views and religions out there, how do I know Seventh-day Adventism is the truth?”
As "I" see it, there is no way of doing so.
To bounce of Nathan's "Berry" good illustration, the problem is falsification. It is possible to verify "which" berries are edible and which are not. But faith claims, as most religious claims are, are not so. Most, if not all, the truth claims (Berries) of the many faiths, views and religions out there are intrinsically "unfalsifiable". If you cannot "prove" any one or more claims as "false", you cannot "prove" other claims as truth. Hence, we cannot conclude which one has the "truth", or even the "most truth".
I agree with the inverse relationship of ideas to the likelihood of any particular one holding truth. To bounce of that: 1 + 1 = 2 is pretty much universally accepted as "true". Are there any alternative claims that 1 + 1 in fact =7? No.
Why is this so? It seems to me, because 1 + 1 = 7 is falsifiable, and things that are falsifiable restrain the "creative license" for alternatives.
Does this suggest that the myriad of religious faith claims out there are the result of "unrestrained" imagination or "creative license"?
Now that's a thought…
… Perhaps the answer to the question posed lies implicit within itself. The "fact" that there are so many faiths, views and religions out there is the very evidence that none of them are "truth" (at least in their entirety)? That would make me wrong in my assertion that we cannot know if Seventh-day Adventism has the truth. It would in fact mean that we can know the answer: None of them do, so neither can the Adventism…
After all, if there were a 1 + 1 = 2 among them, they would likely not all exist!!
Precisely, Chris!
Another analogy: How do I know my wife is the most beautiful woman in the world? (Of course she is!) Well, with so many beautiful women out there, it is certainly not unreasonable to think that one of them is the most beautiful. Ergo, it must be my wife.
,Of course your firm belief has nothing to do with that statement and it is completely objective to all others: your wife is the most beautiful of all wives (that are yours).
When any religion is based on objective facts, it is no longer a religion; all religions are based on faith which cannot be subjected to falsifiability nor any tests of logic. This is the insanity of those who attempt to "prove" by facts that their particular religious belief is based on absolute facts. It is based solely on faith which is devoid of logic and ration.
A few random much too long comments on a few of the comments:
(1) To my good friend Nate, I would take great exception to his view concerning my comment about “my good friend Cliff” and specifically to Nate’s statement about my holding Cliff up “to ridicule.” Perhaps Nate holds to a unique definition of “ridicule.” If it means its primary dictionary definition of “the subjection of someone or something to mockery and derision,” then I would insist that I have never done that knowingly with regard to Cliff, and if Nate or anyone else can point to an example, I would very much appreciate a quotation.
Over the years, what I have done, or tried to do, is to simply quote Cliff and point out what I view his major logical problems and misunderstandings that involve his views on so many areas of traditional Adventist doctrine. I guess that Nate must have a different definition of “friendship.” Simply because Cliff and I disagree about nearly everything theologically and with regard to Adventist polity, that does not mean that we cannot be friends. As I have mentioned on a number of occasions, I attribute a large part of our disagreements to our respective status vis-à-vis church affiliation. Cliff is a convert. I am a third generation Adventist. That sociological fact probably explains quite a lot.
(2) Partly in terms of this point, might I mention that I would take a very tiny bit of exception to Elaine’s comment that Cliff is “shallow.” I would rather like to suggest that, on some topics, especially dealing with science and even on some points of theology and church history, it would seem that he may not have read in sufficient depth and thus his statements cannot be taken seriously by those aware of the literature that informs a particular topic. No one can be an expert on more than one of two subjects and thus anything that we comment on outside of our given area of expertise should be viewed with appropriate caution. (Of course, that fact does not interfere with my pontificating on a whole host of topics.)
(3) Back to my good friend Nate again—“Nate’s Theorem” has a lot going for it: “There is an inverse relationship between the number of views on a given subject and the likelihood that any one of those views is true to the exclusion of others.” May I suggest that the key phrase is “to the exclusion of others.” It seems to me that many evaluative errors are made using arguments that are of the binary “either/or” type. It seems to me that, for many topics especially dealing with theological questions, a pluralist “both/and” model usually comes closer to better understanding what really is going on. For example, I would suggest that the original teachings of Jesus and Gautama (The Buddha) – assuming at least some of their core ideas survived several thousand years of “interpretation” and “elaboration” by their followers–can be understood to be “right” depending on what aspect of reality one wishes to focus upon. (The relationship of Jesus and “Christianity” is another matter. How Paul and Augustine “interpreted” the teachings of Jesus is for another time.)
I just noticed that the last comment conflicts with several opinions posted in response to the blog.
With respect to one of Nate’s comments that the subject of how does one “knows” Adventism is the truth is not at issue. May I remind him that I did ask for comments specifically on that very point. However, in addition, why Cliff chose, to use Nate’s wording, “fallacious reasoning” to advance his argument is also an interesting question.
Finally, may I affirm the comment of “cb25” that there is simply “no way” of knowing if Adventism is “true” in its whole or parts. That one may have grave doubts on many of its traditional teachings is to be expected, but “knowing” is another matter. We all hold personal opinions about this and that theological concept, but we can “know” with certainty very little objectively about these kinds of topics. As one of my granddaughters would say: Duh! As is true in most things, there is a vast spectrum of degrees of “knowing.” (Actually, Cliff has done a look of reading in this area. The conclusions that he draws from that reading is for another time.)
Erv, I didn't deny that you were actually good friends with Cliff. I merely said, beware when Erv starts off comment or blog by referencing the person to whom is responding as "my good friend." I stand corrected. You don't generally hold Cliff up to ridicule, though in this case, given the logic of his defense of Adventism as truth, it is hard to resist the temptation. You merely make a vigorous attempt to skewer his opinions.
It's nice to know that Dr Taylor reads (or skims through) the Adventist Review. What I have found interesting (but not surprising) in Dr Taylor's questioning of Mr Goldstein's question, as mentioned in the AR article, is that the question is raised in the context of his early belief in Jesus and how he had then asked himself how he would know if Adventism is the truth. The first part of the sentence which precedes the question which Dr Taylor for some unknown reason has clearly omitted quoting, says that: "Very early as a believer in Jesus, I struggled with the question."
Mr Goldstein's closing remarks tie it in when he says towards the end that: "And with the grand revelation of Him in the Bible, which includes powerful evidence for the resurrection of Jesus Christ, along with the confirming ministry of Ellen White, and my own life-changing experiences with Jesus, what else can I be but a Seventh-day Adventist? Believing that we have the truth doesn’t mean we have all the answers." This statement will no doubt still make progressives 'squawk' but he is right in that his belief that Adventists have the truth is not based on speculation or his own version of truth but by holding to Bible based beliefs and having Christ as our anchor we can truly say we have the truth. For example the biblical basis for the prophetic existence of Adventism is not based on what we say but on the Bible. That is the gospel truth so to speak. If Adventists don't – then who has it? [John 17:17 – "Sanctify them through your truth: your word is truth."]
Very early as a believer in Jesus, I struggled with the question: With so many faiths, views, and religions out there, how do I know Seventh-day Adventism is the truth?
[http://www.AdventistReview.org | Mar ch 20, 2014 | (247) Page 23]3
The Catholic church claims to have the truth; the Mormons claim to have the truth; Adventists claim to have the truth. How can one determine which one is right?
Thank you Elaine. For anyone who cannot answer this question, please close this web page and go someplace else. If you don't know why you are an Adventist and not a Catholic or a Mormon and what the difference is, I am very very sorry for you.
Well Trevor and there you have it. If the religion is based on the bible and Christ as our center then that religion has the truth. Are you sure you want to hang onto that reasoning? The bible is very open to interpretation and the SDA interpretation of the bible is fairly narrow. Finding "truth" in religion is futile. Yes, because of your personal experience you believe that Adventism is the truth but that is self referential and your claim is anecdotal.
"If Adventist don't [have the truth], then who has it?" Classic question that, of course, needs a answer to the following before it can be answered. The question is: What and who's "truth" are you talking abour? If a typical answer is given, the answer would be: "No religious institution has "The" truth." If they are luckly, different religious traditions may have a tiny, tiny piece of it." Again, this answer depends on what the "It" is.
The Truth is infinite, but all human organizations are finite. Thus no human organization can have The Truth, no matter how many there are. That is why Jesus is The Truth and not a church or a book or some secret fact.
ARGUMENT
Cliff makes the standard arguments in favor of “the reality of God”: something can not come from nothing, “design in the created world still declares, without ceasing, a Designer.”
Then Cliff argues authorities: Moses, Isaiah, Paul, John, Kant, Jesus, Ellen White, his own life experiences, and Mernie Molnar of his “first Seventh-day Adventist contacts,” are more credible than Dawkins, Darwin, and Hitchens.
Goldstein’s discussion of presuppositions is confused and contradictory. He states that his “a priori presuppositions about how the world works though (trust me) [mine] are not a priori. Yet they are presuppositions. But so what? Nothing can be believed without presuppositions. The key is to have the correct ones.”
Here they are: God is “all loving, all-knowing, and all powerful”, “the great controversy” explains evil, and “Seventh-day Adventism is the truth.” (Cliff does admit, however, that these presuppositions have not permitted him to “make sense of the Holocaust, the Trinity, or Daniel 11”!)
COMMENTARY
1. These standard, quasi-scientific arguments fail to answer the basic question, “Who created/designed the Designer?”
2. The authorities’ argument is legitimate if the debate is about the existence of God.
3. This discussion of a priori presuppositions boils down to a claim that his are “the correct ones.”
4. The reason for a priori reasoning is to explain things. If it doesn’t or can’t, it is regarded as questionable. But when Cliff admits he can’t explain “the Holocaust, the Trinity, or Daniel 11,” he cavalierly comments, “Who cares?”
Cliff’s claims “to see the reality of God everywhere…in everything, even in all that I don’t know.” That’s fine with me. So why not just say it? Why this pseudo philosophical, careless essay? That is a question I urge Cliff and the readers of “The Reality of God” to carefully consider.
Being able to "explain" something does not mean that an "explanation" is valid.
Having many different (and even mutually exclusive) explanations does not imply
that any of them is correct.
Different explanations are likely to vary in the degree to which they capture or
approximate or approach a comprehensive (or even superficial or specific)
characterization of objective reality (or even subjective reality), let alone,
ultimate reality. Furthermore, there is much slippage between what an
"explainer" understands or intends and the extent to which anyone in his
or her audience grasps the explanation.
What someone "knows" is often quite private and personal and unexplainable
or unverifiable. Rather often what is "known" is what can be called "private
knowledge." One can "know by faith," as I recall Graham Maxwell saying
at PUC long ago.
But how does private knowledge relate to "truth?" What might be called
"personal truth" may have little objective linkage with "ultimate truth" or
objectively verifiable reality.
My personal preference is to hold what I think is true or valid quite gently
and tentatively, to be open to new evidence, and to revise continuously
what I think best approaches reality. But even with this ongoing testing
of reality and seeking of validity (search for truth), I choose not to be
immobilized by uncertainty. I act on what I think is the best available
evidence at the time action seems to me to be needed.
Given my own tentative and flexible grasp of reality, I find the insistence
by others that they have found "the truth" pretty unconvincing. Even the
concepts of "the reality of God" or that "Jesus and truth are synonymous"
seem very elusive of evidence.
The shattering of Christianity (and other religions) into thousands of shards
suggests to me that the details of their explanations cannot reflect valid
and verifiable reality. Could they be true in some more general sense?
Maybe it is anyone's guess….
What is "the truth" about the missing Malaysian airliner?
There is some reality. Surely we can all recognize that there is some reality.
Some "truth." Some "objective truth." Some "tangible reality."
We just do not know what the truth is, in this case.
Will we ever know? Maybe we will, and maybe we won't; but we
probably will eventually know some of the truth about what happened.
How will we know? When objective information surfaces that helps
us better understand what happened.
We cannot just make up the answers about this or anything else. We
need evidence. Even when solid evidence is found, it is unlikely to
tell the wholle story. But tangible evidence can confirm whether or
not the airliner crashed and in what general area.
How does all this relate to the spirit world that is so real to some?
"WHAT IS TRUTH"???? JOHN: CHAPTER 16: 1-3
"In the beginning was the "WORD", the WORD was with GOD, the WORD was GOD". The same (JESUS) was in the beginning with GOD. ALL THINGS WERE MADE BY HIM.
VERSE 14 "AND THE WORD WAS MADE FLESH, AND DWELT AMONG US".
The above are the words of John, the apostle, the scribe who also brought us theBook of Revelation. If we don't believe the writer John, we have no truth at all, of GOD, of the WORD OF TRUTH, JESUS CHRIST. GOD the ANCIENT OF DAYS IS THE CREATOR OF ALL THINGS; JESUS CHRIST IS THE ANCIENT OF DAYS.
Some believe every single word, every single story, every single event inclusive in the Bible is literal and infallible. It's sixty six parts, supposedly given by inspiration of the HOLY SPIRIT. Yes, some of it is,"but not all", and "some" was given to prophets since the Bible was canonized. But all inclusions from which man has fleshed out his doctrinal beliefs are not truth, but some is anecdotal, paraphasical, and metaphorical, and of course additional embellishments, just as occurred with the authors of the sixty six books,hers have added their own interpretations.
REMEMBER, the word of the book has "some truth", but is not the truth.
JESUS CHRIST IS THE "''WORD""", THE TRUTH, THE LIFE, THE ONLY WAY TO THE FATHER. JESUS IS LOVE. HE said No one, No, not one, cometh to the FATHER except by ME, YOU'VE SEEN ME, YOU'VE SEEN THE FATHER. THE ONLY TRUTH IS JESUS CHRIST.
“Readers will note the phrases ‘so-called progressives’ and ‘so-called Adventists.’”
Yes. Noted it many times. This is a face of Adventism. He represents us. This is a man who supposedly is employed by the denomination to invite people in rather than out. Or perhaps it is the shaking. He will push us inferior believers out with his own mighty will.
Ervins comment that "Like a fine wine, you can really depend on him (Cliff) to provide a unique insight or “taste” of what dedicated, traditional Adventists are expected to think. And, if you want to keep up on what the current GC establishment wants Adventists to think, it's required reading." is not the case any longer as church leaders are not prepared to endorse Cliff's position regarding the little horn, or his position regarding Daniel 8:9-14, as the official, or preferred, church teaching today.
This is interesting in regard to the current revision of the 28 Fundamental Beliefs, cf. Adventist News Network, re the Annual Council Delegates Review Suggested Rewording to 28 Fundamental Beliefs. As the Church Manual currently states that Adventists should accept and follow the Fundamental Beliefs of the Church, this raises the following concerns.
• Alternative interpretations of the voted Fundamental Belief statements continues to result in confusion, censure, and disfellowshipment for many.
• People fear to question church teachings due to the stigma attached, and far too many find the back door the only alternative.
• As some Fundamental Belief statements, e.g. 6, and 24, allow for alternative interpretations, a rewording of the Church Manual's section regarding discipline for doctrinal reasons appears to be critical.
The call for the Divisions to forward additional input by the first of June provides an opportunity for the Divisions to address the back door syndrome. This admittedly would require a considerable shift in Church policy regarding:
A. the current credal status generally associated with the voted Fundamental Belief statements.
B. The current legalistic church culture, that all too often resorts to censure, and disfellowshipment, as the answer to resolving doctrinal issues.
As 2015 provides an opportunity for the church to take a new approach to the manner in which controversal, and or, alternative doctrinal issues are handled. It would be like a breath of fresh if the church at the 1015 session called for the overhaul of system polocies that have proven to be detrimental long term.
There are two types of truth: objective and subjective. this discussion seems focused on the objective kind Paul says that truth is only that which is found in Jesus. Eph. 4:21. We can argue over objective truth for ever and never come to agreement. Richard Dawkins and Francis Collins, both eminent scholars, have access to the same objective truth but come to opposite conclusions on the existence of God. So I would like to suggest that the real question should be Is there such a thing as relational truth? For those who believe in God the Bible seems very clear that what saves a person is not primarily objective truth, what you know, but subjective truth, who you know.
All religious belief is subjective truth.
AGREED, J. David, to your last two lines.
David N, greetings, some time no see:)
Question:According to the criteria you are using is I + 1= 2
A. Subjective truth or
B. Objective truth
Chris. 1 +. 1. =. 2. Is objective truth although some philosopher could makean argument against that.
Thanks David,
Agreed.
I notice you made this point:
"We can argue over objective truth for ever and never come to agreement."
There is essentially universal agreement on the objective truth of 1+1, and that for example the earth is not flat, etc, and a squillion other objective "truths" which are agreed upon for the same reasons.
It would seem to be an objective, measureable fact that the more objectively something can be examined, measured, understood, the less argument, and the more agreement there is about the validity of its claim.
Question: Does this observation, if correct, invalidate your point above?
ps if anyone thinks we are OT, the answers to these type of questions are pivotal to Dr Taylor's closing question which he invited us to discuss or offer views on…
Chris. No. But my other point still stands. There will always be the Dawkins and Collins just under other names. And why is that? Because agreeing on the presuppositions by which we interpret objective truth is the challenge.
David,
I think you mean "Yes. But my other point still stands…" ?
.. and I would say, no it does not stand:
The challenge of agreeing on the "presuppositions by which we interpret objective truth.." is made much simpler by reversing the problem. In fact I would put to you that it is not a problem at all if one does this. Here's how I would reverse it:
Allow objectively verifiable "facts", "data", such as 1 + 1 = 2, to confront my presuppositions. NOT the other way around. How, in one's wildest dreams, can they allow presuppositions to have greater weight than objective data, facts etc?
The examples you give of Dawkins and Collins imho are two examples of doing this (Dawkins), and failing to do this (Collins).
In failure to find agreement on objective "truth" the problem does not lay with objectivity as you suggest. The problem lays with the tendency of people to allow subjectivity and, often subjectively held presuppositions, to get in the way of their assessment of objective data, facts, "truths" etc.
There may be such a thing as "relational truth", but your reasons for seeking it, and throwing out objective truth are, imho, based on a failure to see why two people such as D and C come to such different conclusions, supposedly using the same objective data.
It seems to me this is back to the old problem of different glasses and world views, but the problem only persists because people (you) refuse to let go of subjectively held presuppositions. It is no better than clinging to the idea that 1 + 1 = 7 because one has subjectively come to hold different mathematical presuppositions – in spite of everybody saying otherwise!
Get Collins to let go his non-negotiable pre committment to a certain "authority" which dictates certain presuppositions, and in a heartbeat he would agree that 1 + 1 indeed = 2
Chris you have just made my point. Thank you. You support Dawkins because you agree with his presuppositions. You disagree with Collins because you disagree with his presuppositions. You don't think that Dawkins has no "subjectively held presuppositions?" You are claiming an impossibility. There is no such person who is totally objective.
David,
I do not suggest that D has no presuppositions. That would be absurd. But, I would suggest he has less than C! Big time..
Chris. You also write. There may be such a thing as "relational truth", but your reasons for seeking it, and throwing out objective truth are, imho, based on a failure to see why two people such as D and C come to such different conclusions, supposedlyusing the same objective data."
I never said I throw out objective truth. I believe strongly in truth. However, I am coming from the viewpoint of God and salvation and what God desires is a relationship with His people. I have a relationship with my wife that is very subjective and I also have objective truth about her but the objective truth has NO meaning if I do not have a subjective relationship with her.
You can only have a subjective relationship with your wife because she objectively exists.
If you can objectively demonstrate that God exists, that He desires relationship, and that salvation is, what, fact?, then, by all means, subjective relationship takes on meaning – as it does with your wife. But, you certainly can't have the latter without the former, so the former must dictate conclusions about the latter…
I don't want this to be just a two conversation between Chris and I. And the reason we are unlikely to agree is because of our own subjectivity. Since neither of us can be totally objective
Hmmmm. So, there is no such thing as an authentic Christian, no such thing as a relationship with God because you cannot "prove" that he exists. So the millions of Christians down through the ages were just deluded fools. That seems to be your point.
Sadly, David, if you consider these points below:
Nathan first suggested that:
* "There is an inverse relationship between the number of views on a given subject and the likelihood that any one of those views is true to the exclusion of others."
And then,
* my point about 1 + 1 etc restraining alternative imaginative ideas,
And then Joe's point,
* "The shattering of Christianity (and other religions) into thousands of shards
suggests to me that the details of their explanations cannot reflect valid
and verifiable reality."
Food for deep thought. If we cannot know the answer to Dr T's question about SDAism having truth, that is bad enough – if we take it seriously.
If in fact these points above are allowed their full weight, your suggestion of deluded fools lurks on the borders of possible does it not?
to add. Why does it lurk on the border of possible? Because it would suggest we can in fact know the answer to Dr T's question. The answer would be that none of them have the "truth". Parts? Bits? "shreds", perhaps….?
My challenge is understanding the philosophy behind all these arguments. Someone explains this much better than me. See the following link about whether God is Imaginary. http://www.reasonablefaith.org/is-god-imaginary
David,
Well, I had a read of the link. I hope others did too. My response to it would be offensive, so I'll just shake my head and mutter to myself…
Cheers
It is 10:30 pm and I am off to bed
'…he insisted that his understanding of Truth (notice the capital “T”), classical Adventism’s take on Truth, and Truth itself are essentially the same… On what basis are the answers provided by Adventism that “One Truth”?'
Perhaps I have a different Bible version to Mr Goldstein and everyone else, but I thought the Bible taught only Jesus was the Truth (captial T) and the Word (capital W). Thus, Christianity is unique in that it says ultimate knowledge about God is found in a person – not a book.
Moreover, ultimate Truth (capital T) is then a matter of relationship, with Jesus Christ, not just dogma. One can know all the prophecies of Daniel and Revelation (and I am not denying them) but if they don't help you to know Jesus better, then you don't have 'the Truth' at all.
I do believe in Adventism – there are many facets to it. There is its emphasis on Jesus the Second Adam (via the Great Controversy theme), Jesus the sacrifice (through its Sanctuary theme), Jesus the restorer of creation of this world (through emphasis on a physical Second Coming and New Earth), Jesus the restorer of our corporal bodies (as opposed to some etheral existence and embrace of our health message), and rejection of magick (through many of our beliefs, notably the Sabbath). I could go on.
But the point is they must all come back to Jesus. As Karl Barth once said, 'All Christian dogma is Christology.'
Some help me with this: If we were to run into 'truth,' how would we know it was truth?
Steve,
At risk of being trite: Jesus? Poor Zeus!
Point being that to grant the Bible – whatever version – the authority to make those claims about Jesus is an incredibly subjective presupposition as I see it.
This is why I say to David, we must begin at the best possible objective data, methods, information and move back from there. Doing so leaves the Bible's claims just one among a squillion religious claims.
To morph Barth: All Christian dogma is Christology, and all Christology is founded on the very subjective presupposition that the Bible has the authority to declare Christ existed, let alone all the others claims about him.
Chris, the essence of Christianity is actually to embrace the subjective. Good luck trying to find 'objective' truth – you'll never find it.
Steve,
I did not mean to suggest we can actually find objective truth in the final sense. Very much like Joe suggested above, I think we only ever move forward with better aproximations of things that are probably closer to being true than the step before.
On your other point. If indeed the essence of Christianity is to embrace the subjective (how and why so I fail to see, except as it becomes a "cop-out" for the absence of objective bases), then Christianity, as with any other religious persuasion is just a "flip a coin" proposition. Luck of birth, personal choice, etc.
And even worse, there has been some pretty intense little personal testimonies above about the Truth of Jesus: in the context of subjective those are deeply meaningfull to the individuals, but in the scope of Dr T's question totally meaningless. But then, perhaps not, perhaps they just demonstrate that the answer is "whatever suits me", and if it is Adventism, then that IS the Truth…
Of course, for those whom it is Islam, or Satanism, or… then most here would have no trouble seeing that delusion is lurking at the borders…
Just happens that our own "truth" is always the clearest, least delusional, and well, subjectively true.. but hang, so what?
….:) Not!
i love you Chris, subjectively, because i'm unable to personally love you,objectively.
Makes sense to me, and J. David's love for wife. say what??
Darrel, there is only one way to spell ultimate T R U T H. there is no truth, there is only relational data that appears genuine, subjectively of course.
“With so many faiths, views and religions out there, how do I know Seventh-day Adventism is the truth?”
I don't, I find that for me it comes closer than all the other Christian denominations in making sense and yet still believing in the inspiration of the Bible. That is using truth (small t). I don't use the word Truth (large T) unless I am talking about Christ who came to represent it. There is only one Truth and it doesn't find identity in one human organization, but in the hearts of all who love God and their fellow humans.
What we choose as truth can decide the kind of person we are becoming and what kind of God we worship. It defines us and how we treat others–with respect, compassion, kindness, etc. (especially if they disagree).
Perhaps Erv would like to do a post sometime on how he defines 'a friend'! I can't hep but feel that he has a rather different view from me on that subject. But then I am fussy about who I class as a friend. 😎
Definition …
friend
noun ˈfrend
: a person who you like and enjoy being with.
Chris. How do I know that you exist? All I have are your posts on this site. Maybe you are someone else masquerading under this identity. You decide to objectively "prove" who you are so you get on a plane and come Dulles Airport, rent a car, and arrive at my home. You show me your passport. I declare it is a forgery. You produce a friend to vouch for you. I say you have bribed that person No matter what evidence you produce I can find a way to explain it away. The article you "choked" on gave this great quote. More recently, New York University Professor Thomas Nagel has said something similar: “I want atheism to be true and am made uneasy by the fact that some of the most intelligent and well-informed people I know are religious believers.” He continues: “It isn’t just that I don’t believe in God and, naturally, hope that I’m right in my belief. It’s that I hope there is no God! I don’t want there to be a God; I don’t want a universe like that.”4
Read more: http://www.reasonablefaith.org/is-god-imaginary#ixzz2xXAaPyOI
There is nothing I can say or prove subjective or objectively that will convince you of the truth about God if you do not want to believe.
David,
If I don't want to believe? You are free to quote the exceptional folk who actually want the universe to be god free, (I doubt there are many of them) but it is almost insulting to label that on those of us for whom that is not the case.
I would love and value nothing more than to believe. I did for years. You know, if I miss one thing about ministry it is the preaching. I was a good preacher (based on feedback), and one of the reasons for that was my ability to dig and discover "truths" "ideas" etc from the Bible that many missed – and to get them across. It is the same desire to dig, look for evidence, and follow it, that has led me to where I am. Whilst I dug inside what seemed to me like the whole world of "evidence" – the Bible: all was good. When I could no longer deny the constantly nagging inconsistencies at the edges of my questioning and research, things were not so good. I found my whole world of "evidence", upon and within which I was a good preacher, amounted to nothing more than a fishbowl.
Now I can no longer believe – NOT because I don't want to – but for the very reasons that I was also a good Bible student – digging and following information. I sometimes wish I could be as so many ministers (peers) seem to be: happy to keep their eyes fixed within the confines of safe thinking. I would still have a job, respect, a name – be someone in "my" Church – instead of becoming invisible to most and definately to the Conference. We are a very uncaring Church at times, believe me!
No David. I exist, I am me, and I wish to God I could believe – but I absolutely refuse to do so on the absence of evidence for the same reasons I refused to preach things that were not based on "evidence" from "God's Word"! (Of course, what I could preach as pertains the SDA doctrines shrunk every time I tested them within the Word. They fell into the "shoddy" evidence region one by one. When examined in similar vein the Bible itself fell into the same zone – indefensible.)
For me it is a matter of integrity and honesty, when I realized I was in a fishbowl – I had to swim in the ocean. Having struggled through that journey, I have to admit at times I wonder how others can be happy with their heads… well .. in the sand – to shift the analogy.
Yes, I did choke on Lane. The reasoning was so shoddy. And that's my polite side speaking:)
.
We inject meaning into such symbols as 1 and 2, and part of that meaning
depends on which number system base we are using. In base ten, which is what
we usually use, 1 + 1 = 2. Not so much, if we are not using base 10. The number
system we use is a human invention.
Humans have invented many such rules to help establish objective validity. We
have standard units of measure and measurement devices that enable us to
communicate to one another distances and weights and brightness. The units
devised differ in different cultures, but we are able to translate yards to meters
and such. This gives us a basis for having knowledge that we can agree on–
knowledge that is objective, reliable, and valid.
Does how we "feel" about a mile matter? No and yes. How we feel about it does
not change how long a mile is. Yet, how tired we are may make us feel that the
distance is longer or shorter. Both are important considerations. How we feel may
change the amount of time (standard units of time) it takes us to walk a mile, but
our standard units of time and space serve as objective reference points.
As we live our lives, there are subjective and objective factors that matter. To
think otherwise seems to me to be delusional. We get into trouble when we
claim to know the minds of others, and we certainly lose something if we
discard attempts to approach objective validity and reliability.
The Collins versus Dawkins difference is in subjective belief. One chooses to
believe in God, while the other chooses to believe there is no God. Even so,
there are many objective facts on which they agree, including much about
molecular genomics and the value of scientific method to verify information
and advance knowledge.
A belief or conclusion may very well be based on how one feels about the
objective information of which one is aware. One may reach a conclusion
based on the existence of objective information or the lack of such. Some
people believe things despite objective evidence and others because objective
evidence exists or does not (as far as they know).
My own bias is a preference for giving objectively existing evidence due
consideration.
Chris. I hear you. But this cliche still stands. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Jesus had the same challenge. John records John 12:37 "Even after Jesus had done all these miraculous signs in their presence, they still would not believe in him." And I cannot speak to your experience. You know who you are. I can speak to my experience and I know there is a God who loves me, gave his life for me, and is coming again to finally put this world right. It boggles my mind to think that the God ofbthe universe desires a personal relationship with me. Why you do not have this experience, experienced by thousands of others I do not know. I long with all my heart for you to have this experience.
"Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence."
I consider this a valid assertion. That is why I cannot agree with Dawkins and Hitchens
and others who assert confidently that there is no God. I simply see no way of objectively
affirming the existence of God. So I do not claim He cannot or does not exist. I feel that
I cannot know. At the same time, I recognize that there was a time when I did "know."
I "knew by faith." That "knowledge" ended when I found I could no longer believe that
I knew.
I came to feel that believing one knows is an unreliable indicator of validity. This was
fueled in part by coming to know that many people believe and are "sure" about
conflicting concepts. They cannot all be correct, but they could all be incorrect.
Added to this was that what I was taught about recent creation is very likely and
almost certainly (about as certain as anything can be in terms of objective evidence)
NOT accurate. Not objectively valid. Even though we all KNEW the creation
story was literally true. It is far from believable in many ways.
I came to suspect that not much else taught to me by people who taught me that
the creation story was literally true could be trusted without independent verification.
Being sure one is right is just not a convincing pathway to what is really real.
Joe,
I fully agree, the absence of evidence is a valid assertion. My problem with the link David gave is the way the guy argues the case and that the conclusions he then draws from that argument are then highly suspect.
The argument that absence of evidence does not mean absence of existence is very valid, and for the same reasons I simply say "at this point I don't or cannot know…yet, or maybe never…".
"there is no truth, there is only relational data that appears genuine, subjectively of course." This is the problem-subjectivity! Earl, I asked the question to underscore the fact of what some are promoting as 'objective truth' here is simply subjective assertions!
Joe Truth in the end is subjective Otherwise how do you explain Peter Hitchens moving from a denial of God to an acceptance of God while his brother Christopher continued to deny God? Again, they both had the same evidence
David, I agree to a degree, But would you say that there is objective and rational truth that stand alone. Like what Emmanuel Kant argued that 'the mere act of reason itself surpasses nature, transcends emotions, trumps urges, and upstages instincts.' I would say that objective truth is always filtered through our subjecitivities, but still visible, no?
David, I agree to a degree, But would you say that there is objective and rational truth that stand alone. Like what Emmanuel Kant argued that 'the mere act of reason itself surpasses nature, transcends emotions, trumps urges, and upstages instincts.' I would say that objective truth is always filtered through our subjecitivities, but still visible, no?
Joe, could you explain what is the means of "independent verification?"
There seems to be a lot of confusion about what is meant by "objective" and
"subjective," as well as "truth."
I think of "truth" as that which is real, valid, actual, aside from what one might perceive,
conceive of, or believe.
Things that are valid can (often, but not always) be detected and described or measured
reliably by more than one person. This is the principle behind validation and verification.
There is, of course, a sense in which everything that enters human consciousness is
subjective, so that point is well taken. However, methods of verification enable us
to evaluate and validate actual events by moving beyond personal experience to
include and access the personal experience of others and match them up.
So, are some here making the argument that reality does not exist outside our
subjective experience? That there is no such thing as actual physical reality?
That all that exists is some spiritual dimension that is only accessible by human
subjective experience? Seriously?
I don't quite see how anyone is accountable for anything in a purely subjective universe.
My subjective impression is that I live in an actual, physical universe in which material
exists and causal relationships exist, and in which some intangible phenomena emerge,
including consciousness and awareness (based on physical realities).
"I don't quite see how anyone is accountable for anything in a purely subjective universe." I agree!!
Thus statements like–“Morality is a biological adaptation no less than are hands and feet and teeth. Considered as a rationally justifiable set of claims about an objective something, ethics is illusory,” are logically consistent with materialism, given that 'materialism' is "objectively" true, which fortunately it is not.
“Evolutionary Theory and Christian Ethics,” in The Darwinian Paradigm (London: Routledge, 1989), pp. 262-269)
Darrell, yours is a good question. Again, it depends on your presuppositions. And whether you are talking about a concrete reality or an abstract reality. How do you measure and prove love? I don't believe that it can be done by the laws of science, yet most people would agree that love exists. How do you measure a relationship? I believe there is objective truth but as I pointed out with the Hitchen Brothers even the truth that was around them was seen differently. In the end I believe there needs to be a large dose of humility in our assertions. I believe that we should speak with conviction and passion but always be open to revising our beliefs. I have certainly changed many of the years. And it it hard to be humble if you believe you are right.
Joe, I like how you write. You say,
"Things that are valid can (often, but not always) be detected and described or measured
reliably by more than one person. This is the principle behind validation and verification."
I like how you are not an absolutist even in this statement. I agree, that some truths are without dispute for most people. The sun rises in the east and sets in the west is a truth that most people will agree on. Then comes a slippery slope where the clear line between what everyone will agree to, to what people will disagree about becomes the challenge. A great example of the challenge of truth is how the US Supreme Court has changed some of its interpretations of the Constitution over the years. Each time they pronounced it was the truth at the time but that truth could change.
I believe that God knowing our arguing over truth set a simple standard by which to know who his real disciple were. Jesus said, "By this all people will know who are my disciples by how you love another." That is relational truth, which, I believe, trumps all objective truth. And I am far from being as loving as I should and could but that is my objective.
Thank you David, this is certainly true: "there needs to be a large dose of humility in our assertions. " I have changed my beliefs much over the years as well. It seems that this in fact is one of the commonalities for all of us. Humility is the word, you are so right!
Anytime we get into "isms" I think we have a little problem.
So, I can agree that "materialism" in the sense of assuming that nothing can
exist except the physical and tangible may not be accurate.
However, the physical and tangible are verifiable objectively. What is
objectively verifiable may well not be all there is. And there is much difficulty
pinning anything down if it is not objectively verifiable.
So, yes, I agree with David and Darrel that we all need to be humble
and it is not necessary nor desirable that we try to humiliate each other.
I merely urge that people be open to changing their beliefs and opinions,
especially when objective evidence is available. Attempts to force people
to strongly and rigidly believe incredible things just don't work out very well.
David makes reference and the excellent comments of many others address what is well known to be one of the major issues with which a whole spectrum of theologies of Western Christianity has wrestled almost from the beginning of its existence. As David suggests, in Christianity, the issue goes back to Paul and his Mars Hill experience. How do you deal, as Augustine put it, with the division between Athens and Jerusalem?
It was a major issue for Medieval Scholasticism. Medieval and modern Christian mystics contributed their own unique take on the ultimate source of their “Truth,” Since the Enlightenment and the rise of modern science, the issue has expanded into many different areas. It became a part of “reason and special revelation” disputes during the Modernist/Fundamentalist debates in both 19th and early 20th Century Catholicism and Protestantism.
Within our small Protestant faith tradition, it is an issue because one of our founders was a confirmed mystic who experienced the ultimate in subjective, visionary states and from her out-of-body-experiences offered her views about aspects of the natural world which, in some cases, conflicts with well-established scientific understandings.
Let us consider David’s position that there are two types of truth—he labels them objective and subjective. He then equates subjective truth and relational truth. David quotes a statement attributed to Paul “that truth is only that which is found in Jesus.” (Whether Paul actually wrote Ephesians, and whether the original text was actually addressed to Christians in that city, is a side issue) So now we have objective and subjective/relational “Truth.”
Broadly considered, this involves the classic contrast between objective scientific and a subjective spiritual/religious “knowing.”
Is there a way by which we can reconcile the conclusions of the application of these ways of knowing or “Truth” when they conflict? May I advance an unoriginal suggestion which I am sure many are aware? It is the approach advanced by the late paleontologist and evolutionary biologist Stephen Jay Gould. He called it “NOMA”—“Nonoverlapping Magisteria.” Both objective (scientific) and subjective (religious) “Truth” are clearly viewed by many as a source of information. The problem comes when they give conflicting answers. The solution is to view these two sources of information as two totally separate “Ways of Knowing.” Are the games of golf and basketball in conflict? What an absurd question! These are two different games with different rules of how to “play” them. How can they be “in conflict”?
Objective (scientific) and subjective (religious) “Truth” should never be considered to be in conflict – IF each will stay within the bounds of their “Ways of Knowing.” The United States National Academy of Science in 1999 states it in these terms: “Scientists, like many others, are touched with awe at the order and complexity of nature. Indeed, many scientists are deeply religious. But science and religion occupy two separate realms of human experience. Demanding that they be combined detracts from the glory of each.”
I have always welcomed Stephen Jay Gould's amazing mind and the conclusion which he adopted with his two different ways of defining truth as being in two separate and distinct categories. The problem with so many religious beliefs are the results of the attempt to conflate those two totally separate "truths."
Why should that be necessary for religious believers to attempt such an impossibility other than they cannot convince others of their subjective beliefs as being objective for everyone? If they could admit this one fact: religious belief and objective facts can never be the same, nor should that be attempted as it would then no longer be religion but merely accepted facts and people are not anxious to worship facts. There is a strong desire in many to believe; and some will believe in most anything that will support their fear of living without an external source of truth. It is in essence a religion of self: my personal beliefs are the god and guide of my life, the description of total trust in one's own decisions as faultless and unassailable. This is not the description of humility.
Erv, the challenge here is that Richard Dawkins does not agree with NOMA.
He "has criticized Gould's position on the grounds that religion does not, and cannot, be divorced from scientific matters or the material world. He writes, "it is completely unrealistic to claim, as Gould and many others do, that religion keeps itself away from science's turf, restricting itself to morals and values. A universe with a supernatural presence would be a fundamentally and qualitatively different kind of universe from one without. The difference is, inescapably, a scientific difference. Religions make existence claims, and this means scientific claims."[10] Gould's observation that "These two magisteria do not overlap…" does not consider the claims of many religions upon material reality, such as miracles or prayer.
Dawkins also argues that a religion free of divine intervention would be far different from any existent ones, and certainly different from the Abrahamic religions. Moreover, he claims that religions would be only too happy to accept scientific claims that supported their views. For example, if DNA evidence proved that Jesus had no earthly father, Dawkins claims that the argument of non-overlapping magisteria would be quickly dropped.[11]
Dawkins makes a more fundamental criticism of NOMA by stating that not all grammatically correct questions are legitimate (for example, "What does the color red smell like?"), and thus the Why? questions of religion do not necessarily deserve an answer.[12]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-overlapping_magisteria
Source:
Why it so important what Dawkins thinks? He is only one of many and not the best opponent. Stating one's beliefs without constant referral to one's opponent indicates a paucity of clear, stated convictions that are personalized. Fighting the opponent eliminates the necessity of stating clearly what one personally believes.
I certainly would expect Dawkins to disagree with the NOMA approach. I understand he is a fine scientist in his field of expertise, but hardly a spokesperson for the contemporary scientific community as a whole. The statement I quoted from the U.S. National Academies of Science better represents a broadly based point of view.. If I understand correctly Dawkins views, he is an ontological naturalist-materialist while the mainline scientific consensus is usually described as that of methodological naturalism. There is a major difference betweeen these two views.
I know that it might be difficult from especially a traditional Adventist perspective which is influenced by historic American fundamentalism to appreciate the distinction. Traditional Adventism tends to like the word "Truth" without appreciating that there are different types of "Truth" depending on where you wish to place the reference point. The "Truth that is in Jesus" position is dealing with one kind of "truth" statement and "the truth that life on earth is billions of years old" is another kind of "truth" statement. Those two assertions are referencing a very different set of data. If we are going to have a meaningful dialogue, it seems to me that we need to know what kind of truth claims we are making–objective (scientific) or subjective (religious).
🙂 I'm not even sure I can begin to imagine how keeping objective (scientific) and subjective (religious) claims and propositions within their respective bounds would affect discussions here on AT!
I think it would be a significant mind shift – to say the least – Could we do it? My gut feeling is that we can't because even in the context of methodological naturalism, and dismissing Dawkins, the boundaries seem to be rather blurred, perhaps even jagged and oppositional.
With that in mind, Dr T, I'm wondering if, when you describe these two categories of "truth claims" one can make, (objective (scientific) or subjective (religious), how you would see the relative "authority" of each of these? For example, the religious "truth claim" about salvation in Jesus, vs the scientific "truth claim" that humans are no more than a highly evolved primate in a long continuum. Thus to make claims of "salvation" in this context would seem to conflict with the nature and state of our being. In such cases, how would the authority of each way of stating "truth" play out?
Chris. None of us know, for a certainty, that mankind is here today because of theGenesis story, or more, a planned "evolved man" (not of the lineage of apes, and the other known primates, although we all have flesh, blood, bones, hair, and can walk upright. Those who accept the concept that all life is planned, engineered, by an infinite brain of intellectual perfection, able to design billions, maybe trillions of life, with infinite systems of being, and of long longevity, and of Earthly science's impossible ability to replicate even "one" simple life form, from nothing, doesn't require the athetistic scientific outlook. We believe the evidence of life in its complexity is of an intelligence that totally smashes the Athetists scientific answer.
Dear Dr. Taylor, one cannot make up a rule to say that the scientific method (MN) cannot detect the activity of Intelligence. I believe you are fundamentally correct on MN, but not when you apply it to intelligence. If you outlaw intelligence detection then you have just destroyed all forensic science.
ID Science merely claims to detect the action of some intelligent cause and affirms this because we know from experience that only conscious, intelligent agents produce large amounts of specified information. Stephen C. Meyer, Signature in the Cell,. pp. 428-429 (HarperOne, 2009).
Intelligent Design appeals to intelligent causes, not supernatural ones per say. Michael Behe — "as regards the identity of the designer, modern ID theory happily echoes Isaac Newton's phrase hypothesis non fingo." "The Modern Intelligent Design Hypothesis," Philosophia Christi, 2 (3): 165 (2001).
Newton: “I do not feign hypotheses. For whatever is not deduced from the phenomena must be called a hypothesis; and hypotheses, whether metaphysical or physical, have no place in experimental philosophy. In this philosophy particular propositions are inferred from the phenomena, and afterwards rendered general by induction.” Isaac Newton (1726). Philosophiae Naturalis Principia Mathematica, General Scholium. Third edition, page 943 of I. Bernard Cohen and Anne Whitman's 1999 translation, University of California Press ISBN 0-520-08817-4, 974 pages.
William Dembski explains: "Supernatural explanations invoke miracles and therefore are not properly part of science. Explanations that call on intelligent causes require no miracles but cannot be reduced to materialistic explanations." The Design of Life: Discovering Signs of Intelligence in Biological Systems, pp. 13-14 (FTE, 2008).
Likewise, an early ID textbook affirms MN, stating: "intelligence . . . can be recognized by uniform sensory experience, and the supernatural . . . cannot." Dean H. Kenyon, Of Pandas and People, p. 126 (FTE, 1993).
Dr. Taylor, does ID violates Methodological Naturalism by leaving open the possibility of inferring a supernatural designer? As you must know, ID does not claim to scientifically detect a supernatural creator; it infers intelligent causation. This does have implications, and so does evolution. Does this alone disqualify both. Intelligent Design is no different from evolution, which claims that if there is a supernatural creator, that would be beyond science's power to detect. Correct?
“ID Doesn't Offend the Spirit of MN: Proponents of MN often justify this rule by arguing that it ensures that science uses only testable, predictable, and reliable explanations.” John A. Moore, Science as a Way of Knowing (Harvard University Press, 1993); Eugenie C. Scott, "Monkey Business," The Sciences, New York Academy of Sciences, 36(1):20-25 (Jan. / Feb. 1996).
David,
"I believe that God knowing our arguing over truth set a simple standard by which to know who his real disciple were. Jesus said, "By this all people will know who are my disciples by how you love another." That is relational truth, which, I believe, trumps all objective truth. And I am far from being as loving as I should and could but that is my objective."
This is certainly worth much further conversation. Because loving one another is the universal, language-independent confirmation of those who are aware of being irresistably loved by God, what is the genesis of that awareness?
Science is a search for facts.
Philosophy is a search for meaning.
Science requires inductive reasoning.
Philosophy requires deductive reasoning.
Oil and water.
The only thing I am certain of is my capacity to love guided by the Golden Rule. I am intrigued by the beauty of science and the foolishness of philosophy.
NOMA is a great idea but it seems to conflict with certain Bible essentials. The bible says Jesus died with a spear in his heart but then he rose from the dead. Science says that cannot happen. Lazarus was dead four days and then came back to life. There are at least five other resurrection stories in the bible.
and of course there are many miracles recorded in the Bible. How do science and miracles relate.
Paul understood this dilemma very well and reveals why we probably will not get agreement on this site.
1 Corinthians 1:18-25
Christ the Wisdom and Power of God
For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God. For it is written:
“I will destroy the wisdom of the wise;
the intelligence of the intelligent I will frustrate.”
Where is the wise man? Where is the scholar? Where is the philosopher of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world? For since in the wisdom of God the world through its wisdom did not know him, God was pleased through the foolishness of what was preached to save those who believe. Jews demand miraculous signs and Greeks look for wisdom, but we preach Christ crucified: a stumbling block to Jews and foolishness to Gentiles, but to those whom God has called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God. For the foolishness of God is wiser than man’s wisdom, and the weakness of God is stronger than man’s strength.
Why try to get everything to agree with the Bible? What sort of person needs such an impossible goal?
It is a fool's errand as comparing any ancient book to today's known world is not worthy of a belief in the Bible. Where is the internal claim that it holds ALL truth, or only salvific truth? This is the beauty of NOMA: it does not attempt to have equal metrics for entirely different objects. Astronomers do not use the measurements of a molecular cell biologist.
Belief can never be captured in a test tube or by any scientific measurements. Belief is NOT objective factual evidence, but to many believers try to stuff science and belief in the same small bag when the differences are immense and religion is unmeasurable. How could religious faith be measured? Has anyone suggested a method that all could agree on?
A scientist trying to convince a true believer is as lucidrous as a true believer attempting to convince a scientist trying to convince someone that his faith is fantasy.
First of all, science does not make statements like "that cannot happen." Scientists, being human,
do sometimes say such things, but when they do, they are going beyond what science can do.
Modern science, at least, does not do "always or never." It does probabilities. Now, pretty much
by definition, a "miracle" is a highly improbable event, and it is often considered to be supernaturally
caused. Science also does not, and cannot, address supernatural or spiritual events (other than to
try to find out that they were NOT spiritual or supernatural after all).
Perhaps we should take note of the time and place where Paul and Lazarus and Jesus lived. Surely
we can all agree that science was hardly even in its infancy yet in their time. Even the advances of
science by 100 or 200 years ago made most of the knowledge and wisdom and scholars of that
era look rather foolish or silly or ignorant. Scientific advances of the past 50 years and even the last
decade dwarfs everything previously understood. Still, it seems to me, that there has been almost
no progress in knowledge or understanding of God and his ways.
David, it causes me some concern when religionists seek to diminish the value of science, knowledge, and wisdom. It is as if an effort is being made to keep people ignorant and unschooled. Perhaps the great controversy is between ignorance and knowledge, and if so, is God on the side of ignorance? There could even be some basis for this belief in the Eden story. It is, after all, the tree of "knowledge of good and evil" that is forbidden. Is ignorance bliss after all? I don't think so….
What did Paul know about what the word "intelligence" means to us today? I ask that question knowing that someone will surely jump on the term from an "intelligent design" perspective. But that is fine….
But, then, I am very skeptical that the God invented by the human "mind" exists beyond the extent to which that invented concept motivates the actions of humans. There could, of course, be a God beyond human conception, but how would we ever know? It looks as if the God concept was invented/designed to convince the weak and the ignorant to fall into line and hope for something better in the future or afterlife, and, of course, shun science and education (lest they become empowered and "become as gods").
Joe, as always, you pose good questions Paul was not advocating ignorance. I love to learn and grow Quantum mechanics fascinates me and I keep reading about it and trying to understand it. NOMA is right in one aspect. It cannot measure the spiritual realm It cannot discover God to the satisfaction of everyone. Sir Isaac Newton is considered by some as the greatest scientist who ever lived He actually wrote more on religion than on science Yet his religious beliefs did not prevent him from exploring and studying nature. Paul is saying, in strong language, that the world"s wisdom cannot by itself find God. God forces no one He gives enough evidence for his existence (ID is one) but no matter what God did it would not be enough. Even when Jesus performed his miracles people were divided Some believed others did not. The Roman soldiers saw Jesus rise from the dead They reported what they had seen to the chief priests. Did the priests believe? No. They bribed the soldiers to lie. But others did believe. There is no data that God could present that would satisfy a sceptic. Humans have an infinite capacity to rationalization. That is why the different viewpoints on this blog will never agree. They cannot agree because because their epistimolgy is their issue. One side thinks that the other is being ignorant not accepting the "proofs" of science. The other side thinks that the other puts all their faith in science and puts little faith in the spiritual realm. Or to put it in theologocal terms. One side believes that special revelation is the interpreter of general revelation while the other side believes the opposite. Since that is the case there will never be agreement.
Well said!
My experience with God is mine to measure. There is no way for someone else to measure it other than to see that it makes a difference in me. Another person's inability to measure it does not refute the reality of my experience.
This issue of NOMA, etc. seems to have struck sympathic/nonsympathic cords. The different concerns and responses reveal, at least to me, that how we respond to this and similar ideas about different “ways of knowing” have little, if anything, to do with our intelligence, level of formal education, background, etc. but may reflect primarily different personality types which seems to be (I’m told) largely a genetic thing. (I’ve suggested previously that much of the “liberal/conservative” theological divide in many respects may also be largely a reflection of personality types. In this context, some people have a “faith gene” and others do not. But that’s another topic)
In any event, David comments that “NOMA is a great ideal but it seems to conflict with certain Bible essentials” and then gives some examples, e.g., Biblical resurrection stories and especially, of course, the resurrection of Jesus, and what we sometimes call Biblical “miracles,” raises an interesting aspect of this.
Paul was indeed very aware of a part of the problem but his concern was with the Greek philosophical perspective not what we would call a scientific perspective since modern science obviously was not at issue in Paul’s time. However, the Greek philosophical precursors of science were certainly in play.
David refers to what is often cited at this point, where Paul asks (in English translation of course, but I assume the translation is roughly correct) “Where is the wise man? Where is the scholar” Where is the philosopher of this age?” and contrasts the “wisdom of the world” and “the wisdom of God.” I call attention to where Paul is focusing his concern: philosophy and “wisdom.”
Paul is contrasting his “ways of knowing” based on his religious/theological ideas about how God has worked in the world and the “ways of knowing” of the various schools of philosophy that dominated his contemporary intellectual world. As Dr. Erwin noted, scientific “ways of knowing” in the modern sense of the word would not evolve in the consciousness of a small group of European intellectuals for another for 1500 years. Paul’s point that Jews look for miraculous signs and “Greeks look for wisdom” centers his concerns on these two other alternatives.
Thus I would respond that NOMA conflicts with “certain Bible essentials” only if one insists on confusing how science approaches and “understands” the objective, physical world with how some interpretations of certain Biblical passages approach and “understand” the realm of subjective “spiritual” issues. I hope that David will not wish to do that.
Mr. Lindensmith raises what seems to me an important point when he asks what happens when the “truth claims” of a particular brand of “spiritual” or, in our case, Biblical authority conflicts with the “truth claims” of contemporary science. This is what is currently happening in our little Protestant denomination and has happened in a number of other conservative/fundamentalist Christian faith traditions over several centuries.
I would submit that there is a problem only if one type of “way of knowing” attempts to impose its “way of knowing” on the other way. In our church community, there is and will be an attempt to impose an answer by fiat church legislation. In the short run, this may make certain elements in our church happy, but, in the long run, they will certainly lose as the general educational level continues to rise and more and more of the offspring of our converts will come to realize that you can’t legislate orthodoxy and even that what was thought to be “orthodoxy” is based on fundamentalist Biblical interpretative principles.
My good friend Erv has touched on some important points. Probably the most basic issue is epistemological: how we know. I am not a philosopher but I am developing a great interest in how we know. I am discovering that the subject is quite complex. Maybe someone with enough background in this area would write a blog on the different ways of knowing. In an editorial in our magazine I quoted five different ways of knowing. I believe that part of our challenge is we are using different ways of knowing. So if you like this idea is someone prepared to recommend someone to write in this area? I have written on this before. We are playing by different rules and without agreement on the rules there is no possible way forus to agree on the larger question.
J. David, you've explained the meaning of NOMA: two ways of knowing; which makes neither all right or all wrong. If the church could "backoff" with its continuing plea for YEC and other impossible scientific claims, it would find more sentiment in the increasingly larger number of members who are so much better educated than those only 50 years ago. What was acceptable then, simply will not "fly" today.
This blog is about truth and Goldstein on truth so I don"t want to get side tracked on the science evolution debate. That has been debated over and over on this website. I am surprised how some people act surprised that some of us defend Christianity and Adventism so strongly After all this is a Christian and Adventist organization. We will defend the cardinal truths of Christianity and Adventism. That we are Christian and Adventist is not up for debate. At the same time we are open to discussing how we can support Christianity and Adventism better but not at the expense of denying fundamental roots.
David notes that this web site is provided by an Adventist Christian organization, the Adventist Today Foundation which is, of course, absolutely correct. He also mentions that it should not come as a surprise that many who comment on this site defend both Christianity and Adventism. This also is, of course, absolutely correct and, in my view, very appropriate.
I would assume that David would agree that how different individuals, even those who of us who have the honor of being involved in the Adventist Today Foundation organization, may disagree as to what is the best way to “defend” both Christianity and Adventism in the 21st Century.
I would submit that, for some individuals, “defending” sometimes involves realizing that some concepts and understandings of certain parts of historic Christianity and the many theological elements that comprise traditional Adventism may need to be unpacked to see if these elements can withstand careful scrutiny. It goes almost without saying, that how different individuals go about undertaking such a review may be very different. And the results of such a review undertaken by different individuals may be quite varied.
I’m also sure that David would agree that the Adventist Today Foundation as an organization does not advocate any particular point of view other than offering a forum where issues relating to Adventist Christianity may be considered without fear of the censorship of ideas and where good journalism flourishes to provide uncensored access to what is really happening within contemporary Adventism.
J. David, Re: the Hitching's Bro's obverse views is fairly obvious to those of us who are male, and had a brother near to our age. the competition is keen. always ready to fight at any assumed slight. Always ready to fly the banner for the opposing fact. This is probably genetic, ie: Cain/Abel, Esau/Jacob, Joseph/Bros, ProdigalSon/Bro.
As others have noted, there is apparently no Earthly creature able to be "objective other than one who left a long time ago.
No overlapping re: factuals between science/religion.
What seems a dichotomy to me is some intellectuals inability to be able to transit to the invisible spiritual realm, strictly on the merit of obvious intelligent design of Earthly life forms, in as much as they forever strive for scientific physical empirical truth, while totally ignoring the obvious truth, by observing themselves in a mirror every morning, as they wash up, and could be ruminating of each of the seemingly miracle life systems involved in holding themselves intact, the living osteo, the living flesh, the living blood and delivery system with all its interacting parts , the living internal organs, the living nervo, the DNA, mathematical to the power of ??? ??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????,the complete living computer system, the living digester accumulator providing the "GO" energy, by digesting formerly living varieties of ingredients. Then the synergy of all these elements working together for over 100 years. The eyes, the ears, the touch, and then the invisible "miracle" element, the "mind", the "soul" of mankind, able to communicate with his Creator. To totally ignore the reality of sight, hearing, smell, taste, and touch, intuition, moral reasoning. The sight and soundings of the infinite universes, and the spiritual knowledge it imparts. How can the human creature ignore the invisible things that impact the intelligence, the ethereal essense of the heavens, speaking to man. The heavens declare the "GLORY" of God. The fact that many display brotherly love to all others, in addition to matramonial love, family love, that one would die for another, was not
derived from Earthly savages. It was derived from its Creator, GOD.
Erv is one of the founders of Adventist Today so he knows what he is talking about here is the first of the four principles that guide Adventist Today.
There are numerous SDA blogs, I believe, that only support Adventist beliefs. Adventist Today is only one of the few better known that doesn't attempt to whitewash everything presented by the official church: Cliff is seen as one who would turn Adventist inward and backward but there is most certainly no space in the publication for which he writes that would allow such comments as appear here. To close questions of any system is to become a totalitarian design similar to the old Pravda. This is what has occurred over the years as once the Review, years ago, was a place for healthy debate about doctrines. That time has gone; which is why it is necessary to have such forums as this as Spectrum where openness is welcomed.
RE: The Catholic church claims to have the truth; the Mormons claim to have the truth; Adventists claim to have the truth. How can one determine which one is right? [Elaine Nelson]
——–
Dear Mrs Nelson
You asked:
"How can one determine which one is right?"
Answer: By testing their claims with the Holy Bible? [Isaiah 8:20 – To the law and to the testimony: if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them.]
Ah. So the Holy Bible is the only source of truth in the universe? It includes all we need to know?
Are we in an SDA elementary school here? This is the sort of quick answer we were taught as children to glibly recite. But what is the meaning? Who was the writer? Who was the audience?
Earl, my brother, I often find wisdom in your writing, and I appreciate your tone. I feel that you
and I can communicate. I have a brother, a dear brother who is as honest as anyone I've ever
known. Yet, he and I see many things differently–just as you and I honestly see things differently.
Let me just say that I am in deep awe of the natural world, including all humans, "savages," beasts,
etc. I cannot and do not claim to have a comprehensive understanding of people or other animals,
but I am even more in awe as I gaze into the eyes of my dog as I am when looking at my mirror
image. Whether the Creator and designer is a supernatural person or a process, the results are
amazing and worthy of our respect, awe, and due consideration. I think we agree on that.
And if we agree on that much, perhaps we can also agree that we are all seeking to understand
that which is beyond our ability to comprehend. We are seeking, and we are finding only in
very incomplete ways. That any of us should claim to have the answer to all questions
and mysteries seems incredible. We all seek. Because we are all different, we are satisfied
with an array of differing possibilities.
Can't we just all get along and stop demanding that we all see things the same way? That how
I feel is how you should feel?
Joe, I do not doubt the truth of your spiritual experience with nature. Of course, all of us here agree with your view of amazement and admiration.
However the view that all this amazement in wonder at life fails if there is no God.
What is being preached as science in most of our schools and in our culture is as Dr. Will Provine says about the severe philosophical implications of Darwinian biology:
“Naturalistic evolution has clear consequences that Charles Darwin understood perfectly. 1) No gods worth having exist; 2) no life after death exists; 3) no ultimate foundation for ethics exists; 4) no ultimate meaning in life exists; and 5) human free will is nonexistent. William Provine, Abstract, “Evolution: Free will and punishment and meaning in life,” Second Annual Darwin Day Celebration University of Tennessee, Knoxville Feb. 12, 1998.
I no this is not your experience, the effects of the philosophy of meaninglessness has a profound negative effect on young minds and our culture
But why should we restrict truth only to christian denominations? perhaps the Budhisists, the Hindus or the Muslims have the truth. Or perhaps atheism is the truth ? Those who rightly criticise SDA's for claiming monopoly of truth should apply the same criticism to christianity as a whole: what right do Christians have to claim monopoly of truth?
"Freethinker" has made a good point. If we are intellectually honest, it seems to me that we need to address the question by why Christians believe that they hava a monopoly of truth? I personally do not think so, but how would others address this question?
I agree. I don't think Christians have a right to believe they have a monopoly on truth, but the "why" question is much harder to answer.
I suspect the answer may be a psychological one, not a theologocal one. At first stop it would seem that the theological claims made by the Bible are the source of the Christian claim of truth, but my point is that the Bible is just a medium or tool that meets the deep need in the human psyche for an answer to the human predicament. It offers a well coded set of "answers" to the human situation: hope, meaning, identity, purpose, and certainty etc. Once accepted as "the" answer, it is equally human nature to believe "their" source of meaning, hope, certainty etc is the best: Monopoly.
It goes without saying that other tools or mediums (religious writings, gurus, philosophies, etc) which meet this deep psychological need in the human spirit are open to the same use and abuse wherein the "believer" holds that they have the monopoly on "truth".
If the answer is indeed a psychological one, and not a theological one, it leaves one wondering why, when discussing the merits of different "religions/faiths", most of the effort is focussed on theological aspects. In reality it may all boil down to the psychology. social, and cultural context of the individual and have little to do with the actual presence of "truth" in whatever "source" to which the holder has granted monopoly.
"cb25"'s suggestion that arguments most "believers" make about the superiority of their own religious tradition have more to do with their psychological/personality makeup and the religious culture within which they were raised than any intrinsic truthfulness of their arguments seems to me to state what is really going on most of the time with most people. There may be exceptions to this generalization but I suspect that they are rare.
C'mon Erv, do you really not know why Adventist officialdom believes that its theological claims are true – after all those years in the Church? Of course you do. At least you know the main arguments. So I must conclude that your thirst for knowledge is not borne out of a desire to know the reasons given so much as a desire to engage in psychopunditry in order to arrive at a consensus that will enable you to claim a monopoly on the truth of why Christians believe that they have a monopoly on truth.
Sorry, Erv. I view freethinker's point as incredibly silly and sophomoric as framed. Not that how we know the truth, or what constitutes objective versus subjective truth, or what we believe to be pathways to truth are unimportant questions. It's just that he begs those important considerations in order to frame the issue in an embarrassingly simplistic manner – sort of like the way Goldstein framed the issue.
When anyone claims to have truth, it is always with reference to something. In other words, you have to ask, what do they think is true. Erv, you also claim to have the truth. So is it reasonable to accuse you of thinking that you have a monopoly on truth? Of course not. That's just spin. It's an unfair and ridiculous straw man argument, unless of course one is prepared to identify where you have said that you believe you have a monopoly on truth.
I do understand, however, the exasperation that materialists feel at hearing Christians claim to have the truth. "How can Christian's have the truth when we materialists have the truth?" Look on the bright side though. With all those truth claims out there, surely one of them must be true. What rich irony to see folks trying to beget Truth by impotent dueling propositional truths.
"If you must have a transcendent idea then make it a search for "the good" or "the beautiful" or "the useful", always realizing that your answers will be personal, finite and never final." Peter Watson
So must it be in a search for "truth", if the truth be told…
Nathan
That was a smart reply to Erv bro. I think you got the truth – have you?
Answer me bro. have you got the truth???
Can't we just all get along and stop demanding that we all see things the same way? That how
I feel is how you should feel?
Joe, all faiths need more people thinking like you. Religion should be a for spiritual development and not imposing one's views on others. And since none of the faiths can be conclusively proved like the way we can prove that the earth is round, it is better to tolerate all faiths unlesss they seek to be authoritative.
Darrel, I disagree. Provine was wrong about Darwin. Darwin did not understand evolution perfectly.
Much has been learned about origins and biological change over time in the past 150 years.
The implications are not the ones listed. That list was obviously generated as a propaganda tool.
Is it ethical to misrepresent science? Talk about "bearing false witness…."
Good Morning Joe, Thank you! Yes I know you disagree and I totally respect you for your honesty. "Is it ethical to misrepresent science?" Are you thinking that I am misrepresenting it or that the modern atheist revolution is misrepresenting it? Both of us maybe 🙂
Canonical statements regarding evolution by the highest respected believers in the field:
According to late Harvard paleontologist Stephen Jay Gould, “biology took away our status as paragons created in the image of God.” Ever Since Darwin: Reflections in Natural History, 147.
The world's top scientific journal, Nature: "the idea that human minds are the product of evolution" is an "unassailable fact," "the idea that man was created in the image of God can surely be put aside." "Evolution and the brain," Nature, Vol. 447:753 (June 14, 2007).
"Together with Marx's materialistic theory of history and society and Freud's attribution of human behavior to influences over which we have little control, evolution was a crucial plank in the platform of mechanism and materialism-of much of science, in short-that has since been the stage of most Western thought." (Futuyma D.J., "Evolutionary Biology", [1979], Sinauer Associates: Sunderland MA, Second Edition, 1986, p.2)
This 'science' in its modern form, is used as a tool in the preaching of materialist philosophy.
It is true that Charles Darwin was troubled by some of the implications of naturalistic evolution.
Clearly, the evidence he described was incompatible with Young Earth Creationism, and, as such,
could be interpreted as an attack on God as the Creator. Plenty of scientists and others who
recognize the reality of evolutionary processes do not claim that this negates the possibility of
God the Creator. Science cannot prove that God exists or does not. Scientists and others are free to
believe whatever they can on this issue. Science simply does not, and cannot dabble in the "spiritual" realm.
Likewise, no tangible evidence exists of life after death, but science cannot prove or disprove that there is some spiritual afterlife.
Science cannot negate the concept that ethical principles were bestowed by spiritual fiat, but science can study the behavior of humans and other animals and elucidate some ethical principles that exist. "Due consideration" need not be based on a spirit world.
"Meaning" surely is not seen the same way by everyone. What something means to me is not necessarily what it means to you. While one may wish to have an authoritative source of "meaning," "the ultimate meaning of life" is not even the same for all people of faith–or even for everyone in the same denomination.
Evolution might have something to do with arguments about "human free will," but exactly what, I don't really know. In what sense is it more destructive of the concept of "free will" than religious ideas like predestination? Humans and other animals make choices. Some choices are easy because one alternative is more or less attractive or hardwired. Some choices are difficult because the alternatives are nearly equally attractive or repugnant. Isn't the idea that everything occurs according to "God's will" much more destructive of "human free will" than anything about evolution is?
Again, Darwin did not understand evolution or its philosophical consequences anywhere near "perfectly." He seemed to understand to some extent how people would distort, misunderstand, and misrepresent the concept evolution and its consequences.
Thanks Joe, "Everything that occurs is God's will." I think we all agree this is certainly not the case.
Randomness and human evil are more true to the facts I believe. YEC of course is uncontrovertably not the case. There are so many lines of evidence showing the contrary. While this is true, and a creation process is true, it is also true that Intelligence, planning and a higher order of wisdom is also being discovered. So Science has been a two edged sword in a way; it disconfirms some particulars yet strongly is confirming The Core of Theism or at least Deism.
Darrel,
''Everything that occurs is God's will." I think we all agree this is certainly not the case."
Well, I for one am not so sure I agree. Not to dismiss the eons of philosphical debate about the topic, but I call the cops on God for apparent absence of duty of care, if nothing else.
"a duty of care is a legal obligation which is imposed on an individual requiring adherence to a standard of reasonable care while performing any acts that could foreseeably harm others."
Seems like an omniscient God had a blind spot when it came to forseeing outcomes of actions!
Yes, 'The Ancient Accusation!'
~Job 4:17 Shall mortal man be more just than God? shall a man be more pure than his maker?
Well now, sometimes i agree with views of others presenting here, and sometimes…….i do not believe that everything that occurs is God's will, if true we would all be robots, without free will to live, and move, and have our being. Some say there is no god. Some believe in many gods. Some believe there is a Creator God. i share your belief that every individual have peace, & joy of living, and have confidence in their lifestyle, in their sanctuary, without others with criticism, of "how stupid can one be to have that viewpoint". What ever our view of God, or no god, we each, other than adolescents, find it hard to accept that others are unable to understand the certainty we have. In consideration of tolerance to others, unless they are still undecided of a knowledgeable position, freely accept others as they are, knowing not a single one of us can say the other's belief is crazy, is wrong. Love thy neighbor, wish your neighbor well in his choices, let not animosity rear its ugly head. Follow your own heart's choice, to thine self, be joyful, and wish thesame to all others, who do not opress or abuse others. Eternal life, or eternal death, is the lot of each of us. Lets make it a mutual admiration society. Good on ya.
Earl,
Dr Taylor's blog is about how SDA's know they have the truth, and I really appreciate the spirit in which you have made your last note. I do not want to be one to "scowl" or "squawk", and it would seem some think I do:), but I would like to take up a point or two you made if I may.
I think there is a place where one can legitimately say someone's belief is crazy or wrong. As you also have suggested, there are those who oppress or abuse others. Surely such people are acting on their beliefs or values. Values which by their very actions clearly stand out as wrong or crazy. Do we not in fact have a moral responsibility to respond to such in some way?
Of course, if one takes the position that subjective truth can be valid, then, yes, it makes it much harder to find a basis for saying anothers' view is crazy, but if one takes the view, as I think we should, that objectivity can weed out certain "crazy" beliefs from popular thinking – then the problem is reduced. As an extreme example I would like to think radical, religiously motivated terrorism could be weeded out. Whilst subjective "truth" is encouraged, (and even defended, often in an effort to protect their own subjective beliefs,) by the populace at large this is made all the harder imho.
Now, about God's will and us being robots. To over simplify a complex issue, let me put it this way:
Consider if I made a robot with precisely the same qualities as a human. Free to make choices within the context of its environment and the confines of "natural" laws. I flick the switch; it's "life" begins. Sadly, because of some environmental factors and the way I have wired it, my robot sets out and wreaks havoc on anything and everything before my very eyes. What do I do? Do I flick the switch and end the disaster, or let it run? Whichever way I act, I don't think anybody here would suggest that I am NOT ultimately responsible for what my robot does!
I think the point of my illustration is obvious. Now, we can call free will till the cows come home, but ultimately if some entity made us, he/she (let's say He for arguments sake) is responsible for us and our actions. Whether our "actions" are specifically part of His "will" or not is almost beside the point, he ultimately is responsible for acting or not acting, just as I with my robot.
I personally think this "free will" concept, and "good and evil controversy" are nothing more than creative inventions to justify the uncomfortable absence of action by "God". If I did make a robot and it went crazy, I think I could use the "free will" idea to defend my inaction too… but I'd feel pretty lousy about my duty of care!
Earl, I do appreciate your spirit, but I think at times its good to pause and consider other angles to look at things.
Chris, you are a worthy opponent. Do you feel you have free choice to live, and make decisions for your life? If so, its subjective.
i do not believe one can legitimately say another is crazy, unless they are having a moment of lunacyness, and must be straitjacketed. Its amazing to me how what appeared as truisms to most, in the mid-twentieth century, have now almost diametric acceptances.
In robot making you are thinking subjectively. If there is God as many believe, none have any concept of His thinking, of how He would program His robot, perhaps to self destruct if running wild???? hmmmm.
No Sir, objectivity is expression without any reality to the individual.
Chris, i think you as a true friend, but what do i know, i can only think, uh, uh, uh, subjectively. Which i believe a Creator God has programmed. cheers, friend.
cb25 said
"Dr Taylor's blog is about how SDA's know they have the truth"
Ehh no, cb25, it's about how the good Doc Erv has the truth!!
cb25
I think you got the truth. Why? cos you just pull the best punches, and your blogs are always the longest. Let it rip brother!!!
Actually i think the good Doc Erv has the truth. Anyone smart enough to be a dcotor must know what they are talking about. Go doc!!!!
Ok this is a serious question to Dr Erv
DOCTOR ERVIN TAYLOR, DO YOU HAVE THE TRUTH??
I am reminded of a line from a movie from awhile back.
"The Truth? You can't handle The Truth!"
Of course, Dr. Taylor can answer for himself, if he has not already done so.
Joe , or should I say Dr Joe, I like your reply. I mean us simple folk, why we can't handle the truth. We should just let you smart people sort out the truth for us and trust you. Go bro.!!!
Joe Erwin, Bro. DO YOU HAVE THE TRUTH!!
OK so far I've asked three people (yes i mean 3 people) to tell me if they got the truth and so far only Bro Joe answerred me and his answer was full of spin.
I want a straight answer – anyone? If you feel you got the truth then please say "I GOT THE TRUTH". C'mon now, I mean, when reading some of the blogs above you'would think some folk here think they know what they are talking about so just say the words "I GOT THE TRUTH", it's not too hard.
i,ve just arrived here bro Peter Cieslar, and i say to you, YES, i believe in what is THE T R U T H, as revealed to me personally , by God the Holy Spirit. PRAISE GOD. AMEN, AMEN.
On many occasions, one needs to unpack Nate’s responses before commenting on them because it seems to me that in so many cases, when you do that, you discover that his comments begin by first mischaracterizing what someone has written, sometimes to the point where one might conclude that he does this on purpose. However, in this case, I will assume that his mischaracterization of my short comment above was due to his characteristic rhetorical style that tends to use hyperbole and over-the-top imagery and not because he desired consciously to mischaracterize.
He begins by asserting that my interest in the topic originally raised by “cb25” is based on “a desire to engage in psychopunditry” so that I can claim “a monopoly on the truth of why Christians believe they have a monopoly on truth.” First of all, readers will note that I was offering an opinion about believers who assert the superiority of their own religious tradition. (That would certainly include some Christian believers, but my suggestion addressed any adherents of any religious tradition who holds such views. And, even if one inserts “Christian” into the statement, I certainly did not say “all Christian believers.” I was directing my comment in the context of those who assert the “superiority” of their own religious tradition. I would submit that only relatively small group of contemporary Protestant Christians hold that view and assume that those Christians who do would adhere to evangelical and fundamentalist brands of Christianity)
Nate then engages in a common practice of his: mind reading. He says I made my point so that I could “claim a monopoly on the truth of why Christians believe they have a monopoly on truth.” Like Nate, I offer opinions and have never held the illusion that those opinions constituted “The Truth.” Perhaps the reason that Nate imputes that understanding to me is that he thinks his opinions and “The Truth” can be equated and thus assumes that everyone else must feel the same way.
It would be refreshing if Nate would address the substance of the point of view that is being here expressed: that our views concerning religious topics often reflect primarily not the specifics of a given abstract religious concept taken in isolation but is, to a significant degree, a reflection of many other factors that include personality type and social context. This is such a straight-forward suggestion that I’m sure that even Nate has an opinion about it. Calling it, as articulated by “cb25”, “incredibly silly and sophomoric” hardly advances serious dialogue. But perhaps, that is not what Nate wants to do.
As for the quesiton of Peter Cieslar: "Do [I] have the Truth?" Good grief!. Of course not. No human knows or has "The Truth." To even ask such a question, seems a little . . . odd.
No spin, Peter. No.
We get into these discussions that sometimes end up with the conclusion that there is
no such thing as Truth, or that all truth is subjective, or that each of us has the same
amount of truth, that evidence-based "truth" is equal to, though different from personal
truth. In other words, it's "a wash." No winners, no losers. Let's love each other.
But Chris is correct in pointing out, essentially, that not all information is equally
credible. There are some crazy ideas. There is flawed information. There is entirely
nonsensical information. There are data that are the result of direct measurement in
ways that anyone who does the measuring will get the same result. Some measurement
methods yield systematic misinformation. Then, beyond all that, there is interpretation
of what data mean. Many of our discussions seem to equate interpretation as if it
were data. Reliable data, Valid data. Factual information. Even though all interpretation
is at least a step away from actual objective measures.
Of course, there is a sense in which we can report as fact that someone, e.g., Stephen
Jay Gould, really did say or write something. But, whether what he wrote was really
accurate or valid is another matter. If it is his interpretation of someone else's measures,
or if he is injecting what he thought it meant, don't quickly jump to confusion about
what you think he meant or claim that "science believes" or "scientists say" thus and such.
That sort of authoritarian quoting comes very naturally to those who grew up learning
memory verses and SoP phrases, but it is not a valid process.
So, Peter, do you think YOU have The Truth?
For me the answer to most questions is: "I don't know."
But then within the sphere of my experience, I can follow up with some relevant information
that might be helpful in answering or refining the question. In my areas of expertise I can
provide some information and indicate a level of confidence regarding the verity that information.
Rather often, I am able to point to someone or some resource that might help. These days,
of course, we often are able to "google" a topic or term and get a "wiki" response. Hopefully,
we go to several such sources and don't place excessive confidence in any single source.
We obtain information that is "more or less" true/accurate/valid/credible. So, do I ever have
any valid information. Of course. Do I regard it as ULTIMATE truth? Not at all. All the
information I have is somewhat tentative, but some much more than other.
Joe Erwin
Ervin Taylor
Gentlemen of high esteem, I thank-you for your reply from the bottom of my heart, although I must admit your answers left me rather perplexed!! Let me care to explain.
Many a times I have witnessed you both argue a point and defend your positions (especieally in the field of origins) with such strength and eloquence, and in such a persuasive manner, even making your oponent look 'silly' (ah the good doc Erv is a master at that) that most onlookers would have been convinced that you believed you had the truth. Surely if you are debating and defending a point you must believe that point you are defending is truth!!
Ahhh but I am not as smart as you both docs are, and I'm sure you will come up with a good answer. I look forward to you both docs, shall I say, 'unperplexing' my heart.
Perhaps it would be helpful for Peter Cieslar to again mention that, as a number of those posting about various aspects of what is regretfully sometimes called the "Science vs. Religion" debates have mentioned, the contemporary scientific community very rarely, if ever, uses the term "Truth" in scientific discourse There are very high degrees of probability that a particular understanding of the cause of some process or event is correct, but "Truth" or "Proof" are words used in philosophy and mathematics, not in maintline science.
It is true that some conservative-oriented theologians and church leaders seem to like to use the "Truth" in their discourse since they seeem to think that they are on a first-name basis with God. When a mere mortal says he/she know some "Truth" about Ultimate Thngs, a word immediately springs to mind:– hubris.
Ervin. i also am confused as is Peter Cieslar, as to why anyone does not know what is ultimate TRUTH, to themselves, philisophically. And i believe they do. You have indicated there are transitional truth's and falsehoods, in most all endeavours, scientifically and in religiosity. But many prefer to not state their personal viewpoints, as is their prerogative, and are entitled to their opinions. Some speak in riddles at times, so tobe enigmas. Again it is their right. Lets honor it.
Joe Erwin
"The Truth? You can't handle The Truth!"
I thank the good Doc Erwin for his puchline quote which, if my memory serves me right, comes from the film "A Few Good Men".
My question to my bro is:
What is "The Truth" that we lesser mortals cannot handle and that must be left to the care of our more esteemed, and of a higher learning, society to which, I believe, Doc Erwin and Doc Taylor belong to?
Dear Peter. Please call me "Joe." I am a common person of humble origin. As my Dad used to say:
"I'm just a poor country boy, trying to get along." I hope I have not represented myself as being
anything more than an ordinary person.
I am an "old guy," by comparison with most here, although I know several people who are in
the same neighborhood in terms of age, notably Erv and Andy and Larry, who were at PUC
while I was in the late fifties and early sixties. We're all around our "threescore and ten." I'll
turn 73 in a couple of weeks.
I grew up as an adventist, taught elementary school in an adventist school, colportered, and
studied theology, among other things, at PUC, before being drafted into the army. Uncle Sam
sent me to Germany for a couple of years, and I married an adventist girl and attended a community
college when I returned from army time.
It was not a great surprise to me, but I began to encounter more and more information that
indicated that what I had been taught as ultimate truth while being raised as an adventist,
was really far from true. Rather than finding ULTIMATE truth, I found instead, a great deal
of information that mostly did not nail down precise truth–that led instead to some speculation
and alternative hypotheses, but usually did not demonstrate or claim to demonstrate "Truth."
I found out, and continue to find out, that some things are almost certainly not true, because
they are contrary to evidence and alternative hypotheses. More than "knowing what is true,"
what I have found has cast doubt on things I was raised believing. I could no longer be
CONFIDENT of the ultimate truth of scripture, or in young earth creationism, or in the
legend of Noah's flood.
This does not constitute a claim that I am brilliant or any smarter that you. I feel fortunate
to have had opportunities to become aware of a great deal of information to which I
had not found access during my adventist youth. What I had not realized was that the
literature and evidence is available for all to see. It is not a social or educational "class"
matter at all. You can consider the evidence or ignore it. It's all up to you.
“With so many faiths, views and religions out there, how do I know Seventh-day Adventism is the truth?” Cliff’s column did not provide an answer. Who would like to take a stab at answering that question? Please do not “scowl” or “squawk” while you are responding.
Was Jesus Christ who and what He said He was? Let’s start with the notion that there is even a chance that He was. If we accept that there is any chance that He was, it’s suddenly a 50-50 proposition (that is, that He was who and what He said He was).
Why do I say that? Because since no one can quantify what the chances are that He was who and what He said He was, it becomes binary—it is either True, or it’s False. Even if we think there is a less than 1% chance, since we can’t know even that percentage, but accept that there was such an individual in history who was known by others by that name, and is reported to have made such claims about who He was, and accept—for whatever reason—that it’s possible; then it’s either True, or it’s False.
So, by accepting certain documentary evidence (not to mention undocumented, anecdotal personal experiences), SDAs (with the possible exception of a few self-styled intellectuals) believe that it is True. This documentary evidence is obviously the Bible. The stories written about Jesus and his contemporaries date back to within 100 years of His life (in terms of when they were written)—comparable to how we might consider and retell the stories of Presidents Teddy Roosevelt or William Howard Taft.
How am I doing to this point? Perhaps now we should discuss why SDAs and other Judeo-Christians consider the scriptural documentary evidence valid (much less why it’s compelling). This could go on for a while. Was that qualification regarding the possible exceptions of some self-styled intellectuals a “scowl,” “squawk”? (Was the “…first-name basis with God” one?)
Stephen…
Is there a chance the earth is flat? Yes…
Can we make it binary? No..
The evidence available makes it a scale of probability – on which it scores high.
1. Did Jesus exist?
2. Was he who he said he was?
How are these binary questions any more than is the shape of the earth a binary question?
1. Did Jesus exist? Evidence available makes it a scale of probability – on which it scores low.
2. Was Jesus who he said he was? Evidence available makes it a scale of probability – on which it scores even lower. It scores lower because it is dependent on the first claim, which already has a low probability, and the latter is the greater claim for which there is even less positive evidence…
That said…if one scores the question of whether SDA's have truth as a probability based on available evidence…. the answer is not binary either.
In fact, I would suggest that there is also an inverse relationship between the evidence gathered to address this question and the probability score one would conclude with!
You may want to reread Erv’s question (at which I am taking a stab). It is placed in the context of “…so many faiths, views and religion out there…,” so it is in that context that I’m (foolishly?) seeking to address it.
Is there a view out there—or chance—that the earth might be flat? Maybe so Chris, if you say so. But you are also among a tiny minority of people, even historians, who doubt that Jesus ever even existed in history.
That minority status doesn’t make you wrong; but it doesn’t make you right either. Would you accept you’re Right or Wrong?
Let’s face it; it is inconvenient for your worldview if He even ever existed. (I can admit that it would be inconvenient for me if he did not.)
Stephen,
For the flat earth society you can just look them up, or wiki here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flat_Earth_Society
I take your clarification about Erv's question, but I do note he had "faiths, views, and religion.." Views is pretty wide is it not?
Would I accept I am wrong/right? No. In spite of the fact that I often make some pretty strong statements, my position is that most things cannot be determined to the point where it is so black and white as wrong/right. Have I made some wrong statements on AT? Almost beyond doubt!!
Has not some philosopher made the point that we can only ever know what is false and by this process ever only take small steps towards that which may be closer to "true". ie by objectively weeding out that which is not…
Re me being among a tiny minority of people, even historians, in the view Jesus may not have existed. I don't think so. To get a majority of "historians" with the positive view you have to first ensure they are Christian ones I suspect – in other words – biased. Look outside the fish bowl…
As for being among a tiny minority of people, I fear a fish bowl there too. But, yes I may be wrong! 🙂
From my limited perspective, I’d like to suggest that it is not necessarily that we can’t “handle” the truth, but that all humans may lack the capability to perceive and, even if they can perceive, understand “The Truth” whatever such a category turns out to be.
Perhaps there are inherent limitations imposed on us because we are a carbon-based living system. Perhaps it is a limitation imposed by our current brain capacity or processing capabilities not being sufficient. Or, perhaps it is the limitations of all human linguistic systems in how we “code” data from the external world.
Philosophically sophisticated individuals will have a much better and more nuanced understanding of this topic, but I’m using the term “The Truth” simply to mean or point to the ultimate nature of the “really real”—again whatever it turns out what the nature of the “really real” actually is.
We are here not only referencing the materialist or physical reality we can perceive with our senses and modern instruments that we have created to “see” more of the physical reality on micro- and macroscopic, including cosmic, levels but also an assumed or posited “extra-physical” reality that many (not all) of what we in the modern West call the various religious traditions of the human species insist also exists.
Atheists, of course, proclaim with great certainty that they “know” that there is no non- or extra-physical reality. But, it seems to me that they put themselves in the same position as certain theists who with great certainty proclaim that they “know” that there is a non- or extra-physical reality.
Some fundamentalist theists of many different religious traditions (not just Christianity) not only believe and insist that there is some reality other than physical reality, but also proclaim that they have some special source of information, or ability to know, sometimes in great detail, what that non-physical reality looks like and how it operates.
I apologize to those with much more detailed and sophistication in understanding the complex philosophical and theological categories and ask for their indulgence in my naïve manner of expressing such ideas.
Was there a person named Jesus who lived in Nazareth/Galilee? Probably many. In fact,
a careful look at the evidence of that has indicated that there were a number, several of
whom were apparently crucified between 30 and 50 AD. How many of these were called
"The Christ" or claimed to be the messiah? Was the legend entirely based on the sayings
or activities of one person, or were stories about more than one person combined and
embellished? Perhaps. Was the message (or were the messages) reported actually that/those
of one individual? Maybe, maybe not. Was there only one man who claimed to be the
messiah or the son of God? Not likely. But of those who did, how many were accurate
in their claims?
We do not know enough to establish what would be called in statistics "expected values."
In statistical models, when one cannot establish an expected likelihood, one sometimes
assumes equal (50:50) likelihood, often as a "null hypothesis." That is, a hypothesis of
no difference. On the basis of observed values the null hypothesis can be rejected or not.
But what "observed values" would we use to test the verity of the 50:50 assumption?
My guess is that we have no way of either establishing or evaluating the hypothesis.
The answer to the questions is "we do not know." And we do not really have any way
of knowing. We CAN, however, simply believe it. Or not. As for me, I do not think
we CAN know.
Thank you Joe! I had apparently blindly stumbled into some statistical version of ‘truth;’ since “when one cannot establish an expected likelihood, one sometimes assumes equal (50:50) likelihood, often as a ‘null hypothesis.’ That is, a hypothesis of no difference. On the basis of observed values [“…that we have no way of either establishing or evaluating…”] the null hypothesis can be rejected or not” is exactly what I’m talking about.
I've readily admitted that if Jesus Christ of Nazareth—about whom those stories were told—never even existed, that would be a very inconvenient ‘reality’ to/for my worldview. I am now awaiting Chris’s admission that if Jesus Christ of Nazareth—the one whose mother was married to the Joseph whose patriarchal lineage is detailed Matthew 1—did actually exist; that might be inconvenient to his way of seeing certain things.
Not all hypothesis needs to be framed in a statistical hypothesis testing paradigm. To do so injudiciously is amateurism at its worst.
As a pretention (not even a hypothetical mental exercise) let us assume the null hypothesis of there was no biblical Jesus versus the alternative hypothesis of there was. To constitute a statistical hypothesis testing one needs to have a measurable variable. Can anyone suggest a measurable variable in this case?
On the other hand if the null hypothesis is there is no difference in proportion of people believing in or not believing in a biblical Jesus then It certainly can be tested with an opinion poll with a statistical test for equality in proportion.
To say that there is only a 50:50 chance that there is a biblical Jesus is an assertion. That assertion can be made in any way imagination carries a person. One may believe there is only a 50:50 chance a living person has a biological father. Sky is the limit for these kinds of assertions. It may be just an exercise in futility with an academic pretention.
What do we know? We know we're not an illusion. We are the most intelligent creatures on Earth. We have physical, and mental, working enduring systems that are amazing. We know there are billions of star systems, some solids, some gas, inspace outside of Earth, continually expanding outwards in every direction.
It's a certainty that humans had human ancestors. With the knowledge we have, how could it be possible that all original living creatures were able to survive infancy?? How could the first human babies, which takes 9 months to gestate, find wombs to gestate in?? How could they find nourishment?? How could they care for themselves until they would be of age to provide for every need required?? Survival of the fittest?? Come on give me a break. Intellectually and logically, an impossibility. The first humans had to be adults. Fully formed and able to cope in a wild and wooly environment. Pre programmed with basic survival tools, mental and physical.
The great variety of nonhuman creatures, wild creatures, tooth and fang, vicious,flesh rendering, able to live only by killing, massive creatures 20 feet tall, weighing tons. the earth shaking as they ambled along seeking prey. i don't believe mankind co-existed with those enormous monsters. This is why i believe in some scenario of the Eden story type. Man placed, fully physically and mentally formed, into an environment in which he could survive. i believe there was pre existing life forms, including food for the pre creatures, some of which could have been "near human". But mankind, our ancestors, were of a type with intelligence far exceeding the pre human types. i agree with Joe that none of us have evidence we can physically demonstrate a model that conveys the reality of original man on Earth. That leaves us with a system that is not physical, but mental, spiritual, ethereal, that mankind, as yet, has not discovered, for the masses, that can be quantified. "i believe it exists". i believe there are individuals who actually have access to this communication, and are currently receiving it mentally. i believe i am one of those who are accessing data, that is directed to those seeking it. i find it impossible to identify exactly how it is received. It is not a verbal delivery, but its influence results in knowledge, and guidance. i think it must be similar to ESP. i don't have visions, trances or hallucinations, i don't speak in tongues. No hypnotic episodes. i have never related this to anyone before with the descriptive info herein. i don't feel that this is exceptional to any degree, but is available to everyone who seeks it. There are others here on Atoday who also receive this. i believe it is God the Holy Spirit's method of providing that which was promised by Jesus Christ. It is the power that enabled the apostles to testify of the Almighty, braving the hardships, impossible conditions, to testify of the Lord Jesus Christ, until death. i have neversat down, to share this blog program, with any planned prepared material, it just happens, what i write. i sometimes a few days later, reread some of the blogs and find it difficult to recognize some of the messages i have presented. i can only assume they are the Holy Spirit's influencing the input. i swear this info is true.
God lovingly bless each of you.
Stephen,
Ah, mmm. I did not realize you were asking that as a question. You made the statement that it would be so….
Ok, would it be inconvenient for my "world view"? Stephen, you seem to not grasp something important here:
My world view is shaped by my best possible understanding of the objective data at this given moment in time. As I noted above, my "answers" at this time are personal, finite, and never final.
My WV has only become what it is because of a combination of lack of evidence for key claims, and presence of evidence mitigating against the likelihood of those same claims being possible.
If validatable evidence turned up demonstrating that Jesus was a real person, conceived by a virgin through the HS – Son of God, etc. I would reshape my WV around that. It would be a very exciting turn of events.
If such evidence were or became available, I would anticipate that there would be other corroborating evidence which in turn could be applied to the larger context of my world view thus enabling my to refocus it to include such a concept.
In other words, evidence for a real Jesus/Son of God guy that was worth its weight, would hardly stand alone, and if such came to light, I stand ready and willing to re-shape how I see the world.
I challenge you to do the same:) !!
Well, you’ve reshaped things somewhat, haven’t you?
When I said, “let’s face it; it is inconvenient for your worldview if He even ever existed” that had nothing whatever to do with His being born of a virgin or any other supernatural claim. It had nothing to do with “Son of God” status, but just His humanity; the simple historical reality of his existence.
So, in the interest of clarity Chris, let me again admit that it would be inconvenient to/for my worldview if the Jesus of Nazareth human being never existed. Would it be inconvenient to your worldview if the same Jesus, about whom the Biblical stories are told, actually did live—irrespective of the supernatural nature of the stories or whether those supernatural things happened? That is to say if the Jesus Christ of Nazareth whose mother was the Mary married to the Joseph whose patriarchal lineage was detailed in Matthew 1:1-16 actually existed as a human being in history, would that be a somewhat inconvenient ‘reality;’ as it would be for me if it were true that He never existed?
Stephen,
Reshaped things? You put in italics the one described in Matt 1. I went and read the chapter to make sure I got the drift of the facts you were wanting. What I wrote about virgin, Holy Spirit etc came from there. I did add Son of God, but Messiah is pretty close to that and fits how Matthew fills out the story anyway…
So… IF a real, human Jesus existed, no, it would not be a problem. I have no doubt there were many. If there were one who was of that human lineage – same deal. So what.
Now, If one as described in Matt 1. Born of a virgin, conceived by the HS, and Messiah existed. That would be a challenge, but not inconvenient for the reasons I gave.
Read Matt 1 again…. it describes much more than the human Jesus you accuse me of adding to. You set that bar Stephen, … ?
mmm I've just realized where we are crossing paths. In your italics, you put Matthew 1. In your last response you narrowed it down 1 vss 1 – 16. I read the whole chapter!!
Yes, Chris, you couldn’t have misunderstood more. I only identified the patriarchal lineage of Joseph so as to specify which Jesus of Nazareth; because Joe had suggested that there may have a number of them.
All those ‘begets’ were human beings Chris. I am focusing on the human whose mother, Mary, was (eventually) married to Joseph. But in any case, you’ve answered my question; for you it would be no big deal if this individual did exist.
Again, I wouldn’t imagine that very many fictitious people have that level of detail of actual humans in their paternal lineage. Then again, since it’s no big deal for you if He did actually exist, no sense in belaboring that point; right?
Stephen,
Yes, I did "misunderstand", but do be fair. You clearly stated, in italics for emphasis I thought, the chapter1 of Matthew. If you were not trying to get the whole package of "who" that Jesus was, it was not obvious, at least to me.
But, as you say, I have now covered all bases, and you have my answers.
Actually there's some pretty good lineage for Zues too 🙂
C’mon Chris, it should have been clear to you because I specified the lineage. (The lineage is detailed/located in Matthew 1.)
You’ll pardon me, but frankly I’m just not buying that if Jesus existed it would be no big deal for you; because you make a big deal about your perception that the evidence that He did is practically non-existent. But you saying that doesn’t mean much because many legitimate historical scholars would, and do, say otherwise; and this is again, irrespective of supernatural-ism.
In other words, you saying this doesn’t make it true; so since it wouldn’t be a challenge if He did exist, why not stipulate that and move on?
Isn’t it because it would be ‘disruptive,’ as you are now so heavily invested? (I mean, really Chris, why deny it?)
Can you essentially afford to be faced with a True or False proposition here?
Anyway Chris, did Zeus really have a lot of actual humans in his ancestry?
Stephen,
Please… until you wrote that about Matt 1, I thought you were only speaking about the human lineage. When you italicized it and referenced the WHOLE chapter, I questioned my assumption, read the chapter, and came to the view your reference to lineage etc included the other details in the chapter which does include the virgin birth etc. … I was wrong, sorry, but is it so hard for you to admit you were not clear either? Really?
Do me a favour. Find me even a small list of legitimate, NON-Christian, historical scholars who evaluate the evidence for a historical Jesus of the (human) lineage that you describe with a thumbs up.
I'd love to see it…
Let's see, what else did you want?
Oh, can I afford to be confronted with a true/false proposition here? That is not a possible proposition because ultimately neither position can be known. Neither can it be a "null hypothesis" as I understand it. Examination of the evidence (currently available) clearly rejects that starting assumption.
Yes, it is difficult/impossible for me to admit to being unclear when I wasn’t. I didn’t just italicize Matthew 1; I italicized an entire description statement for clarity. I grant that you were unclear, however that was simply because of your assumption.
Anyway, a small list of scholars is:
Michael Grant
James Dunn
Bart Ehrman
John Dominc Crossan
John P. Meier
E.P. Sanders
Paula Fredriksen
Geza Vermes
Craig A. Evans
Andreas Kostenberger
Robert Van Voorst
Craig S. Keener
Gerd Theissen
James D.G. Dunn
Amy-Jill Levine
E.P. Sanders
Maurice Casey
Dale Allison
Marcus Borg
C. Stephen Evans
Nicholas Perrin
But I can’t tell you which of these individuals is a NON-Christian Chris; because you of all people should know that, in intellectual and pseudo-intellectual circles alike, a Christian is whatever one says it is.
Here's the work you should have done:
Anyway, a small list of [Historical please] scholars is:
Michael Grant – Non C = writes about Jesus without regard to belief
James Dunn – Theologian NT Scholar
Bart Ehrman – NT Scholar
John Dominc Crossan – NT Scholar
John P. Meier – Biblical Scholar Priest
E.P. Sanders – NT Scholar
Paula Fredriksen -Historian Scholar of Religious Studies
Geza Vermes – Scholar – Priest NT Studies
Craig A. Evans – Evangelical NT Scholar
Andreas Kostenberger – Proffessor NT Research
Robert Van Voorst – Prof NT Studies
Craig S. Keener – Prof NT Studies
Gerd Theissen – Theologian
James D.G. Dunn – NT Scholar
Amy-Jill Levine – NT Scholar
E.P. Sanders – NT Scholar
Maurice Casey – NT Scholar
Dale Allison – NT Scholar
Marcus Borg – NT Scholar
C. Stephen Evans – Historian/Christian Apologist
Nicholas Perrin – Prof Biblical Studies
Stephen, I asked for a small list of legitimate, NON Christian Historical scholars. I did this because you told me I was among the "tiny minority" of people, even "historians", who believe Jesus was not a real person of NT fame. And what do you do? Trot out a list of pretty much Christian Apologists!!
I think your list makes my case. There is an interesting line in Wiki on this. It makes the assertion that the idea he did not exist in the NT form has been refuted. Guess what? Every reference given to "prove" this assertion links to a writer who is essentially a Christain apologist – of the sort you have used!
Thank you for making my case Stephen.
Ps,,
I don't want to differ from those who know best, but my understanding of a "null hypothesis" is that it is a legitimate position/hypothesis one can begin with before an experiment or gathering of facts. Results of experimentation or data can either confirm or reject the null hypothesis.
An expectation of a potential outcome can indeed be 50/50. With the almost total absence of quality evidence for Jesus existence, imho null is clearly rejected.
I put to you that when applied to the evidence at hand, there is no room for a null hypothesis to be upheld in the Jesus case.
Just a point about the use of a null hypothesis.
One can REJECT the null hypothesis of no difference, OR
one can FAIL TO REJECT the null hypothesis, which is not the same
as accepting or supporting the null hypothesis.
Rejection typically involves evidence showing that two samples were not
drawn from the same population. Failure to reject does not demonstrate
conclusively that the two samples ARE from the same population.
But, remember, this is just math, clearly a human invention. And we are
dealing with arbitrary (though traditional) confidence intervals with
regard to probabilities of reaching erroneous conclusions.
There might be a way of applying such techniques to retrospectively
solving historical questions (was there someone named Jesus who
lived in Nazareth in some defined time interval?), although I don't
really see how that would be helpful. But, if that were confirmed,
what would we know about who he claimed to be? We don't have
much to go on, objectively, but we would not want to throw out
whatever information exists. Scriptural accounts qualify as information,
although opinions vary regarding how much confidence one can
have in the scriptures.
We have indications in scripture that some people who reported
having known him personally, also reported what he said about
who he was and that they believed he was who he said he was.
How credible one finds the scriptures to be matters a lot.
I don't see how attempting to apply a statistical model helps,
one way or another. Assumptions that two alternatives are
equally likely just do not provide any help with this.
As a pretention (not even a hypothetical mental exercise) let us assume the null hypothesis of there was no biblical Jesus versus the alternative hypothesis of there was. To constitute a statistical hypothesis testing one needs to have a measurable variable. Can anyone suggest a measurable variable in this case?
On the other hand if the null hypothesis is there is no difference in proportion of people believing in or not believing in a biblical Jesus then It certainly can be tested with an opinion poll with a statistical test for equality in proportion.
To say that there is only a 50:50 chance that there is a biblical Jesus is an assertion. That assertion can be made in any way imagination carries a person. One may believe there is only a 50:50 chance a living person has a biological father. Sky is the limit for these kinds of assertions. It may be just an exercise in futility with an academic pretention.
If there was a real person named Jesus, who lived in Nazareth with his
parents, Joseph and Mary, who were real people with specific known
ancestry as listed in scripture, was he conceived without a human father?
Throughout history there have been many claims of pregnancy without
natural or artificial insemination. How many of those claims have been
substantiated? Any? Have any women been inseminated without being
aware of who inseminated them? Many. Have stories been invented after
the fact to try to explain the pregnancy? What is known about how
mothers feel about the children they have without knowing who the
father was? Are such children sometimes seen as little miracles? Or
are they ever told by their mothers that they are really special?
Here is where we are—or are somewhat stuck it seems—with this, Joe; Chris for reasons that I suspect but that he denies, does not want to accept that it is likely (or very likely, or somewhat likely) that the Jesus of Nazareth, whose mother was married to the Joseph whose paternal/patriarchal ancestral lineage is found in Matthew 1, ever even existed.
Never mind that the fact that He was said to have been born of a virgin; we won’t get that far. I’m trying to get him to stipulate to the likelihood that there was such a human being with this familial background.
Essentially he wants (and/or needs) to dismiss information that suggests that this person existed, as if such information itself does not. Granted, much of this information is Biblical; but before it was, it was something.
Clearly, Chris is basically suggesting that only Christian historians believe that He even existed; which (‘let’s face it’) is not factual.
Correction: Never mind the fact that He…
As you may know, Stephen, I think there probably was a real person named Jesus
who lived in Nazareth and was the son of the Joseph and Mary whose genealogy
is traced in scripture. I suspect that all three names were common in Galilee. It
has been a long time since I studied in detail the evidence for a historical Jesus. More
may now be known than was known when I did that. And I most likely did not find
all that could have been found even at the time I studied this issue.
At that time the historical evidence suggested that there were a number of rebellious
Nazarenes who lived and died between 20 and 50 AD. Some of them were named
Jesus and several of them were executed, at least some were crucified. Whether
the stories of scripture are exclusively focussed on a single individual, or whether
acts of several people were attributed to just one, we may never know. There
certainly were many other cases in which the legendary character became larger than
the real individual on which the legend was based.
Is the likelihood that this Jesus of Nazareth was "God with Us" in the sense as has
been portrayed changed by whether we can find that He really existed or not?
I'm quite confident that it cannot be established that he DID NOT exist. Perhaps
it can be established that he did exist. Absence of evidence is not evidence of
absence.
Was He who he claimed to be? Did others claim that He was more than He
claimed regarding himself? These may be difficult questions, but they are important
ones for those who have invested their entire lives in believing that He existed
and was who He claimed to be.
Stephen,
Let me try one more time.
You state: "Essentially he [I] wants (and/or needs) to dismiss information that suggests that this person existed, as if such information itself does not. Granted, much of this information is Biblical; but before it was, it was something."
Do I? Well, I don't want to squawk or scowl, but NO, I DON"T WANT or NEED any such thing. Please, listen to me.
I have said before on AT, there may indeed have been a real Jesus of similarity to what you describe. And I say again. So what? If the other claims made about him are not factual (the supernatural ones!), it really is nothing more than an interesting bit of history – even if he did exist as the NT describes.
Do I reject that the Jews exist? No.
Do I reject the flood story? Yes.
Do I reject many of the other "supernatural exploits" of Israel? Yes.
Does the existence of the Jews make my negative position on the flood and the other "exploits" problematic? No.
There is reasonable evidence that Mr Gilgamesh (King of Urek) existed too (Perhaps more than Jesus because the epic is Mr G's writings; where are Jesus writings?), so should I suddenly be required to believe in his Epic of creation? Hardly. Why don't you?
I believe Homer existed. Does this mean I have to believe in all the god's described in his Odyssey and Illiad? Not likely. Why don't you?
My point is, even if Jesus existed, and he may have, so what? That is light years from giving credibility to his claims. Face it Stephen: Those claims are what matter to you are they not? They would be what matter to me.
Do I want or need there not to be a Jesus? Do I want or need there to not be a Jew, a Gilgamesh, a Homer? It DOES NOT MATTER. Please understand that.
I am where I am because I have followed the best evidence I can get my hands on today. If tomorrow evidence comes up which reverses my position, great. I will gladly get on here and tell you about it. I would happily be wrong for the sake of the implication if Jesus were real AND his claims were true!!
I am not where I am because I wanted either Jesus or His Claims to NOT be true. I don't think you understand that, or you would not repetitively try to tell me what I am thinking, wanting, or needing.
Now, having said all that, let me play the devil's advocate and make a suggestion by question as to why you are constantly trying to tell me what I think.
Is it possible that you are so invested in your belief and claims about Jesus, and are so fearful of the implications if he were not real and his claims were not true, that you absolutely want and need them to be true? Because of this you cannot imagine someone else is actually not driven in a similar way? Can you not undestand that another person may be just OK with following the evidence – whichever way it goes, and if it means changing of mind or back tracking so be it…?
Christians by faith accept and believe in biblical truth or truths. In other words the teachings and principles of truth taught in the bible, which we accept by faith as the Word of God, primarily because it is a written revelation of Jesus Christ who is the Word (the Logos) of God. Thus the bible is our source and anchor of truth especially in terms of the Plan of Salvation as it reveals Christ to us in its sacred pages. This I think is distinct from a secular concept or worldview of what constitutes truth. Many here are commenting on truth from completely different worldviews as I see it: believers and non-believers to be more precise, of which Mr Goldstein represents the former.
"…the bible is our source and anchor of truth especially in terms of the Plan of Salvation as it reveals Christ to us in its sacred pages."
This statement by Trevor is a good example of the authoritarian way the "true believer" sees the world. While I think it is important to recognize and respect this perspective, and give due consideration to those who hold such views, I think maintaining such a view requires systematic ignorance of credible information.
What does that matter to old folks like me? If one has lived in the religion box all one's life, and that has been satisfying, why start questioning and thinking now? It does, however, sadden me a little when I see efforts to keep young people in that insular place where reality testing is put off limits.
Personally, I feel fortunate to have escaped from the box about 50 years ago. Mine has been a rewarding and satisfying life, free from most of the angst or fear or guilt that so commonly accompanies the sheltered religious life. The thing is, even the religious life does not need to be so narrow and restrictive as it often becomes within some religious systems. Many adventist Christians who comment here recognize this. It seems to me that people really can be honest believers in Jesus Christ without believing exactly as Cliff does.
Chris,
Do you seriously dismiss all or most scholars and scholarship of religion, and biblical history, and biblical literature, as though they have not even studied Roman history?
Is it your ‘understanding’ or impression that research in these disciplines doesn’t include history?
Here are a few educated opinions Chris:
In a 2011 review of the state of modern scholarship, Bart (a secular agnostic) wrote: "He certainly existed, as virtually every competent scholar of antiquity, Christian or non-Christian, agrees" B. Ehrman, 2011 Forged: writing in the name of God ISBN 978-0-06-207863-6. Page 285
Michael Grant (a classicist) states that "In recent years, 'no serious scholar has ventured to postulate the non historicity of Jesus' or at any rate very few, and they have not succeeded in disposing of the much stronger, indeed very abundant, evidence to the contrary." in Jesus by Michael Grant 2004 ISBN 1898799881 page 200
Richard Burridge (whose doctoral thesis was ‘What are the Gospels? A Comparison with Graeco-Roman Biography’) states "There are those who argue that Jesus is a figment of the Church’s imagination, that there never was a Jesus at all. I have to say that I do not know any respectable critical scholar who says that anymore." in Jesus Now and Then by Richard A. Burridge and Graham Gould (Apr 1, 2004) ISBN 0802809774 page 34
Robert E. Van Voorst Jesus Outside the New Testament: An Introduction to the Ancient Evidence Eerdmans Publishing, 2000. ISBN 0-8028-4368-9 page 16 states: "biblical scholars and classical historians regard theories of non-existence of Jesus as effectively refuted" and that the idea of the non-history of the Jesus’ existence “has consistently failed to convince virtually all scholars of many disciplines.” (From Wikipedia)
Geoffrey Blainey, who is a prominent Australian historian, notes that a few scholars have argued that Jesus did not exist, but writes that Jesus' life was in fact "astonishingly documented" by the standards of the time – more so than any of his contemporaries – with numerous books, stories and memoirs written about him. The problem for the historian, wrote Blainey, is not therefore, determining whether Jesus actually existed, but rather in considering the "sheer multitude of detail and its inconsistencies and contradictions" Geoffrey Blainey; A Short History of Christianity; Viking; 2011; p.xix-xx
(All of this was gathered from Wikipedia.)
So, why am I showing you this? I suppose I appreciate a challenge. But also because you’ve said “I am where I am because I have followed the best evidence I can get my hands on today. If tomorrow evidence comes up which reverses my position, great. I will gladly get on here and tell you about it. I would happily be wrong for the sake of the implication if Jesus were real AND his claims were true!!”
Most scholars have concluded that the best evidence is that Jesus Christ existed. If you were really following the best evidence on which you could have gotten your hands, you would have acknowledged that.
Instead, you are invested in believing/disbelieving something. (I’ve previously admitted that I am.) You should also at least admit that; but even if you don’t, we should now continue—since you say it doesn’t present a challenge for you if Jesus existed.
So then, since Jesus existed, the question now is who was He, in reality?
Stephen,
Bart is not a secular agnostic!! Get your facts straight. He is a NT Scholar.
Obviously you have never edited a Wiki entry and do not know their rules and how things are evidenced. Nor does it appear that you are aware of the steady stream of Christians standing ready to edit Wiki to be favorable to Christianity.
If you doubt this, just go to an entry like young earth creationism etc and try to put some well referenced data in against the concept. It will not stay un-touched for long!
You should have been warned by my observation about Wiki and this subject of Jesus. Bart is one of the scholars quoted as "proof" for the claim that doubts about Jesus authenticity have been put to rest.
I have no doubt there was perhaps one or several "Jesus" characcters in that era. Most probably just prior to the NT dating. I suspect it is on such a character that the Gospel of Mark is constructed.
I think the reality remains Stephen that the best scholars, who are NOT within the Christian bias zone have not concluded that the best evidence is that Jesus Christ existed – few probably care enough to weigh in on the debate. I have no problem with agreeing with you that most Christian scholars have reached that conclusion that he did exist in the NT form. I wonder which came first their convicion and faith in him, or their historical conviction? I fear the former.
OK, if Jesus existed, and he may have, who was he…?
Well, there is no point turning to secular history to answer that question is there? There is no concrete data of any value. Zilch. About the best you may get is that he was male, got into some trouble, had a few followers, but that depends how one reads which translation and the context in certain passages if I recall. Precisely who, when, what is as clear as mud. So, yes, no help there.
Back to the Bible, where else? Well, my first suspicion is that the gospel of Mark may be a story built around a Jesus person to create an "anti-epic" reflecting the theme of Homer's Odyssey. If you have not read the Odyssey or the Illiad, that may make no sense to you. You will find foot washing, feeding of crowds. Olive Trees, A Carpenter, Feasts, etc. The parallels are compelling. Point? A mythical story written around a "real" person, with a similar blend of the real, the supernatural, and the imaginary as one finds in the Illiad and Odyssey.
Next probability is that Jesus was both real and the Gospels record "real" events. I say "real" because if you go read many other stories of the time, the magic, the bizzare, the crazy, the impossible were the theme of the day… Point: Read it all with a pinch of salt. Or a shaker full!
Next probability is that Jesus was who the NT claims he was: human and supernatural. Probability of that? Until I find verifiable evidence past, or present, of even just one event where the veil of reality has been broken into by a miraculous event I will have no choice but to carry the salt shaker with me!
And, if ever we sort out who Jesus was, if he was, then perhaps we can get back to Dr Taylors pressing question. How SDA's know they have the truth. Pretty hard when the foundation is not even certain….
I believe we should be held accountable for accuracy, even if we get got our information from Wikipedia; and I didn’t do a good job of copying because I omitted Ehrman’s last name in editing.
Clearly, he is not a secular agnostic.
The fact remains Chris that most scholars agree that the Jesus, whose mother was the Mary who was married to the Joseph whose patriarchal lineage is detailed in Matthew, did exist as a human being. Now it can certainly be argued “that the best scholars, who are NOT within the Christian bias zone,” (whatever that is) are in the ‘non-Christian bias zone.’ In other words, you don’t have to be a Christian to be biased about this. (Or are you suggesting that only Christians can be in any so-called biased zone? And if they probably don’t care enough to weigh in on the debate, by what objective criteria are they then judged (by you) to be among the best scholars; and would that criteria differ from those with comparable credentialing who may somehow disagree?
But, since the reality of Jesus’ existence presents no challenge to you or anything; we can talk about who He was. After all, that is the essence of any SDA claim to have the truth.
Yes, the NT claims He was human and supernatural; but again Chris there can be no “probability” attached to that since it is a unique and ‘supernatural’ claim. It is either True, or it’s False.
Adventists believe it is true, I believe that it is true, but no one believes that it can be proven. It has to be believed, of course.
Are we together on this, thus far?
Stephen,
Well, I ended up being wrong on Bart. He has become an agnostic! Amazing, and good to see someone like that following his convictions.
I'll get back to the probability thing later…
Matthew and Luke's genealogy can never be reconciled. To use either as "proof" of Jesus' ancestry is an impossibility. But more evident is that his genealogy is traced through Joseph who, according to the Bible story, had nothing to do with the conception, but rather the Holy Spirit. It's so confusing!
Elaine,
You missed my point about Joseph/genealogy. I referenced the genealogy so as to specify which of the potentially multiple Jesus of Nazareth(s) we need to talk about.
The point wasn’t to prove whether or not Jesus was sired by the carpenter. All of the Biblical genealogies are from the father’s (or the father figure’s) side.
~~Boy, have you guys changed topic since I have been gone!!! Well, not really; the discussion is still about truth.
Now we are really discussing what The Truth is; we are talking about Jesus Christ. There are at least two remarkable predictions in Isaiah 53 and Daniel 9 regarding the coming and works of Jesus the Messiah. Paul reference the foundation of prophecy that helps us confirm the identity of Jesus as the son of God.
“For what I received I passed on to you as of First Importance: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures,
And that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures.”
1 Corinthians 15:1-4
The prediction of Christ’s death and resurrection are clearly seen in the lines below.
“For the transgression of my people he was stricken, though he had done no violence, nor was any deceit in his mouth.”
“Yet it was the Lord’s will to crush him and cause him to suffer, and though the Lord makes his soul an offering for guilt,
yet he shall see his children and his days shall be prolonged and the will of the Lord will prosper in his hand.”
Is 53:9-10
Prophecy can help us to have less sceptic presuppositions when we read the Gospels.
Internal evidence as well helps. For example, If you were making up documents to witness to the 1st Century world about Jesus and that he rose from the dead, the last people on earth that you would make as the first witnesses of this, would be a group of women. Sorry ladies!
You are right the Bart is a scholar, but very weak one! Most Greek scholars agree we have a copy very accurate to the original documents. Westcott and Hort for example state that we have a copy 98.33% accurate to the original FF Bruce discusses this fact extensively. F.F. Bruce, The New Testament Documents: Are They Reliable? 5th ed. (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 1983), 14 The Great NT scholar A.T. Robertson gave a figure of 99% accuracy to the original. Norman Geisler, Baker Encyclopedia of Christian Apologetics, (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker Books, 2002), 474
And as historian Sir Fredric Kenyon assures us, "…the last foundation for any doubt that the Scriptures have come down to us substantially as they were written has now been removed. Both the authenticity and general integrity of the books of the New Testament may be regarded as finally established." Quoted by Norman Geisler, General Introduction to the Bible, (Chicago: Moody Press, 1986), 405. These findings are much closer to The Truth than Bart gives us!
Chris, Here is where you did not do your research. Yes, Bart Ehrman is a NT Scholar but he gave up his faith in God some years ago. In his book. God’s Problem he lays out why the Bible does not answer the problem of evil and suffering and that there is no God.
I have also had a private email exchange with him in which he told me that if there is a God then how could he allow innocent people to die in earthquakes and tsunamis?
And his latest book is called“Did Jesus Exist?” which you say you need proof for. Here is the information on the Amazon site about what this book covers.
Did Jesus Exist? historian and Bible expert Bart Ehrman confronts the question, "Did Jesus exist at all?" Ehrman vigorously defends the historical Jesus, identifies the most historically reliable sources for best understanding Jesus’ mission and message, and offers a compelling portrait of the person at the heart of the Christian tradition.
Known as a master explainer with deep knowledge of the field, Bart Ehrman methodically demolishes both the scholarly and popular “mythicist” arguments against the existence of Jesus. Marshaling evidence from within the Bible and the wider historical record of the ancient world, Ehrman tackles the key issues that surround the mythologies associated with Jesus and the early Christian movement.
David,
Wow! Thank you for updating my information. The only point I would add is, not that I did not do my research – I had not done enough! Fancy Bart becoming an agnostic. Amazing.
Apart from finding I was wrong on his current stance, it is actually enlightening to find someone who I suspect if following the evidence where it leads. Good on him.
Is he correct on Jesus being historically real or not remains to be seen. Of course, I gather that he does not believe Jesus was anything more than an historical human figure, and I'm happy to give that probability to the debate, but what does it gain? As I've said to Stephen, so what? It is light years from any value for the claims of the NT and Christians today.
There is great confusion about scholars who write about Biblical characters; and none are more controversial than those who are historical scholars of the Bible (or NT in Bart's position) and apologist scholars who cannot be identified as unbiased. The unbiased scholars who have written about Jesus (one of the earliest was The Search for the Historical Jesus by Albert Schweitzer).
There are accounts by a few writers, that a man named Jesus existed and was reported to have performed miracles in Judea. But whether he was divine, or the Son of God, are purely religious beliefs of faith and are not even in the realm of historical and factual records. There is no proof possible that Jesus was divine or the claims made by the NT writers; those are all based on their beliefs. To require evidence is to deny faith.
The inability to separate belief based on faith (which cannot ever be factual) and actual, unbiased reports are consistently confused, and often conflated. Unless those can be separated by the reader, there will continue to be charges against historical Bible scholars that they are "denying" the faith: a faith that can never be recognized as factual. Hebrews describes what is too often forgotten: "Faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen."
Elaine, "historical Bible scholars that "deny" the faith" or those that affirm the faith is not the issue. It is the historical facts. Unless those can be separated by the reader, there will continue to be charges against historical facts.
This is somewhat silly, Elaine. You are using fundamentalist either-or logic here. Of course faith is always based on evidence. It does not amount to scientific proof that enables you to label its beliefs as proven fact. And you may dispute the weight that should be given to the evidence. But to say that the expectation of evidence is a denial of faith makes no sense. No matter how nonsensical the faith belief, it is just about always founded on evidence of some sort.
You also make the mistake of assuming that differences of opinion among scholars means that there is confusion. Not at all. Again, this is the reaction of a fundamentalist mindset that views diversity of opinions and ideas as a bad thing. To say Albert Schweitzer was unbiased probably says far more about your biases than about his lack thereof. When it comes to Jesus, only the ignorant are unbiased.
Suggesting that the portion of the Jesus accounts that attest to His divinity are not historical or factual records is nonsense! Of course those sources cannot definitively prove His divinity – unless you accept them as true. But saying that an account does not belong in the realm of history or fact because you do not believe it to be true, is like me saying that Aerosmith does not belong in the realm of music because I find them painful to watch and listen to.
The eyewitnesses who claim to have written the Jesus accounts might beg to differ with your denial that what they recorded in fact occurred and was said. Since when is eyewitness evidence not evidence? Much of it would be admissible in a court of law as evidence. You simply say it is not evidence because you don't believe it.
"The eyewitnesses who claim to have written the Jesus accounts…"
Now there's a new one…. I didn't know there was any!!
The continual contest of wills. Why?? There has always been controversy of the authenticity of a Creator God, and whether Jesua the Christ, the Messiah, was a reality?? There is no wisdom in cherry picking your believable scholar, as they know no more than any other interested person in the "subject" than you yourself, for a certainty. As far as i know, other than the Holy Bible as a reference, to Jesua the Christ, there are no other confirmed "first person" accounts of His actual being, and His supernatural exploits, and His confirmation that He was God with us.
Perhaps David might correct me, but all of the scholars who Mrs. Lindensmith cites are evangelical Protestant Christians which does not detract from their scholarship, only that it helps readers to know where they are coming from in terms of the own personal faith assumptions. Also, that the New Testament textual tradition documents are relatively well-attested and most the text of the New Testament, with the exception of minor scribal errors, is probably, in most (not all) cases, what came from the pen of the original writers does not address the historical validity of what is contained in those texts.
Also, there were many early Christain texts being exchanged back and forth between different Christian groups in the 2nd and 3rd centuries which were not included in what evolved into the consensus Christian orthodox canon of books we now call the "New Testament." (Of course, our Catholic friends have a slightly different list of books included in their Bible than do us Protestants)
What we know of the real "historical" Jesus separated out from the mythic stories that his followers told about him will probably be endlessly argued by scholars.
Exactly how far do you want to go with this line of reasoning, Erv? Let's see…all of the scientists whose work you would cite for the truth of neo-Darwinian evolution are in fact neo-Darwinans and probably materialists as well. Surprise, surprise! Well, at least it helps one to know where they are coming from in terms of their own personal faith assumptions, right?
I find it interesting that some here are willing to concede that the evidence confirms the existence of the historical Jesus. But the reference material – without which no one would be aware of His existence – that lays out the content of His life and message is deemed highly suspect. Why? Because of the naturalistic/materialistic faith assumptions of the skeptics. The historical evidence of miracles, the immaculate conception, the resurrection, challenge the truth assumptions of the deniers. They cling just as tenaciously to their truth claims as any fundamentalist Christian.
Erv. Many books have been written on this subject. One of the earliest was by F F Bruce one of the greatest scholars of his generation (a note of interest, Desmond Ford got his PhD under Bruce at the University of Manchester), his book Are the NT Documents Reliable has been highly praised over the years. It is true that many writings ciculated . They are divided into the New Testament and the Pseudopigrapha. Those of us who believe that God crerated us also believe that God led in the choosing of why writings to place in the NT. They are letters that people wrote. The only one that sets out to be some kind of apologetic is the gospel of Luke. He was not one of the disciples but in his introduction said he researched the subject and wrote down what he found, similar to how a scholar today would go about writing on a subject. He would do his research as well.
David. I guess I don't understand your point that "Those of us who believe that God crerated us also believe that God led in the choosing of why [I assume you mean "what" or "which"] writings to place in the NT." Again, I may not have read as much about early Christian church history and canon formation literature as you have, but if my memory serves me right, the process by which the canon was developed doesn't sound as if God was anywhere around, unless you believe that all of the machinations involved in which books were included and which were not included was "God-breathed." Idle related question: Was God anywhere around when the King James Bible was translated into English?
It is interesting, Erv, how childish assumptions about how God works can persist in the minds of highly intelligent people. The notion that the divine/human interaction must appear supernatural and pure in order to be identified as the product of transcendent revelation and action is a byproduct of highly literalist, immature, fundamentalist thinking from a pre-EGW era. Your familiarity with scripture should have caused you to check this argument at the door. Many stories in the Bible would not have made it into the canon if those who compiled it were subject to your implicit rule that evidence of human messiness precludes God's presence and guidance.
I doubt that labeling others as having "childish assumptioms" is helpful to this discussion. Your point could easily be made using more respectful language.
Erv makes a great point in that the scholarship of an evangelical Protestant Christian should not be diminished, detracted from, or minimized because of their religious affiliation; but how does recognition that a scholar is an evangelical Protestant Christian help “readers to know where they are coming from in terms of their own personal faith assumptions”?
For example, would Erv’s membership in good and regular standing as a member of the Seventh-day Adventist Church, or Chris’s s being a Christian, really help “readers to know where they are coming from in terms of their own personal faith assumptions” in research about the Biblical Jesus Christ, if they were to engage in such?
~~I am glad you asked. Well, the facts are that Extra-Biblical and secular writers (some hostile) point to Jesus' existence and life and death including the Roman writings of Tacitus, Seutonius, Thallus and Pliny, and the Jewish writings of Josephus . Sir Frederic Kenyon, former Director of the British Museum, stated that:
"The interval between the dates of the original composition and the earliest extant evidence [i.e. our oldest manuscripts] becomes so small as to be negligible, and the last foundation for any doubt that the scriptures have come down to us substantially as they were written has now been removed."
Sir William Ramsey was a hostile scholar intent on discrediting Luke's writings, but he was astonished to discover that his archaeological findings confirmed the full accuracy of the customs, locations, and the governing titles (e.g. "magistrates" Acts 16:35; “proconsul” Acts 18:12) that Luke had mentioned in his history. These terms varied widely from region to region. Ramsey concluded, "Great historians are the rarest of writers…[I regard Luke] among the historians of the first rank"
Renowned Oxford Classical historian Michael Grant, writes, "If we apply the same criteria that we would apply to other ancient literary sources, the evidence is firm and plausible enough to necessitate the conclusion that the tomb was indeed found empty."
Dr. Paul Meier confirms that, "If all the evidence is weighed carefully and fairly, it is indeed justifiable, according to the canons of historical research, to conclude that [Jesus' tomb] was actually empty… And no shred of evidence has yet been discovered in literary sources, epigraphy, or archaeology that would disprove this statement."
At least this much we know.
If Jesus tomb was empty, which objective evidence would say it was, then the disciples took the body. That is the only real conclusion if you are anti-supernatutralist. But why would they do this and then make up the resurrection? Motive please!!!! They knew they would be killed for their preaching of the resurrection; they all chose to die for what THEY KNEW was a lie. Why? Motive Please!!!
What you have done here Darrel is provide evidence that scholars and historians of varying ideological and philosophical stripes have concluded that certain Gospel chronicling, depictions, and narratives have as high a degree and likelihood of historical accuracy as there can probably be of events two thousand years ago.
Darrel & Stephen,
"archaeological findings confirmed the full accuracy of the customs, locations, and the governing titles (e.g. "magistrates" Acts 16:35; “proconsul” Acts 18:12) that Luke had mentioned in his history."
Irony: similar findings confirm the customs, locations, and governing titles etc from Homer's day too. Does this give credibility to his multitude of god/men/women?
Of course if something is written in a given time it is going to reflect that time. Even fictional/semi fictional/myth shows this pattern.
Historical accuracy with regard to context says little to nothing about whether the content was real, semi fictional, myth, or legend… not as far as I can see anyways..
One of the many differences with the versions of events in the Gospels as compared to Homer’s literature is that there are four (close) versions of the Gospels.
Of course, if one’s bias is, for whatever reason, in favor of them being fictionalized versions of partial truths, then that’s what one will most likely believe. However Darrel has identified serious scholarship that one must (as we say in America) ‘spin’ a certain way in order to disregard.
On the other hand, the level of detail in the Gospel narratives and the time frames in which they were written, and the proximity to primary sources and/or source material of the authors, do not make their historical reality unreasonable to assume.
The stories of ‘miracles’ are, of course, what makes them ‘unreasonable’ to/for anyone who needs to see firsthand evidence of the supernatural to occur before they believe them. And part of what makes them reasonable to believe is that the Old Testament prophecies, particularly those of Isaiah, precisely coincide with so many of the narrative details. (That is obviously the purpose of prophecy.)
But the synoptics do not claim to be writing first hand. They all had a common source of information from which they wrote, not from their own personal experience. Even then, there are multiple contradictions that cannot coincide if they were truly accurate reports rather than each written with an agenda.
There is a world of difference from accepting that Jesus was a historic figure with birth, life and death recorded and later told to the Gospel writers and that he was God, part of the Godhead. The latter is totally based on faith. But as Jesus never claimed to be God, his divinity and incarnation were added later, as there could never be proof of a story of virginal conception, but the idea was not at all original with Jesus. There were many myths of virginal conceptions in Greek and Roman literature and like giving him the title of "God" just as were the Caesars, so the virginal conception was an additional proof for divinity.
You can’t have it both ways Elaine. Of course Jesus claimed to be God! The only way that anyone can conclude that He did not would be to say that the Gospels were totally fictitious. But if that was the case, then why use them as evidence that Jesus never claimed to be God’s only Son?
Any suggestion or assertion that Jesus did not claim to be the Son of God—or that this was never reported in the gospels—is a non sequitur.
There is a world of difference between what Jesus actually said and what is written in the Gospels. They were written at least a generation after Jesus' Resurrection, and none of the three synoptics wre actual witnesses to the events they wrote; they were from oral accounts, some second and third hand. The Christological Gospel of John, had a distinctive agend to make him as God. Even in the synoptic Gospels Jesus only calls Himself the "Son of God" and prayed to His Father (does God need to pray to God?). Please find a text in the Gospels where Jesus calls himself God. Jesus "became" God not until the Council of Nicea in 325, long after the Gospels and the NT canon was closed.
Paul, the earliest NT writer, never called Jesus God. Mark, the earliest Gospel, was was written ca. 70 A.D. It was not until after his death that his followers decided tht he had been divine but this did not happen immediately; it was not finalized until the fourth century.
There is a world of difference between what Jesus actually said and what is written in the Gospels. They were written at least a generation after Jesus' Resurrection, and none of the three synoptics wre actual witnesses to the events they wrote; they were from oral accounts, some second and third hand. The Christological Gospel of John, had a distinctive agend to make him as God. Even in the synoptic Gospels Jesus only calls Himself the "Son of God" and prayed to His Father (does God need to pray to God?). Please find a text in the Gospels where Jesus calls himself God. Jesus "became" God not until the Council of Nicea in 325, long after the Gospels and the NT canon was closed.
Paul, the earliest NT writer, never called Jesus God. Mark, the earliest Gospel, was was written ca. 70 A.D. It was not until after his death that his followers decided tht he had been divine but this did not happen immediately; it was not finalized until the fourth century.
Elaine,
With all due respect, this is silly.
When Jesus asked Peter, “Whom do men say that I the Son of man am?” and received various answers, Jesus then asked, “But whom say ye that I am?” Peter responded “Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.”
Now, please explain why Jesus then said to him, “Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven.” He didn’t rebuke Peter. He didn’t ‘correct’ his statement, did He? Instead, He said that Peter’s correct insight came directly from His Father in heaven.
More the point, what do you think Jesus meant when He said “Whosoever therefore shall deny me before men, him will I also deny before my Father which is in heaven.” What does that mean?
Tell me Elaine, when Jesus prophesied His return, “When the Son of man shall come in his glory, and all the holy angels with him, [when He] then shall sit upon the throne of his glory,” why did He then go on to refer to Himself as “the King” in Matthew 25:34 and in Matthew 25:40?
Tell me this Elaine, when Caiaphas asked Jesus “I adjure thee by the living God, that thou tell us whether thou be the Christ, the Son of God;” why did Jesus answer him, “Thou has said: nevertheless I say unto you, Hereafter shall ye see the Son of man sitting on the right hand of power, and coming in the clouds of heaven”? Why didn’t Jesus just correct him and say, “Nope, I’m just another dude, bruh?”
Do you actually believe that Jesus did not say the words or have the conversation with Nicodemus in John 3: 1-21? I know that isn’t in one of the synoptic gospels, but are you saying that conversation didn’t take place at all? (That is a ‘Yes’ or ‘No’ question.)
The reason that there are two different schools of thought here is because some equate experience; either personal ones, or the reports that others have had as universal, or facts. Some of us are thinking objectively as required in a witness in court: only what you have personally seen and heard is considered of worth. It matters not how strongly you may believe that your own feelings and experience are valuable to others, nevertheless, they are very personal to you and may, or may not have meaning to anyone else. I have a wonderfully spiritual experience listening to certain music; but it may have little or no meaning to others who may only hear "sounds." That is MY personal experience and cannot be given to anyone else.
About the statement written in John. Whether he actually heard that conversation is very doubtful because Nicodemus came to Jesus at night and in secret, so there most likely were not any witnesses. As for another writer who wrote that the Roman guards saw Jesus raised from the tomb: that too, is not what is recorded in the Bible. They, like Mary, saw the empty tomb, which is certainly not a personal witness.
The "conversion" experiences which others have written about have been duplicated by the Muslim ministry in the jails when many became converted to Islam and left their former lives and tried to live according to the Koran–which is entirely different than The Taliban as Islam teaches peace and brotherhood. While we may not think of it that way, neither do many Christians demonstrate the love their religion requires.
Each person defines "spiritual" according to his own thinking. But the word is so broad and may or may not include any particular religious belief that is has become overused to the extent that it has little meaning. If someone asks: "Are you a spiritual person"? How to answer? What do they mean by spiritual?
Elaine,
What does your own personal spirituality have to do with Jesus’ factual divinity?
Here’s the deal, Chris has to challenge the veracity of Jesus’ actual existence and you have to contest His divinity because if/since He did exist, then we are left with the accuracy of the scriptural accounts of what He did and said. If He actually did do and say the things which He is reported to have done and said, then we are left with the reality that He was a magician and con man, or God.
If He was God, if He did tell Nicodemus that he must be born again, and that He was sent to save the world, then we are left with whether Adventists have understood this correctly; and/or whether Adventists have a better handle on Jesus’ mission, role, identity, and ministry than do all other 'correct' Christian denominations—and therefore have more truth than them.
In other words, if Jesus is/was God, then which people who have believed this have interpreted this truth with more truth; or should I say the most truth? (I think you both know it’s SDAs.)
Stephen,
You say I have to challenge Jesus actual existence, and Elaine has to contest his divinity. Not so, because even if we did not, regardless, it still leaves your central point: the accuracy of the scriptural accounts of what he said and did.
Surely THAT is the critical test or question. If he existed, or even assuming he did, the accuracy is crucial to any further understanding. It is even more critical to understanding the divinity question.
The accounts of this Jesus could be of any level of accuracy. A blend of fact, imagination, myth, and who knows what. In spite of Nathan telling us that it was written by eyewitnesses – it was not! So, leave my issues out of it. You have more than enough to worry about reaching any certainty about its accuracy.
If ever you reach a positive conclusion about that, then you could go on to the issue of who he really was: divine or not. My guess though is that in the process of searching out accuracy you'll be dissappointed.
You talk about Elaine's comments as being silly and use Jesus "words" to prove this. What if it is just a story? What do those words prove? Would you use the lliad description of a conversation with the god's in such a way? I suggest you can no more prove the accuracy of Jesus "words" than Homer's described conversations. How can you call someone "silly" today on the basis of such fantasy? (ps not to say Homer's works are not grounded in much real history, but I doubt the god's conversations and actions were).
Chris,
You must be more careful, brother. I did not call Elaine (herself) silly. Secondly, Elaine had claimed that “Jesus never claimed to be God;” her precise words. How else would you suggest I dispute this other than using Jesus’ own words?
This is why I told Elaine that you can’t have it both ways Chris! I’ll repeat: the only way that anyone can conclude that He did not claim to be God would be to say that the Gospels were totally fictitious. But if that was the case, then why use them as evidence that Jesus never claimed to be God’s only begotten Son?
Look Chris, it’s painfully obvious at this point that you are very heavily invested in the notion that Jesus was fraudulent. Why don’t you just concede the obvious? You’ve publicly invested some significant intellectual capital or currency—and thus some personal credibility—in the notion that Jesus was not who and what He’s claimed to be. Regardless of how you’ve gotten here, you’re no objective, uninterested observer now my friend.
I will repeat this as well, if Jesus was not fraudulent in any way, if the gospels do not constitute the largest and most successful hoax ever perpetrated in the entirety of all human history, then Adventists are in the running for having more truth than other truth-based denominations. (You might even objectively agree with that.)
Would it make you feel better for me to flip this to say that, if Jesus was a fraud, and if Christianity represents the largest and most successful hoax ever perpetrated in all human history, then Adventists have taken the ‘hoax’ to new and unprecedented levels of total deception?
In other words, what will you admit?
Oh dear…
Well, first question. Jesus' own words never do claim that he was God. Implication at best.
Second, if the gospels were fictitious, one could still legitimately use them to demonstrate that the fictitious character called Jesus never personally claimed to be God… Elaine appears correct to me..
Hoax? If a story begins its life as exactly that, and every contemporary knows it is a story, perhaps even based on a real person of the time, but later generations take that story as FACT, that does not mean it began as a hoax.
Definition:
So, I would not call it a hoax in any case. That it has become believed as fact when it may not be does fit your point.
The "if" it is/was/were true would SDA's be in the running? Well, personally I don't think they would be at the front of the pack. I found myself seeing many of "our" doctrines differently as I exposed them to question. But that's my personal assessment of SDA teachings. I think "we" are pretty screwed up on much of it actually..
What will I admit? … its turtles all the way down bro!
btw Stephen,
If you want me to admit Adventism would be front of the pack… which version would you like me to support? Ultra conservative, conservatives, liberal, ultra liberal, … Trinity deniers, Trinitarian, … ?
Which one did you say had the truth again?
Stephen,
Why not simply quote a Bible text where Jesus says the He is God.
First off, there would be no way that the story of Jesus, if not true, is not a hoax. There are too many details, too many conversations, too many events, including too many public settings like the wedding at Cana, the baptism, the trial, and the crucifixion (to name a few); and too many teachings, and related messages, etc., and too many versions of all of these things, and too much follow-up (Acts of the Apostles, epistles, among other things) for Christ’s life and the history of the founding of Christianity—if not essentially true—for it to have been perpetrated and preached by accident or a series of, what?, coincidental misunderstandings?
If this isn’t based in fact and on events that actually occurred, then it is a hoax; the likes of which, and the scale of which, has never been approached in all of human history. How on earth could have been accidental?
Secondly, and this is for both you and Elaine, you must—for obvious reasons—completely disregard the entire book of John in order to even ever consider that Jesus never claimed divinity, because Jesus clearly did say that He came from heaven and was sent by God as His Son—and claimed pre-existence in John 8:58.
But (Elaine) Mark 15: 61-62 isn’t John. Our challenge is for you to accept that the Bible says what it says. Otherwise, how can I address your question?
Correction: that is Mark 14: 61, 62
Stephen, you clearly have not read the lliad and information about Troy because it seems to me if you had you would not make such an argument about hoaxes.
Your points about the details etc in the NT story fit exactly the lliad. Details, conversations, events, locations – all there to be confirmed by history. Does that make the conversations with the god's fact?
Homer's story is a story grounded in history, myth, legend etc. It is not a hoax, but many parts cannot be factual.
Why the NT stories any different? Just because people may have begun to take as fact a story which may never have been intended to be fully factual, or was built on a blend of fact, myth, legend, etc. is a matter of history and mystery. It does not mean it bagan as a hoax.
Chris,
It is true that I don’t know much of anything about Homer’s Iliad; but are there four different versions of the same story authored by different individuals? Did people 25-50-75-100 years later consider Homer’s poetry to have been a depiction of what had occurred; and believed it to the point of willful martyrdom over it? Do people to this day believe it to have been factual in its details? To what extent had the details of Homer’s poetry been foretold in Greek literature several hundreds of years prior their occurrence?
Why are we having trouble agreeing on the self-evident reality that if Jesus and His story are fictional they represent the largest hoax ever perpetrated in human history? Somebody or some bodies intended the story of Jesus to be believed as true. If it’s not true, it’s a hoax.
(I think we both know it’s not.)
Friends, i've suggested several times there is no such thing as individual and perhaps even group "objective" views. All views, on any "subject", are in the expressing of biases."All" viewpoints can never be unbiased, as even a group decision is made with the subjective approval of the majority.
i submit that there are no "expert scholars" on the subject of divinity of God, in the person of Jesus Christ, acceptable to biased critics. If recorded "first person" accounts of witnesses, generally accepted by almost every Bible scholar for almost 1600 years, has no weight in the thinking of present day detractors, then there will never be evidence acceptable on any subject of the detractors. Because there is no better evidence than that of first person witnesses. The negative views put forth by detractors is strictly biased, and of a circumstantial nature.
A true scholar should take no particular position in presenting his thesis or books. The intent should be to write of the findings in historical documents and recorded previous history that has more then one source. This is also how an excellent teacher of most subjects (English or languages excepted) operates: She presents what is known but particularly avoids to introduce her personal opinions. This lets the student or reader make up her own mind about the facts available. Anything else becomes biased apologetics.
"A true scholar should take no particular position in presenting his thesis or books ~~Anything else becomes biased apologetics." Elaine, really? Based on this view you think Albert Schweitzer and Bart Ehrman true scholars?
Darrel, to answer your question: Yes, Schweitzer and Ehrman are true historical scholars by all definitions of the word. It matters not whether one agrees with them, they are still highly recognized and have contributed greatly to our knowledge of the world during NT times.
Another NT scholar, Luke Timothy Johnson, has written a wonderful commentary on the NT, and is a Christian. But both Ehrman and he are largely in agreement, which is what the best of scholars would be due. I have an entire collection of books on Christianity from the historical standpoint and the formation of theology and when they are in agreement they have met the demands of good scholarship.
I should have clarified that statement: "Scholars do not present or show their very personal opinions, especially when writing on Biblical religion. There are far too many differences of opinions in matters of faith. But with historical facts, there must be more than one source for good information, just a evidence for courts usually needs more than one witness to prevent bias; and the more the better.
This has been a very intellectual discussion. However, there is another dimension that has been largely ignored—the experiential. If someone comes through the door with a fried egg draped over their ear and they tell you hoow much their life has improved since they placed the fried egg over their ear you caanot argue with their experience. But you can ask How many other people have had the same expeirence? When you learn that no one else has you can suspect that he may be having mental problems.. If a person tells you how Jesus has transformed their life and you ask the same question you discover that millions of people over the centuries have had this experience. You can hardly argue that all these people are suffering from some kind of mental illness. And if you could make a case for mental illness then it is a great illness to have since it transforms murderers like Saul later Paul who preach life instead of death and contless people who were once addicted or were criminals but who changed to lead productive lives. Countless books have been written sharing the testimonies of these transformed lives.
The same experiences mentioned by David have been reported by worshipers of many gods and beliefs; but they are all subjective and cannot be disputed. This has absolutely nothing to do with the fact that Jesus is God and everything to do with one's own subjective beliefs. It is all based on faith and cannot be objectively proven.
This is not a comment on whether one is truthful with his experiences of life being transformed by Christ, as transformation comes because something or someone has given him hope and it may not always be hope from a religious belief.
It is no different than someone saying that he "died" on the operating room table and saw God and heaven and a wonderful bright light, etc. It is his very own personal experience just as are those reported miraculous cures from the last stages of a terminal disease: subjective, but cannot form objective truths.
There are two distinctly different ideas represented here: those who base their information on evidence that is objective and undisputed by those reputable to evaluate; and those who come from a subjective belief, often called faith, that there is more beyond the visible that cannot be objectified. Unless common terms are agreed upon, conversation is not possible.
The two major events that were used in demonstrating Jesus' divinity were never seen and only based on much later hearsay: The virginal conception and the Resurrection
David,
Of course religion (and in respect to your comment – Christianity) has helped people: Millions of them. If indeed religion is a human invention, of course it is going to respond to, be tailored to, and meed a "need" in the human psyche and experience. We have invented other systems of thinking and social structures too and surprise, surprise they help millions of people.
Your argument seems to me is, as Elaine noted, little more than a subjective commentary on one of humanities great (or worst?) inventions and how it fits into his subjective experience.
I too doubt that eggs on ears is going to take off as being particularly suitable to the average human psyche!
Of course, I would go on to suggest that Islam is a whole bunch of egg wearing, but then they would say so is Christianity!
ps to that last comment: In spite of me calling Islam "egg wearing", it is a candidate as another "great" human invention, the power of which is commensurate with it ability to respond to something in the human experience. I would suggest its appeal is particularly to do with the male of the species. What better than a religion granting men power over women -right down to ability to demand sex, "rape" children in the guize of "marriage", and to wage war on enemies (anyone they don't like) with the "knowlege they are doing so for God…?
Christianity also has its appeals to the psyche, some of which are seen as egg wearing by others… I wonder why Women's ordination, first as elders, then as Ministers has faced hard times? Then go back into history re the Jesus question and see the disdain with which early Christains were viewed. It took a long time for them to become "civilized". There are reasons to suspect they were, at first, little better than magic believing misfits… egg wearers?
Both Elaine and Chris have missed the point, I did not say that Christianity was the only religion that had subjective experiences. I was talking about how an experience with Jesus changes hardened criminals into loving and peaceful people. Islam does not show how an experience with Allah changes them from a violent and selfish person into a loving and caring person. Other world religions do not claim as does Christianity that God intervenes in people's lives and readically change them. Here is a current example. WGTS91.9, the radio station of Washiington Adventist University aired this past Sabbath in their Breakaway broadcast an interview with Bob Colquhon. He was a rock band musician that got into drugs and crime and guns and ended up in prison. In prison he met Jesus Christ and gave his life to him. When he got out of prison he has dedicated his life to helping other people avoid the mess that he got into, You should listen to his testimony. This can be repeated thousands of times by other people. No other religion has these kinds of experiences. You can doubt all you want but the truth is that these people have experienced something dramatic and life changing. How would you account for that from a purely naturalistic world view?
David,
I did not miss the point at all. I was illustrating to you why experience works. In doing so I was suggesting that experience is also of no value to test validity of a claim. You say Islam cannot offer the kind of experience Christianity does, but you're missing my point: Religions appeal to needs in the human psyche. Islam has its own appeal to particular or certain kinds of people for a range of reasons, and so too does Christianity. Let's not ignore the cultural aspects of such either.
How would I account for Colquhon's experience? It is a distinctly human type behaviour and response in the situations whithin which he found himself.
Elaine, here is an example of poor scholarship, "There is a world of difference between what Jesus actually said and what is written in the Gospels. . . . . . . and none of the three synoptics were actual witnesses to the events they wrote." These opinions do not follow from any fact, and they themselves are not facts. If God predicted the coming of the Messiah in Is 53 and Daniel 9, then it is safe to believe that the recorded of Jesus' message and ministry in the Gospel is trustworthy.
So it is poor scholarship to report the undisputed facts that the gospel writers were not eyewitnesses to the actual words of Jesus, but it is good scholarship to use the words in a collection of books called the Bible that purport to fortell of a coming Messiah to prove that what Jesus is recorded to have said in later books written years after His death is true and valid?? Wow that seems a stretch. I want very much to believe in the validity of the Jesus conversations since they are so comforting and supportive of my view of God but the reasoning you suggest is not why I would place my faith in those gospels.
Chris. You were once a pastor. Were you a pastor without a personal experrience with God? If you did not have an experience then how did you become a pastor? And if you did have one how did you lose it?
David,
I have no hesitation in saying I had an experience with God. Many in fact.
How did I lose it? I don't know that I have!!
I continue to consider myself a spiritual person. I'm actually waiting with anticipation for Sam Harris's next book because I think it will be great value on the topic. People have all kind s of subjective experiences with god, God, imaginary beings and the list goes on. I think there is much confusion in both what we are experiencing, and in how we interpret that.
Just because I am no longer in ministry, and believe little to nothing of the dogma I was brought up in, does not mean I am not a spiritual person. I would hazard a guess many still in ministry, perhaps some reading this, would do as I have done were it not for the "price".
Are you following Ryan Bell?
In his second last blog (must read his latest – on the importance of being wrong – sounds relevant!) he made a point about Pastors. TIC suggested they run while they can. BTW, you may recall Nathan slamming me for suggesting it may well be the best year of his life? And that Ryan may well find the joys of being human outside the shadows of religion?
Here's what he said a year on from leaving ministry:
[I am]“healthier and more alive than I’ve been in a very long time. I feel like I’ve been—pardon the expression—born again.” Which leads me to a question I’ve been asked a few times: what advice do I have for pastors?…"
So, did I lose it? Not really, I just found there was much more to my experience than the narrow minded dogma I was brought up in and followed with all my heart – except for one thing: I refused to let questions lay un-answered.
Are there little nagging doubts you refuse to air because of the price? Just wondering. Being honest does not mean you cannot be spiritual, but it may mean you lose your job!
(http://www.samharris.org/blog/item/the-path-between-pseudo-spirituality-and-pseudo-science)
Chris, pardon my forwardness, you say you are a spiritual person. Would you elaborate a bit of your meaning?
Earl,
First up I would suggest you read that link I pasted re Sam's new book. The description of "why" he is writing it is relevant to your question.
Secondly, I suspect the reading of his book, when it comes out, would be a valuable exercise for both of us. For me because I'm expecting it will articulate things that at the moment are "hunches" or "gut feelings" about how these things intertwine in the human experience.
Lastly, let me give you an example. From time to time as I'm going about my day, it is not uncommon for me to start running an old Hymn through my brain. That's fine, but occassionally it will be "O How I love Jesus.." I get a smile out of it each time it happens! We are indeed constructs of our present with deep roots in our past!
Now, if that song turns up, I just smile and move on. It has no meaning. On the other hand there are lots of little things that happen in a day, and sometimes something special may take place. I do not hesitate to express a silent "thank you". Who to? I don't know, and it does not matter. Whether it is nature, Nature, the universe, The Universe, or what is beside the point. I can live a life of gratitude, thanks and recognition that it is all a whole lot bigger than little me.
Now, that is simplistic, and I anticipate Sam's book is going to be a great read which will enable me to answer you better one day.
And, now Dr T's pending question about truth: I submit that if more of us took the view that spirituality was at its most damaged when it rests in a codified dogma, and bunch of religious formulas, and at its best when permitted to be simply the subjecctive expression of our sense of the transcendant: We would all be better off if this were the case, and claims to truth would shrivel up. Including SDA ones..
Chris, thank you for your answer. I read the Harris link. I looked up spiritual in google. I discovered that there is no common accepted definition of spiritual. Even Harris admitted that but could not find a better word. And, strangely, he did not want to quarrell over semantics. A word is a symbol for the thoughts in our mind. If the symbol has different meanings and I have a different meaning from you then I will not know your thoiughts. So let's try again. I am puzzled by you saying you had an experience with God, many, and you are not sure you have lost it. Yet it seems you do not believe in God. So who was the God you first had experiences with? And second, I am definining the symbol, spiritual, as having a personal relationship with the God who created us as I have a relationship with Phyllis my wife. Do you have that kind of experience?
David,
As you say, even agreeing on a definition is not easy.
Do you really have a relationship with God as you do with your wife? Seriously? Demonstrably? Measurable? Come on David, your'e trying to nit pick whether I did and no longer do, or didn't and only thought I did etc, and come out with that narrow definition? One which in our honest moments we all should admit will leave us in a dark night if we really counted on responses from God even vaguely proportional to what you claim.
As I said, people have all kinds of experiences, but what we are actually experiencing and how we interpret that are extremely subjective things. You are welcome to define it in very limited and concrete terms like you have, but I put to you that nobody can ultimately defend such a claim. I don't think there is a Christian alive who has had a tough time of any significance, and who has not had a "dark night of the soul" as a result of such expectations. Why, because your wife is real. There is no gaurantee the God being so, and if actions are any measure of who is more real, I'd suggest your wife. My relationship with God is in proportion to his measurable one with me…
Does this mean I am not spiritual or that I cannot sense the numinous or transcendent? Of course I am and can. What and who that is, I refuse at this point to define. The ambiguity of such a search is evidenced by the multitude of explanations about who, what, where God is, and in my opinion the absence of clarity and certainty of any answer to that question actually makes a joke of claims like you have just made. I guarantee your wife will come through for you every time and in the dark nights of the soul she will be there (as I hope you are for her) but don't count on much action from upstairs.
Beyond that David. I don't intend to get bogged down with you on the discussion. Let's await Sam's book! Sam is an athiest, but I greatly respect his attitude towards the concept of spirituality etc. It's great seeing someone trying to bridge the divide between what can be two extremes.
Dear friends, Chris, Earl, David, Erv, Elaine, and all. I see the discussion continues. While I claim not to be a spiritual person at all, my sister claims I am one of the most spiritual people she knows. Obviously, we are using the term differently. I do not see a lot of consistency in the use of the term, and I have the impression that it is used mostly to convey something like "mood" or "in the spirit of" or as the opposite of tangible or material or actual. Does it refer to something like "awareness" or is "consciousness" a "spiritual" reality? It seems like a pretty slippery term.
Chris. I understand you don't want to get bogged down and you don/t like my narrow definition. but that is my experience and because you do not believe in it does not make it not truth which is what this blog is about. It is not your truth but it is my truth. Is that not what we are discussing? And yes, I have an even closer relationship with God than I do with my wiife. And if I share how I know you will descibe it as coincidence. In otherr words no matter what truth I tell you about my experience you will be able to put a different spin on it. So we are where we have been before at a dead end.
And this is not new. The soldiers saw Jesus rise from the dead. They told the chief priests who put a different spin on it. They did not want to believe and found a way to substantiate their belief. I could be in that situation. You could be in that situation. Which one of us is right?
David,
Cool, it is as you see it. But that cuts both ways, you have chosen to grill me about my experience as if it is not good enough, you don't believe me etc, but then when I challenge your's its not quite the same is it?
You are quite right, it is personal, subjective, unprovable, so why hassle me in the first place?
Be fair..
Let's get back to the topic when Sams book comes out… Perhaps I'll do a blog on it!
Thank you all for your input. i have received blessings from each of you. We each,and every living form on Earth, have been blessed with the inheritance we have utilized, of its bounty of free gifts, including the very ground we tread. We owe a debt we can't pay, for all the freebies we enjoy, regardless of how it came to be, in a spatial hostility zone. Every other planetary body man has had access to, by space experimentation, is also hostile to the human creature. Its no wonder that mankind has always searched for an ultimate being, or reason for our being. We are a reality and have intelligence, and a continual production of systems and products of ever increasing complexity, of knowledge unknown previously. Man has been on Earth for………..s of years, yet just in the past 60 years there has been an explosion of knowledge, and greater general information, than all of previous history. Why this renaissance, now, as we are the progeny of that earlier DNA?
In any case, as Chris and Joe, in explaining their "spiritual nature"or consciousness,i believe all thinking people exhibit a spiritual awareness of universal communication, some develop this gift. There is great undeniable wisdom in the Bible, "by their fruit shall ye know them", the loving nature they have.
Relative to the integrity of the scholarship of the Bible's writers, "think about it", how is it possible that a nondescript carpenter's son, even denied by His own community, have apostles, and believers travel all the known world, delivering His Gospel message of love, unto their death, for their witness, and scribes, up to 200 years later, so impressed with his reported life story, turn the world upside down by their need to give this story to all the world (even tho 3rd recounting). And since billions have believed on this Man, Jesus Christ. How is this possible, three words provide the answer, "LOVE THY NEIGHBOR".
Chris, really? Sam Harris's next book is on spirituality? You say he is a ver spiritual person????????????
~ Sam Harris teaches as "science" that "Free will is an illusion so convincing that people simply refuse to believe that we don’t have it."
This from his book 'Free Will'
Sam Harris argues that free will doesn’t exist, that we’re better off knowing that it doesn’t exist. So we must choose to accept the evidence that Free Will doesn't exist. Yes, this is how smart this guy is, unbelievable!! Spirituality????????????
Darrel,
I said Sam is a very spiritual person? Where?
I suspect with regard to free will you have read him about as well as you appear to have read me! There are shades of meaning to the free will debate which escape many…
Is Sam correct on it? I suspect more so than most would like to think, but the first step to evaluating his position would be to lay aside a bunch of religious dogmatism and "God think" first. Does not mean the God think is wrong, but it should not be the starting point for evaluating what another says…
How, on God's green earth (borrowed from a politician in WA) can one expect to answer Dr T's question if they already KNOW they have the TRUTH. The way you speak above suggests you are such a person?
I might have misunderstood the import of ~~"Let's await Sam's book! Sam is an athiest, but I greatly respect his attitude towards the concept of spirituality" This is your statement Chris, correct? You meant to say that his attitude toward spirituality is what?
Darrel,
The next sentence you left off says the what:
"It's great seeing someone trying to bridge the divide between what can be two extremes."
Sam Harris argues that free will doesn’t exist, that we’re better off knowing that it doesn’t exist. So we must choose to accept the evidence that Free Will doesn't exist. Does not everyone see the illogic here?? The beginning of any definition of spirituality must be free choose!
Darrel,
Rather than seeing a problem of "the illogic", have you considered that you "seeing" a logic problem just may suggest you have missed the shades of meaning? Perhaps if you actually understood what Sam is saying – you would find there is no logic problem.
In other words, such an "obvious" logic problem would hardly have escaped the author (Sam) surely, so it would seem quite a possibility that there is a shade of meaning in what Sam says which enables what he says about "choosing to accept the evidence…" to make perfect sense.
My reading of Sam suggests this is exactly what is going on. You have missed those shades of meaning, as I noted earlier..
Take off your God glasses bro… just read the guy without the prejudice!!
Well Chris, would you explain those "shades of meaning" in Harris' (apparent) epistimological illogic?
Just read (Read read read) the guy Darrel… What do you want me to do write a book on Dr T's blog?!!
Darrel,
You may find this of value re your queston. Note especially about the 40 minute mark and near the conclusion at 1 hr.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_FanhvXO9Pk
Hi Chris, yes, very interesting. Sam Harris is correct of course that our decisions are influenced our past experiences and environment. "Bad company corupts good morals……."
There is a world of difference however between being influenced and being predestined. Sam is a secular calvinist. Rev. Dawkins, another popular preacher in this religious movement, preaches that we all "simply dance to our DNA."
There is a class of individuals who this is possibly true for–the true psychopath.
I wish I didn't think you were serious…
~~Yes, I am attempting to be funny. I do agree with Steven Poole however who wrote in Britain's New Statesman, about the glut of what he calls "neurotrash" — the attempt to explain every human thought and action in terms of neuroscience and cognitive psychology:
“An intellectual pestilence is upon us. Shop shelves groan with books purporting to explain, through snazzy brain-imaging studies, not only how thoughts and emotions function, but how politics and religion work, and what the correct answers are to age-old philosophical controversies. The dazzling real achievements of brain research are routinely pressed into service for questions they were never designed to answer. This is the plague of neuroscientism — aka neurobabble, neurobollocks, or neurotrash — and it's everywhere.”
There is something ironic about the position of thinkers like Harris on issues like this: they claim that their position is the result of the irresistible necessity of logic (in fact, they pride themselves on their logic). Their belief is the consequent, in a ground/consequent relation between their evidence and their conclusion. But their very stated position is that any mental state — including their position on this issue — is the effect of a physical, not logical cause. By their own logic, it isn't logic that demands their assent to the claim that free will is an illusion, but the prior chemical state of their brains. The only condition under which we could possibly find their argument convincing is if they are not true. The claim that free will is an illusion requires the possibility that minds have the freedom to assent to a logical argument, a freedom denied by the claim itself.
Hear! Hear! Darrel. What I find particularly fascinating is that, despite their denial of freedom, the deniers cling tenaciously to the imperatives of their own moral and value judgments, without acknowledging that they are grounded in anything besides their minds, and that that grounding makes their moral judgements self-contradictory. If everyone – wealthy or poor, criminal, or law-abiding, liberal or conservative, religious or secular, is simply dancing to their DNA, how can any moral or value judgments possibly be made?
Nathan,
I have three questions (plus a few) for you.
1. How do you know that writings which contain "moral and value judgments" (eg Bible etc) are products of anything other than the human mind?
Expected answer: "I cannot know"… Am I wrong?
2. If you believe the moral judgments of such writings are grounded in something besides the human mind and imagination. What is there besides your mind, or the thinking of other human minds, that you have used to come to that judgment?
Expected answer: "There is nothing besides my mind and the results of my fellow human minds that I have used to reach my conclusion."… Am I wrong?
3. If Religious constructs, with their "moral and value judgments" are the result of human thought, and your acceptance of those judgments is not grounded in anything besides your mind, how does that not make both your moral judgments and your judgments of truth just as "self-contradictory" as the supposed "deniers" you are shafting?
Expected answer: "It is self contradictory."… Am I wrong?
So, final question: Is it not particularly fascinating that, despite your claim to freedom, you cling tenaciously to the imperatives of your own moral and value judgments, without acknowledging that they are grounded in nothing besides your own mind, and that that grounding makes your own claim to freedom self-contradictory?
Therefore, one could conclude that Nathan Schilt's little rant against "deniers of freedom" has by default vented forth a whole bunch of pre-learned, pre-programmed, thinking. All flowing from his deep subconscious, racing to his keyboard with scarecely a conscious intervention or careful analysis of the actual illogic of his claims as he defended the truth he grew up in. Thus demonstrating the very thing the "deniers" may be suggesting!
Perhaps the biggest question of all: Was Nathan even free to do otherwise?
Perhaps the best response to one of Nate's rants that I have ever seen! Well done Chris.
If not free will, all are automatons, we don't choose to murder our neighbor, we don't freely choose our faith, we don't choose to write neurological books, we are not selected to interpret those books. All we do is tread the limitations of our proscribed life, dancing to our DNA. i have often wondered why my forebears and
progeny didn't dance my dance?? "The devil made me do it"??
Yes, Nathan and Earl, one does not need formal training in Logic to see incongruity in this secular position!
Chris, can one without free will use logic? Your questions:
#1: Morals and values, which have been written, and known for ages, can be observed by free thinking individuals, over time, to see if they stand the test of time, and by free logical choice, chosen.
#2: Why, i have half a mind to…. :)). Oh no, logically, i better use my whole mind here, this is important. Firstly i believe the "MIND" of man, is a synergy of heart + mind + soul, a totality of the essence of mankind's spiritual being. Of course the engine and storage vault, being the on board computer. Speaking of "moral
judgments", we all don't have the same morals. If not free choice, i assume we would all have the same values, or lack thereof. An interesting aside is that all mankind are sinners, yet, although many try to overcome this predictive nature, many do not, choice, free will utilized.
#3 i submit the synergy make up of the individual's spiritual nature is all there is. No other viable source of mentality is required or needed. You make your bed and sleep in it.
The life of the individual is a precious commodity in the scheme of things. It's price is unspeakable, priceless. Lets uphold its value.
Earl,
You ask "...can one without free will use logic?"
There is little doubt that many creatures use logic to solve problems, make tools, and have a social structure.
Do you think such creatures have free will?
If the answer is "No", these creatures don't have free will, then the answer to your question is, "yes", one without free will can use logic: These creatures don't have free will, but are using logic. In which case, the use of logic is not evidence of free will!
If the answer is "yes", these creatures do have free will, because they could not be using logic if they did not, then you are forced to see "free will" as being almost entirely contingent on the nature of the creature. How much freedom for example, does a Raven (a creature arguably more intelligent and logical than many apes) have to be other than what it is? Any free will it has, is entirely shaped by its nature, characteristics, abilities, brain and so on. On this basis you would end up having made an argument for at least the restriction of "free will" to the constraints of what it means to be a human. By extension we could break this down into categories of different human traits, cultures, personalities etc etc, and be back near where Sam Harris began!
As a result, we could state that a human has no more "free will" to be other than he or she is than does a raven have to be other than what it is.
I don't see that your other points have really answered my questions, but I'll leave them to their own merit.
Chris, I'm disappointed that you perceived my question regarding the provenance of your ability to make moral judgments a "little rant." I'm sorry it felt that way to you. I must have inadvertently touched a raw nerve.
But having done so, I'm loathe to be deterred by your attempt to shift the focus, though I am certainly happy, in due course, to answer your questions. Suppose you first answer the question I posed at the end of my comment yesterday: "If everyone – wealthy or poor, criminal or law-abiding, conservative or liberal, religious or secular – is simply dancing to their own DNA, how can any moral or value judgments possibly be made?"
Yes, you are wrong on all counts. And when you answer my question, I will tell you why. But for now, I want to stay focused on the question of freedom rather than on how/why I believe moral/value judgments and the truth claims of faith can be validated. Freedom alone cannot be a validator, but it seems to me that denial of the reality of freedom is certainly an invalidator of the imposition of moral responsibility and accountability. Am I wrong?
Nathan,
First of all, spare me the bit about being sorry the rant felt thus to me. I suspect you are not, but rather that you only state so in an effort to sharpen the edge of the suggestion it must have touched a raw nerve. It does nothing to either sharpen or find a nerve. I'm not actually even defending the idea of no free will as my personal belief! I simply considered your points were weak and that that needed to be pointed out. (that is typical of me of course, am I free to do otherwise?:)
I actually had a second comment half written in answer to your actual question, but ended up saying to myself, "Why bother", and deleted it!
Let me give my answer to your latest point that a "denial of … freedom is… an invalidator of the imposition of moral responsibility…", as that was implicit in your earlier question. Are you wrong?
Yes, I think you are wrong. I could show this from either, or both, of two angles.
1. From a comparison of other life forms on this planet. Consider what I said to Earl above. I won't take the time to do so now.
2. From the perspective of sacred writings.
Unfortunately you have refused to show me why the moral judgments of any sacred writing is grounded in anything besides the human mind, imagination or experience, so on the assumption that your insistence that you will soon defend that claim will be a solid argument, I will work from that base. Even doing that, I believe it can be argued that denial of freedom does not invalidate moral responsibility or value judgements.
In absence of your reasons,…
I am going to have to assume that you are somehow going to show me that the Bible is the best source of this moral landscape? I hope you don't go as far as claiming that the SDA moral and value landscape is the best one, ie truth, because we have not yet been able to answer Dr Taylor's question on that one!!
I am also going to assume that you are somehow going to show me, perhaps also from the Bible, that a sense of morality and ability for such judgements in implanted in the human by God.
On these rather wild assumptions, let me see:
The moral "landscape" presented in the Bible is an excellent example of the shift in how human's view morality and values over time. Note some of the grotesque examples of how the Old Testament instructed Israel to treat fellow human beings. Stoning, destroying, enslaving, raping… What a bloody landscape.
Now move to the NT. A much "nicer" landscape don't you think? But, or course, let's not consider the hell fire, the eteranal torment and so on.
No. "WE" will just "interpret" both the bloody mess of the OT, and the "hell fire" from the NT and create a nicer landscape. ONE THAT FITS our culture, our needs, our perspectives our values NOW.
The point of this is that the ability to discern and shape a moral landsacpe is intrinsic to the human experience. Yet, irrespective of its "source", that landscape shifts with the evolution of human culture, environment and experience. Vital for this topic is that the shift is radical when compared across millennia, but glacial when examined over decades.
This points to at least two things:
1. Human's are capable, from within their very nature of moral and value judgments.
2. The glacial shift over millennia raises the serious questions of how free humans are to do otherwise than that "predicted" by their culture, environment, and indeed their DNA – at a given time in their history (evolution?).
Go back in time to when your ancestors and mine were just coming out of Africa. In fact, go back a bit earlier to a time before language and "civilized" human culture… Were they free to dance to any other music than their DNA at that time? Why should you be free to dance to any other music than yours? Even the OT folks were unable to dance to better tunes. If you want to hear their music, just go to Islam! While you are there you may like to ask the question if the suicide bomber is free to do otherwise given the deep roots of brainwashing and enculturated "belief" that runs deep into his DNA…
as for your wealthy, poor, criminal, law abiding…. precisely the same point. From within this collective human moral landscape: we can indeed form moral and value judgments. Just be aware they may be different in tomorrow's millennia as they are today from yesterday's millennia.
Sorry this is so long:(
I'm sorry, Chris. Maybe I'm just dense. What you said to Earl made my question even more pertinent. I know that moral and value judgments are intrinsic to human nature. That's not the issue. So is God-making, but you don't believe in God. By your reasoning, moral and value judgments are just like language. They're things that humans are hard-wired, or have evolved, to engage in. But moral values have no real external validity. They are simply labels for ratiocinative processes by which the human species fights for survival and dominance.
My question is this: We wouldn't try to hold ravens morally responsible for attacking a hawk because we know that, even though it may have had the freedom to ignore the hawk, its attack was not the product of free moral choice. Why should we hold a human culpabale who attacks another without provocation, but not a raven that attacks a hawk without provocation? Aren't both simply dancing to their DNA?
"go to Islam……..you may like to ask the question if the suicide bomber is free to do otherwise given the deep roots of brainwashing and enculturated "belief" that runs deep into his DNA…" Again, Chris you are conflating 'influence' and 'choice.' Chris, Actually, I read a book last year "Son of Hemas" about a young man, a violent islamist who began to think about what he and his family were doing to other people, and became convicted to leave those hateful ideas and that life behind. As a free agent, he chose to to act on a counter ethic; he rebelled against his programming.
Hang on Darrel,
How can you separate influence from choice in Hemas' case? Are you saying there was no influence in his choice to alter the way he acted or believed?
At what point was he "free" to do "other" in any given set of circumstances or influences?
I am just answering your thinking Chris. Your claim that free will is an illusion requires the possibility that minds have the freedom to assent to a logical argument. You are attempting to make use see the logic of your philosophy, correct. NO, it is simply you passivily responding to your own programming ?? Your stated position is that any mental state — including your position on this issue — is the effect of a physical, not logical cause. By your own logic, it isn't logic that demands your claim that free will is an illusion, but the prior chemical state of their brains.
This is a part of the "moral landscape" that the peaks and valleys of the agregate chemical states will be such that the billard balls will keep hitting each other in the "right" direction to keep the flow going. If this is the case that we are completely, at any given moment, the passive product of programming, we should have never discovered the this fact!
"go to Islam……..you may like to ask the question if the suicide bomber is free to do otherwise given the deep roots of brainwashing and enculturated "belief" that runs deep into his DNA…" Again, Chris you are conflating 'influence' and 'choice.' Chris, Actually, I read a book last year "Son of Hemas" about a young man, a violent islamist who began to think about what he and his family were doing to other people, and became convicted to leave those hateful ideas and that life behind. As a free agent, he chose to to act on a counter ethic; he rebelled against his programming.
Anyway, Chris, PLEASE answer Nathan's question. Din't mean to butt in!
Nathan,
It is precisely because humans are dancing to their DNA that we can hold the human culpable who attacks another human without provocation.
You may not have noticed my carefull wording in the last paragraph, I'll highlight the key word:
"From within this collective human moral landscape: we can indeed form moral and value judgments." It is the shifting of this landscape and the time involved which supports the idea that the source is human, and glacial.
The raven attacking is/may not be the result of a free moral choice, but it is the result of a judgment. Just watch a bird choose with care how and when a moment of "attack" will happen. Australian Magpies are classic.
Back to the point: A human moral landscape is part of our DNA, just as is the urge in a Raven or Magpie to attack an intruder part of their landscape!
You may notice I'm using the term "landscape"; a concept key to Sam Harris's view relevant to the idea of free will and human morality and values.
Harris urges us to think about morality in terms of human and animal well-being, viewing the experiences of conscious creatures as peaks and valleys on a “moral landscape.” Because there are definite facts to be known about where we fall on this landscape, Harris foresees a time when science will no longer limit itself to merely describing what people do in the name of “morality”; in principle, science should be able to tell us what we ought to do to live the best lives possible.
Bringing a fresh perspective to age-old questions of right and wrong, and good and evil, Harris demonstrates that we already know enough about the human brain and its relationship to events in the world to say that there are right and wrong answers to the most pressing questions of human life. Because such answers exist, moral relativism is simply false—and comes at increasing cost to humanity. And the intrusions of religion into the sphere of human values can be finally repelled: for just as there is no such thing as Christian physics or Muslim algebra, there can be no Christian or Muslim morality.
– See more at: http://www.samharris.org/the-moral-landscape#sthash.G3HkW4qo.dpuf
He views the experience of conscious creatures in terms of peaks and valleys on a "moral landscape".
He suggests we can state where in relation to these peaks and valleys various human behaviours, experiences and actions can be placed. Harris argues that we already know enough about the human brain and its relationship to events in the world to say that there are right and wrong answers to the most pressing questions of life.
"Because such answers exist, moral relativism is simply false – and comes at increasing cost to humanity. And the intrusions of religion into the sphere of human values can be finally repelled: for just as there is no such thing as Christian physics or Muslim algebra, there can be no Christina or Muslim morality."
So, back to the birds. Just as a bird is not free to be other than what it is, and is indeed dancing to its own DNA, so, arguably it is with humans. Just as birds have their "pecking order" based on their collective DNA, so too do humans have their moral values/landscape.
Even though we are not (may not be) free to do otherwise than our own particular, personal DNA, it does not mean that the collective view of morality and values cannot, or should not be imposed on the person who commits the unprovoked attack. So too the psychopath.
The idea of such a moral landscape being rooted in the human experience, and not in some "other" source, may be concerning to some, but this does not falsify its argument. The reality of such a shifting moral landscape is clearly seen in history, even in regards the Bible relative to our time as I pointed out.
So, let us dance to our DNA. Do our best to enjoy life, live, love, and care. Let us not allow the warped ethics too easily found in religion today to force us to live in any valleys of human experience. We may not be free to be other than human, but we certainly are "free" to know when something is good or not. Even the Raven will let you know when things are not OK and when they are, but if he tells you he's free to not be a bird, he's just Raven on!
"It is precisely because humans are dancing to their DNA that we can hold the human culpable who attacks another human without provocation." Translation: We are programmed (collective human moral landscape) to not like other humans being attacked." We have gotten off subject, but I must say that this secular "collective" approach to morality has played itself out in history. Need I say more?
Yes, Darrel, you could say more…
You could remind us of the "collective" approach to religion that has played itself out in history!!:)
Which, as an aside is also a "collective" approach to "truth" is it not?
i'm fascinated Chris, with your attachment to creatures, and ability to read their thought patterns, with equal ability as you do humans. Makes it much easier to discern others motivation of should i or not get involved. i love to watch intelligent birds, like the mynah bird. Doubt i've ever seen a raven, but i've spent hours with the Rook game, a most enjoyable pasttime with friends, after Sabbath hours.
In my statements above, i was not speaking of all creatures, only the human garden variety. i have never been able to second guess various animal actions, except vocal warnings of dogs and cats. i recall during my running years while passing a farm out in the countryside, being approached by 3 dogs.One, a narrow skinny Whippet, not barking, and with tail between its legs, slinked off to the side away from me, so i concentrated on the two massive brutes with flashing teeth charging at me; i took evasive action to avoid the two man eating monsters, and suddenly i felt a bite in the back of my leg. Yelp, it was the Whippet that tasted my flesh.
i believe all animals, with varying intellect of a type, do not have moral or judgment powers, but basically survival instincts. i offered no outward challenge at all, but i was on their turf. Perhaps the dog, cattle, and horses are of the few which can be domesticated. Most all others remain wild to some degree, such as cats, which have a portion of feralness forever. Now, man does have a genetic defect in that he is unable to completely overcome the sinful nature, that of abusing self and others, but only by free choice can he resolve to fight the goodfight, even being defeated at each attempt to do so.
let's say the collective landscape agrees that killing a few people for the good of the collective is moral.
The Borg have entered the ship. Resistance is futile !
Sounds very much like the collective moral landscape of the OT where more than a few were "killed" (brutally so in many cases, men, women, children…)
Thank God those guys (OT ones) are not running the ship because resistance was futile… they had God on their side!
Darrel, your point has punch to it, and gives validity to the concern we should have for the dangers of collective moral landscapes running amok, but it does not invalidate the arguments that the moral landscape is a product of the human experience and culture…
Well, not as I see it atm.. I'm waiting for Nathan to come good on his promise to enlighten me how his moral judgments etc have a source outside of his brain and that of his fellow humans…
I like your reasoning Chris, since one of my major struggles has been how to deal with the OT brutality that was allegedly masterminded by God.
Lies, all lies. The stories of the killings were told oer and oer, over nighttime camp fires, until they , miracle of miracles, God did the killings to protect His chosen people. God is LOVE. The bloodthirsty annihilations were by bloodthirsty men.
That is more or less the same conclusion I have come to as well. Otherwise it makes no sense at all. Of course the traditionalists cry foul because it tends to destroy their pillar of wanting the Bible to be "perfectly inspired" in all ways, or at least in all ways that supports their particular interpretation of it.
Ex 23:8: 'I will send the hornet ahead of you to drive the Hivites, Canaanites and Hittites out of your way.'
Josh 24:12: 'I sent the hornet ahead of you, which drove them out before you–also the two Amorite kings. You did not do it with your own sword and bow.'
I have also heard it said that God never wanted genocide through war. God's original intention, as these two texts attest, was God not killing anyone. But man doesn't always follows God's plan.
But in any event I have no real problem with the comments on Chris, Earl or Mark on this. Ellen White herself said the Bible was not in some grand supernatural language, but in the flawed words of mankind. God is only with the penmen (with all their historical and cultural baggage) – not in the pen. The reason I mention Ellen White is solely to point out even the most conservative Adventist shouldn't, not really, have a hudge problem with what Chris, Earl or Mark are saying on this.
Chris, your faith in the views of Sam Harris are ardent if not fully absorbing, to your "subjective desire". "Shades of meaning", impossible for one whose lack of free will is denied to him. Also without free will, how would it be possible for a Christian to "put aside their belief in God", so as to be "objective" to persue a neutral study of Sam Harris, and his atheist views?? Aso "shades", to me would be looking into darkness. Can't we, of a majority, recognize the futility of expecting other than a "Subjective View", by a single individual??
Dear Friends. Let's not make a political football out of Sam Harris. I was about to begin reading a review of his newest book, but the author of the review lost me right away, with the admission that "I haven't read it yet," but yadda, yadda, yadda–out came a fully formed negative review. Those who wish to comment on him should at least read what he has to say before forming an opinion. And then, in my view, they should not, regardless of their opinions regarding what Sam says or does not say, generalize what he says to other people (e.g., all neuroscientists, or all biologists, or all scientists, or any atheist, agnostic, theist, mystic, or believer). Sam Harris speaks for himself, whether or not he claims otherwise. And, please, let us not discard attempts at objectivity (or science) just because Sam Harris (or anyone) claims they have value.
Point well taken, Joe. Would that the same standard could be applied to those who dismiss I.D. arguments without reading the scholarly evidence and publications presented by authors like Stephen Meyer. I'm not sure why the theistic leanings of those who support I.D. is important to consideration of their facts and arguments, but pointing out Harris's atheism is somehow making a political football of him. I'm not accusing you of a double standard, Joe. I just don't recall you ever criticizing those who seek to discredit I.D. proponents on the basis of their theism, or suggesting that maybe the critics should actually go to the horse's mouth to find out what I.D. scholars are saying and not saying. Have I missed something? And of course if your are interested in an "honest" non-theistic appraisal of I.D. objections to NeoDarwinian thinking, you can do no better than Thomas Nagel. I'm sure you have read his Mind and Cosmos.
Chris, I haven't forgotten about your challenge. Will get to it soon.
Nathan,
You may wonder why I have not answered your questions below. I am waiting for your answer to my questions earlier.
Also, it seems to me, any strength in your questions below is contingent on your ability to give a credible answer to my questions. If you fail give good evidence why your case is solid, most of the questions you ask me below become crucial questions for you to answer also, and I'm deeply curious to see what defendable world view you would answer them from!!
"Even though we are not (may not be) free to do otherwise than our own particular, personal DNA, it does not mean that the collective view of morality and values cannot, or should not be, imposed on the person who commits the unprovoked attack. So too with the psychopath."
Chris, first of all let me say I am glad you are revealing your perspective on freedom and morality, because you clearly embrace what I believe is the logical conclusion of deterministic morality, arising from the presuppositions of a naturalistic world view – moral tyranny. But there are questions unanswered:
1. We do not morally judge or condemn the psychopath. By what standard do you assign culpability or opprobrium to those whose DNA dances to a melody that is dissonant to the ear of collective morality? Those with your world view are vociferous in their objection to religious categories like sin, guilt and shame. And yet they seem to have their own secular – rational? – equivalents that are no less powerful in evoking guilt and shame. Why is such moral scorn and disdain heaped on the Religious Right – or Dennis Kozlowski or Bernie Madoff? Aren't they just dancing to their own DNA? Shouldn't we at most simply protect society by hospitalizing those who deviate from collective notions of morality, just as as we do psychopaths?
2. What historical examples can you point to where the collectivization of moral values has enabled the "intrusion of religion into the sphere of human values to be finally repelled?" How did that work out? I know it bothers you when I always see communism and fascism in the foreground of the collective moral landscape that you paint. But it can't very well be helped, can it? Facts are rather stubborn little things.
3, Given the manner in which the collective morality has always been proven wrong or inadequate, why would you trust it now? On what basis do you assume that enlightened humans, such as yourself, are possessed of greater rational or moral faculties than Aristotle, Aquinas, or Newton, much less that those rational faculties are moral soil from which a Bach, a Michelangelo, a Donne, or a Shakespeare can grow? The best rationality of one era has always been perceived by later eras as being permeated with ignorance and superstition. And attempts to collectively impose that rational, collectivist morality on others has always been seen in hindsight as monstrously evil. Shouldn't that cause us to fear collectivist moral standards?
3. If the collective relied purely on reason and deterministic considerations for its morality, wouldn't it very easily and naturally incorporate, as part of a collective morality, eugenics, abortion, infanticide and euthanasia, for starters? There would be a fair amount of racism and ethnic cleansing. These are the rational conclusions of science-based morality. Now of course all of these things would be done in a very humane non-emtional manner. You wouldn't want to shame or guilt people, and thereby start looking and sounding like the religious loons that your superior morality is intended to quell, right?
If you want to see yourself in the mirror, Chris, may I suggest that you read Jonah Goldberg's book, Liberal Fascism. Don't be put off by the title. There's a happy face on the cover. And yes, I still have not forgotten about your questions to me. I just don't want to confuse the question of how I arrive at moral truth with how you arrive at moral truth.
One additional question, Chris: The raven – or, if you prefer, the magpie… You say that it exercises judgment, makes rational decisions. I'll take your anthropomorphic word for it. So where in nature do you find evidence of what could be called a moral landscape that is the collective result of ravens and magpies dancing to their own DNA?
Anthropomorphizing? Am I the only one?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B8WHKRzkCOY
Collectivization, hmmm, Pogroms, Gulags, Internment & Concentration Camps, snitching on your bro's.privacy. Nothing but enforced coertion and duress. Am i my brothers "keeeper". Another form of slavery, Socialism, Communism, Fascism.
As a famous once said "Give me liberty or give me death". Freedom O' Freedom,
train to glory.
You Americans make me laugh. I reckon 'give me freedom or give me death' is the kind of one-liner that Satan used to convince a third of the angels to rebel against their rightful king. If I recall American history, there was plenty of collectivisation, progroms, gulags, concentration campls, snitching, slavery, socialism, communism and fascism – all after your so-called liberation from tyranny. Your country is still practicing these terrible things today as it lectures other countries on human rights.
Sorry – perhaps a bit off topic. Just a point that rhetoric of one-liners is easy; making it practical reality is much harder.
Good points Steve. I believe Jesus told a story about worrying about the sliver in someone else's eye while being unaware or blind to our own issues.
Steve Ferg. i have not denied these collective conditions by Govt's have not been part and parcel of the USA, as well as most other totalitarian nations, past or present. i decry this abuse of humanity, and you find it, humorous??
Earl, my brother, I sometimes do not understand what you are saying. Even so, I think you are a dear and compassionate person.
Nate, I have not read everything about anything. I am ignorant of many things. I feel no compulsion to know everything about everything. I certainly have not read everything about evolutionary biology, and I certainly have not read everything about intelligent design. I have read enough about both to have opinions that are at variance from some things said by some evolutionary biologists and some proponants of intelligent design.
I do have some opinions, and I have some suspicions about why some I.D. proponants say things I disagree with and why some evolutionary biologists and evolutionary apologists say some things I disagree with. These opinions and suspicions are based on some level of understanding that I do not represent as comprehensive.
I can honestly state that I read very few things with which I completely agree in every detail.
In my opinion, it would be a waste of my time, and a waste of my life to attempt to read and judge everything written on every topic, or even any topic. I do not need to know everything or claim to know everything, and I don't need to be right all the time.
Some of the endless arguments and discussions on AToday and similar sites are ultimately pointless and serve only vain purposes. Who can be holiest? Who can be brightest? Who can claim the most comprehensive knowledge of good and evil? Hmmmm…. A very wise man claimed that "all is vanity." Of making many blogs there is no end. Vanity of vanities….
Joe, as usual, your brilliance shines thru. i rarely read the touted "experts" offerings.i sometimes scan a portion. At my age i have to be very selective in choice searchesfor wisdom, as my time here is limited. Thank all of you for participating.
Joe: 'Some of the endless arguments and discussions on AToday and similar sites are ultimately pointless and serve only vain purposes. Who can be holiest? Who can be brightest? Who can claim the most comprehensive knowledge of good and evil? Hmmmm…. A very wise man claimed that "all is vanity." Of making many blogs there is no end. Vanity of vanities…. '
Amen Joe – totally agree. We can postulate and theorise until the cows come home, but the wise and honest man realises that to some degree, we can't ever really know the definitive answers to all of life's questions. For me and most topics, it isn't actually a question of absolute proof, because we spend our days bombarded by experts, often who say contradictory things. At most, we can have hope and we can guess what is more likely to be truth.
For me, that comes close to the impossible question of what is 'The Truth' – the title of this article. The paraphrase the punchline in the Life of Pi, we can't prove many things, including whether God does or does not exist. As we can't prove it either way, it really is a choice.
And I should just add, to some extent, I think for all the benefits of science, it has warped the modern human mind a little. What I mean is many of us, especially if we are not experts in that field (which is in 99.9999% of cases re a particular subject), can have the impression that there really is 'an answer', which science has 'proven'.
My own limited experience of being an 'expert' in a few professional fields is the so-called experts actually know less than we think, and 'the truth' of the matter is actually far from certain.
To that extent, I wonder if in some paradoxical way the modern person is actually more naive that the ancient? In fact more closeminded and more dogmatic?
Mr cb25 is a good example of the extremes one can go to when Adventists reject the light God has given them through the writings of Ellen White which inevitibly will also erode their belief in the truths found in the Holy Scriptures. In fact all those who oppose Ellen White in one way or another (including her detractors) in my opinion will evidently by default start to reject biblical truths in varying degrees, some even going to the extremes of subscribing to the likes of Sam Harris – in not just becoming unbelievers but antagonists of Christianity as well.
I have yet to hear anyone say, "Having lost faith in Ellen White, I now have lost faith entirely in the Bible and in the Plan of Salvation." It would be interesting to read commentary on this Web site from someone who has actually followed that progression away from the Christian faith…..
Me either. I do suspect we did lose a few those when the White Lie came out. But the irony is I bet we lost our most conservative, who had an unrealistic (and frankly unbiblical) view of the gift of prophecy.
The other great irony is the more I learn about the Bible, and its flaws (which does include some, but certainly not all, notions that come out of modern historical-critical scholarship), the more I come to overlook those same flaws in Ellen White. I believe Ellen White has as much right to claim the gift of prophecy as any of the biblical prophets, authors and redactors.
Edwin seems to be asking for opinions from those who have "lost faith." I am such a one.
I am not sure when it began–maybe as I went door-to-door as a "literature evangelist" and
listened to the views of many people from a variety of faiths (or not). These were largely
people who honestly held different beliefs. How could they all be right (or wrong)? What
about my denominational creed? Was it all right and was everyone who disagreed wrong?
Time passed. I began to learn more about the geological and paleontological evidence.
It became clear that the 6000 year young earth chronology was not accurate. Not by a
long shot. I knew the Bible did not specify the dates. Further, I began to recognize that a
literal interpretation of the Genesis story was unlikely to be accurate.
That need not lead to a loss of faith. But more and more I began to see inconsistencies
and rigid dogmatic insistence that things were true for which there was little supporting
evidence and much contrary evidence. If this or that was erroneous, why should I believe
the rest?
Ellen White's writings? Well, I had not been taught that she was infallible. I had been
taught that she wrote many wise things. I had no expectation that her writings should
supercede scripture or be flawless. I also came to view scripture as imperfect.
Fast forward. I no longer see a need for salvation, for me or anyone else. I'm confident
that this life is all there is. I'm at peace with that thought. I think those who claim to have
a gift of prophecy are mostly deranged. Further, I see the idea that prophets foretell
a second advent (or anything else) is internally inconsistent with the scriptural instruction
that "no man knows" when the master would arrive home.
For me the sequence was not a progression from a loss of faith in Ellen White. Far
from it.
As I reflect on this, for me EGW was collateral damage.
My journey is really nothing more than following my own Church's advice: Study to see if these things are so… I did and they were not…
I used to expect people to whom I was giving Bible studies to follow the evidence (Biblical etc) wherever it lead them – regardless of the cost. I was a blind guide in so many ways; but when slowly my eyes were opened, why should I not do the same?
Simple really…
OK, Joe and Chris (and Elaine and Ervin), but what about that Jesus character? Is it not obvious, for those of you who don’t believe, that this is (to you) the largest hoax ever perpetrated?
As I have been asking Chris (above), how could this not have been purposeful? There aren’t four versions of Homer’s Iliad. That story wasn’t foretold hundreds of years prior to its mythological occurrence; was it? Were people shortly afterwards willing to die over nothing more than that story’s veracity?
The Jesus story would have to have been a hoax predicated on earlier prophecies and perpetuated on purpose by some conspiracy/conspiracies. Chris can’t bring himself to say it.
Perhaps it isn’t a hoax at all. Although for now you may disagree, at some point you will have to decide. (I suggest it is a big decision.)
Stephen,
I will be interested in how the others you have addressed answer, and can only speak for myself.
Honestly, I don't understand why you cannot get this. The Jesus story/character is NOT a hoax to me. I have explained why above.
The reasons you gave to "prove" it must (if not true) have been a purposeful hoax do no such thing.
The four versions of the Gospel support MY theory: It was just a story, perhaps grounded in some facts about "a" Jesus person, that everybody knew was just a story and there were no inhibitions to copying, altering, and embellishing it! Hence FOUR versions complete with contradictions! lliad – one version – suggests what? Grounded in more reality than the Gospels, and taken more seriously both by those contemporary to its era and beyond. The Gospels? Subjected to "creeping myth" where story became "fact"!
I understand there are some 410 film versions of Shakespeare's plays. Perhaps it is lucky the 4 Gospels didn't hit the age of film or we would have more than four. More to the point, what about for example the Gospel of Thomas? Simply too fantastic to get included, but suggesting to me the creep from story to "fact" began to shut down the creative licence present when its true origins as simply a story were still understood. We will never know how many other versions of Mark's original were about before the creeping myth shut them down/out.
The prophecies? Seriously Stephen, a story written for contemporaries who were steeped in the Torah will be at its best when tied in to its context: contemporary and historical/Biblical. If indeed Mark crafted a story linking aspects of the Torah, Jewish culture, and the lliad epic into a new "anti-epic", what a powerfully crafted story. Just rather dissengenous that some today would take his links to the Torah, interpret them as "prophecy" and then in turn use them as evidence for its factuality. Fascinating.
And, yes, people began to die for its "veracity". mmm. And how about Mohammed and his story. Which incidentally I don't see as a hoax either. Rather, I see that one as a deluded person being believed.
And, how long was it before people began to die for Mohammed's cause? Does that prove its veracity?
Let me decide – again – was it a hoax. I do not believe so on current evidence. Does the story have "veracity"? Not that I can find.
Frankly, Chris, you’ve done better than this.
Four versions of anything are more credible than one version, and four versions of anything will, by definition, have some discrepancies. The gospels are “according to” differing perspectives.
I’m not very knowledgeable about Islam but its prophet Muhammad didn’t claim personal divinity. There have clearly people willing to die for theological reasons in that religion, but none were willing to die over the veracity of Muhammad’s claim to be God; because Muhammad didn’t claim to be God.
(The prophecies I referenced were principally Isaiah’s and Micah’s, as I think you know.)
Oh yeah, I’m fixated on this because this is what this blog is about. Jesus is the entire basis for Adventists having any claim whatsoever to the truth.
Frankly, I’d think someone might come up with a better argument that Christianity is not a great (all-time great) big hoax. It seems, neither one of us believes (or wants to believe) that it is.
I too am interested in the other non-believers’ take on this Jesus, hoax business. If it ain’t true, it’s a hoax.
Religions that are not true are hoaxes.
btw… on this question you are coming across to me as more than a little "fixated".
Chris: ' The Jesus story/character is NOT a hoax to me… The four versions of the Gospel support MY theory: It was just a story, perhaps grounded in some facts about "a" Jesus person, that everybody knew was just a story and there were no inhibitions to copying, altering, and embellishing it! …Subjected to "creeping myth" where story became "fact"!'
What is the Jesus story exactly?
No scholar seriously thinks the NT is all simply made up. The Quest for the Historical Jesus, over the last 100 years, suggests significant parts of the NT are likely to represent what the historical Jesus actually said, represents what He probably said, or what He was likely to have said but not in those exact words or context.
Of course, the Gospels are 'made up' in the sense that they are simply a compilation of sayings and stories of Jesus and about Jesus. The NT stories contradict each other in several places in minor details. The events occur in different chronologies. But none of that should suprise us, if we remember the end of John tells us there wouldn't be enough books in all the world to describe what Jesus said and did.
Of course the Gospels are 'propaganda' in the sense that the Gospel writers have used legitmate oral traditions from and about Jesus, and collated them for a deliberate purpose(s) (in fact each of 4 Gospel writers had different purposes). As a lawyer, I spend my life doing the same and picking fault against others who do the same.
As any story is essentially infinite, we can only ever show a slice of what happened, so we all show only part of the truth. In that sense, the Bible is admittedly a 'myth' – truth selectively shown for a deliberate aim. Again, none of this should be a problem if we realise the Bible is not 'The Truth' (capital T) – Jesus is.
So I don't think the debate is about what Jesus said or taught. You can reject Christianity and still be deeply impressed with the philosophical teachings of Jesus, in much the same way I am no Buddhist and yet I respect much of Buddha's observations about the nature of life and suffering. The same goes for the Mohammed story, or the Confucious story.
I think the contentious issue is the part of the 'Jesus story' that says Jesus rose from the dead. That is the Gospel, which Mary Magdalene first spread to the disciples as recorded in John 20. And it is that sort of story that is raddically different from Buddha, Mohammed or Confucious. So that to me is the crucial question – did Jesus really rise from the dead?
'And, yes, people began to die for its "veracity". mmm. And how about Mohammed and his story.'
Mohammed's followers would fight and die for his teachings and ideals. Americans have fought and die, and continue to do so, for their founding teachings and ideals.
But early Christians did not simply devote their lives and die for the teachings of Jesus. No, they died for something quite bizarre – the idea that Jesus rose from the dead and was coming back. That sort of people is quite unlike any of the other major religions – and just plain nuts if not based in reality.
As E. P. Sanders points out, given all the inherent contradictions in the NT, and the massive in-factional disputes within early Christianity, it is frankly bizarre that the only thing they all agree on is the notion of the resurrection of Jesus. One could hardly imagine say Paul and James, who otherwise hated each other and represented diametrically opposed factions, agreeing to conspire to comit a fraud on that point.
The only other ideas, of mass hallucinations and the like, also seem very implausable. We need to stop thinking about the resurrection of Jesus being the resurrection of a man, because that indeed does seem impossible. But the resurrection of God – well – what can science say about that? Nothing. Barth makes the point that such a historical event is impossible to measure by historical-critical tools, because it would be a unique event without historical comparison.
'More to the point, what about for example the Gospel of Thomas?'
Great question. The answer is actually Apostolic Tradition, which was once a good thing before the Roman Catholics abused it.
We also need to remember that the Gospels were only written at the end of the 1st Century. Why? Because the Christians all thought Jesus would return in their lifetime, so no one would think to write a complete history for future generations that won't exist. It was only when the first generation of Christians died, those Apostles and others, that they realised Jesus may not be returning so soon, so they better write these till now oral stories down.
The Gospel of Thomas is a Gnostic Gospel. We know it does not represent genuine oral tradition by the fact that the Bishops of the major Churches did not accept them. So say the Bishop of Antioch was taught the stories of Jesus from the very mouth of Peter, or from Peter's sucessor. So that Bishop of Antioch knew that say Matthew represented genuine Jesus' oral tradition but the Gospel of Thomas was simply a made-up fraud.
'Does the story have "veracity"?'
Again, contrary to popular belief, the "test" is not the story, because the Bible is not 'The Truth' (capital T) nor 'The Word' (capital W). Instead, Christianity is unique in holding a theophany of God in a person – Jesus Christ. The Bible itself tells us Jesus is The Truth, and Jesus Christ the person is the only Word and the only Way.
The Bible can be a 'myth' or even propaganda – in a manner of speaking. That doesn't matter, because the Bible is just a filter or lens to see God. Other lenses include nature, experience, revelation and reason. The only thing that matters is Jesus – ultimate Divine Truth in a person. The Bible might be the best filter, but it is a filter nonetheless.
Stephen,
You suggest no scholar seriously thinks the NT story is simply made up.
Have a read of the Review on the link below. You will be shocked.
(It seems there were many versions of Homers work.)
I think reading Homers works should be compulsory reading for anyone discussing the topic of the veracity of the Jesus story/Gospel of Mark etc.
Btw, your defence above seemed rather circular to me… It amounts to what, The story is true because Jesus is Truth and Jesus is Truth because the story is true..?
http://infidels.org/library/modern/richard_carrier/homerandmark.html
Chris, you are referring to an old theory to do with the Messianic Secret. It holds that Mark told his story of Jesus to match the story of Odesseus, to appeal to his Greek audience.
It matches what I said about the Gospels being a slice of the true oral tradition of Jesus – 'propaganda' if you will. But Mark's telling of the story doesn't mean the underlying story is untrue.
Yes, I understand your complaint. It is the same complaint I make against Christian Existentialists like Bultmann. So we do need to look for 'proofs' for the Resurrection, not just circular reasoning.
From Wikipedia on the MacDonald.
"Students were expected, not only to understand the epics, but be able to rewrite the stories in their own words. Rewriting the Homeric Epics was commonplace and accepted in Biblical times. [so much for only one version of the epics – I just accepted Stephen Foster's assumption earlier. We were both wrong]. In using the Homeric Epics, the ancient writers were not trying to deceive their readers; in fact MacDonald believes the ancient readers understood the juxtapositions of Jesus with Odysseus. “Mark’s purpose”, he argues, “in creating so many stories about Jesus was to demonstrate how superior [Jesus] was to Greek heroes. Few readers of Mark fail to see how he portrays Jesus as superior to Jewish worthies… He does the same for Greek heroes.” Bold added.
Old theory Chris. Doesn't change anything. In fact, it matches what I said above. Mark may have told his story of Jesus in a way so it most matched the Greek stories his Greek audience understood. It doesn't mean the underlying oral traditions about Jesus were false.
Human beings do it every day when they tell a story – even a 'true' one. They communicate only parts of it, and put it in such a way to present a certain light.
Matt does the same – he presents Jesus as a new Moses.
Luke does the same – he presents Jesus as a new Samson or new Samuel.
John does the same – he presents Jesus as the mystical Sophia or Logos.
Again, it doesn't mean the underlying story of Jesus, which is the Gospel, is false.
Chris,
There are, you say, multiple versions of Homer’s works, but (unless you have further light) there was only one Homer. Saying that there are multiple versions of Homer should, to you, be like saying there are multiple versions of the Gospel According to Luke (unless I misunderstand); and of course there are as many versions of Luke as there are of the Bible—so what point are you making?
You have sought to conveniently characterize my point by concocting something I’m not saying. Oh never mind, I just caught it, you were talking to the other Stephen. I don’t think he was saying what you are saying about Jesus and truth; but I will let him answer that.
My opinion is that Jesus’ story is simply indispensable to a search for truth, because His story claims to answer everything; and His love theme is totally compelling—just as He said it would be. If it is bogus, it constitutes the most comprehensive hoax (or fraud) ever perpetrated. (As we think about it, since Luke’s Gospel may have been written as early as 25 years after Jesus crucifixion; that would be as 1989 compared to 2014. That would be comparable to a member of Ronald Reagan’s cabinet writing a ‘tell-all’ today, about the administration ended in 1989.)
Stephen Foster,
Did you read the link? Your comment suggest you didn't.
One of the points made towards the end of the review is regarding a book "Jesus, One Hundred Years Before Christ." The point seems to be that a Jesus character, had a following and "believers" long before the supposed NT era. The argument is that the Anti-Epic of Mark acted as a cementing, confirmational story for this group of people. It makes some sense I suspect.
Yes, the story claims to answer everything and his love is compelling. Could that be the very power of the juxtapositioning of Jesus and Odysseus – the new "super hero"?
Link for book:
http://www.amazon.com/Jesus-Hundred-Years-Before-Christ/dp/0879517204?SubscriptionId=AKIAIMO5NQ6ZLKHRLTMA&tag=iinterinfid-20&linkCode=xm2&camp=2025&creative=165953&creativeASIN=0879517204
Chris maybe we need to establish something more basic.
Do you believe Jesus of Nazareth really existed?
Do you believe Jesus of Nazareth actually said, taught and did most of the things recorded in the NT – admittedly told in a way that suited the Gospel writers?
Do you believe Jesus of Nazareth was really executed on a cross by Roman officials at the behest of Pontias Piltate?
Because even non-Christians seem to believe that at least. I have studied the Quest for the Historical Jesus in some detail, and it includes scholars who don't really believe in the resurrection of Jesus or miralces, yet they believe this much at least.
Steve,
Chris is in the small minority of people who have studied the historicity of (this) Jesus’ actual existence who do not believe that He did actually exist.
Here is why (in my not so humble opinion): Chris is unusually heavily invested in the notion that religion is fantasy. He cannot concede that Jesus Christ existed because then the probability of Him saying and doing anything—any one isolated thing—that is recorded in any of the four gospels comes into play.
If any one of those teachings and miracles actually did occur, then how much of the rest of it—i.e., the Christology and the soteriology of any of the NT—is possibly true and where would that leave Chris and others who can’t believe?
Why do I say they can’t believe? They have too much intellectual capital/currency—and therefore personal credibility—invested at this point. Their reasons for rejecting the Bible as an authority would be invalidated if any of it, or (then) possibly most (or all) of it, was actually the truth. Thus they cannot afford to concede on any point; and have to challenge its accuracy or historical authenticity at every point.
This is why some non-believers cannot deal with the question of what the chances are that Jesus of Nazareth didn’t say—or especially do—any of these things that the Gospels record Him as doing. If He did say—or especially do—any of these things; then ‘we have a ballgame,’ as we say in America.
sigh,….
Here we go again. The "not so humble" Stephen cannot accept what I say. Never mind that I would join him in a heartbeat, and tell the AT world about it if I found some good reasons to believe in Jesus – AGAIN.
No, Stephen, you have too much invested in telling everyone here how it really is for me. Most of it news to me too! 🙂
I went to Church today and listened to the Easter message. It is a wonderful story that goes right to the heart of the human predicament. No wonder it has appeal. But, I can't believe. Not for the reason Stephen tells me, but because I cannot find more than a shred of evidence for its veracity.
Perhaps Stephen you should read your last 3 paragraphs again and note the "ifs", "possibly's", etc. You love building your little "logical" houses of cards don't you?
Unfortunately, even "if" some, much, most of the Jesus story is true, it is barely at a coin toss, and offering little reason to expect a touchdown.
Obviously, I do not believe that you are open to evidence at this point. (What difference does what I think make?)
What would qualify as "evidence" to you?
Stephen,
I would probably say, a convergence of evidence from as wide collection of contemporary historical data and sources as possible. In that spread, non-Biblical would weight very heavily, but as we know is the most scant. Even what exists is too open to interpretation.
One thing that would stand out for me would be even the minutest writing from Jesus himself! Consider most any other historical figure or event. Writings from the characters involved and a convergence of data are what can give credibility. Or, writings from hostile sources. Is there any hostile source that verifies his existence as Jesus of Nazareth? If not, that is very telling. Incredible events, events where the "enemy" wins and says nothing!
Consider, why is there no writing from Jesus? It is no point saying that because he was "God", he chose not to write etc, that is begging the question. He did write in the sand! He read in the temple, so was not illiterate! Why do we know about the OT prophets? They wrote. Just strikes me as strangely silent on the Jesus front.
But, as I say, a convergence of evidence from multiple streams, not just insiders as the NT stories happen to be.
.
You see, this is what I expected. I only asked this question because I am convinced that there can be nothing that would qualify as evidence for you; and we’ve already conducted an exercise that demonstrates/demonstrated that, for you, there can be no convergence of evidence from a wide collection of contemporary historical data and sources because nothing qualifies as contemporary evidence for you and everyone is considered an insider. It doesn’t matter to you what the consensus of those who have studied this historically is, because they’re now considered “insiders.”
The Romans and Jews were co-conspirators in His crucifixion, but Roman historians or Hebrew historians can’t qualify as hostile for you because Romans eventually became insiders and Jesus was a Jew, so He was inside. For example, do (Romano-Hebrew) Josephus’ works mean anything?
You know that Jesus didn’t write anything; and/or that nothing is attributed to Him, so there is more ‘evidence’ that cannot exist by your parameters or descriptions.
You cannot accept anything as evidence. That’s why “[I] cannot accept what [you] say.” In reality, I’ll believe that you will “join [me] in a heartbeat, and tell the AT world about it if [you find] some good reasons to believe in Jesus – AGAIN” only when that actually happens.
(But what I think makes no difference. On that much we can certainly agree.)
Stephen,
Show me which parts of the NT were undeniably written by an eye wittness.
Show me any contemporary Roman historian.
Show me any "Jewish" contemporary historian.
Show me any "Jewish" historian's work not highly controverted.
Show me any other historians work from the era not ambiguous.
Yes, I know Jesus never wrote anything that we yet know about. That was my point. It occurs to me it is exactly the kind of silence one would expect from a possibly "almost" imaginary hero in an anti-epic, who perhaps only ever existed as a small scale teacher a hundred yrs prior!
I do not reject current consensus because they are "insiders", although it is telling. I reject much of their work because they are all arguing over the same threadbare bits of evidence that do exist outside the Bible, and the contradictory "insider" evidence that exists within it.
I also reject much of what they say because, as noted above, there are others threads of evidence, perhaps stronger ones, that can give credibililty to other interpretations of the events and the source of the story.
It comes back to the theme of the blog. How do we determine truth? It certainly is not good to start with the choir, and if the choir are the only ones singing the tune, one has reason to worry.
I suggest instead of hassling me over it you deal with you own doubts bro. The stronger you argue with me the more I suspect they are significant; albeit shoved determinedly, and stubbornly out of the way.
Chris,
Without doubt it is understandable that you would grasp the straw of doubt. I am no psychoanalyst, yet I attempted an amateur analysis of your Christological position and why you can’t afford to believe.
I’ve already admitted that I have a vested interest in believing the Bible, since it would be inconvenient for my worldview if Jesus of Nazareth never really existed.
But it is the experiencing and the witnessing of the love, power, and mercies of God over time and in a variety of life circumstances in my life and the lives of others whose lives I have witnessed up close and personally, in “confluence” if you will with the congruence of scripture—including the prophecies of the Bible (e.g., Genesis 3:15; Isaiah 7:14; Isaiah 9:6; Isaiah 11:1,2; Daniel 2:31-45; Daniel 7: 19-25; Daniel 9: 25-27; Micah 5:2; 1 Timothy 4: 1,2; 1 Timothy 6; 2 Thessalonians 2: 12-17; 2 Peter 1: 12-21; 2 Peter 2; 2 Peter 3:4; Revelation 3: 14-22; Revelation 12; Revelation 13; Revelation 14; among many others)—that have caused me to be sure of this.
So I readily admit a serious bias; and you may as well do likewise.
The other side of believing is the acknowledgement of evil and of its’ mastermind. Must non-believers also disbelieve in the concepts of and realities of good and evil?
I don’t mind you psychoanalyzing me Chris; in fact I welcome it. But you should provide a reason for your diagnosis—if but a “logical house of cards.”
As for your ‘show me’s,’ please review our conversation on this thread thus far. I think it is fairly well established at this point Chris that there is nothing that you can be shown—at all. What historical facts or details are any more accessible, relative to contemporary chronicling, than are the 1989 or 1979 relative documentation or chronicling of Luke’s gospel version? Yeah, I know, Luke was an “insider” and all that; but that’s how something 2,000 years ago—or should I say anything 2,000 years ago?—would’ve been documented?
Again, what about Josephus’s historical bona fides?
Josephus?
If you can fit him into the list I gave – good luck – his material is conroverted.
If you can honestly sort out the Christian "glosses" from the facts in the references he makes to and about Jesus, then, we might have a ballgame!
Again, the parallel between Odessueus and Jesus is not a new theory, nor the fatal wound to Christianity you see it is. It is an old theory – and one usually trotted out in relation to Mark's theme of the Messianic Secret.
Mark no doubt told his story of Jesus in a way most relevant to his own Greek audience. Perhaps that did mean portraying Jesus as a Greek hero like Odessueus, just as Matt portrays Jesus as a new Moses to his Jewish audience.
But that doesn't mean Mark or Matt simply made it all up! Like any propagandist or lawyer, they presented a slice of truth in a particular light. But there is underlying truth there nonetheless.
Stephen Furguson,
I don't have dissagreement with most of what you said above. I made a few similar points to the other Stephen earlier.
Re your first questions about Jesus of Nazareth. To me there is significant doubt that he existed, was exectuted etc.
You say: "But there is underlying truth there nonetheless."
Perhaps so, but what it is remains very debatable. Clearly, at least to my thinking, such difficult to demonstrate "truth" should be treated with caution. Unfortunately, what we see in Christianity is denial of this "uncertainty" and trumping up the shreds of evidence as if it were a done deal that it is all totally historical fact – including the resurrection etc.
I did make the point last week that the truth of the resurrection and divinity of Jesus was the critical issue. Even winning the case that Jesus of N was real and died at Roman hands, does little to bolster the divinity claims etc.
,
Chris I agree – the Resurrection is the key to me at least.
I agree that we need caution in claiming the Gospels as 'The Truth' because they obviously contradict. The Gospels never claims to be The Truth, because they record Jesus is The Truth. The Gospels are just a second layer of truth, and admittedly peeling it back to get to the primary Truth can be difficult.
But to use your analogy about movies, if 4 directors make four biographies you'd all expect them to be slightly different. And even plots and characters would be different, borne out because trying to squeeze a massive into a two-hour format requires editing.
None of this should be a problem unless you wrongly read the Bible as a scientific textbook or court recording.
Not only Mark, the but later Gospel writers, Matthew and Luke wrote that Jesus was conceived by a virgin and this was the claim made for many Greek gods earlier; most likely to equate him as equally a god to be worshiped. There is no way to prove a virginal birth, but there is also no physician who would make such a claim; although there have been more than a few young girls who have tried to claim no loss of virginity, although they were pregnant.
The people of his home town did not believe it by their remarks about his maternity. The story could not have been true but likely believed by those who were ignorant of genetic inheritance equally share by all mothers. The common belief throughout most of history was that the mother was merely an incubator for a "seed" that the man implanted. This made it possible, perhaps for it to be written and believed.
Why would we need to prove His virgin birth? How could science even begin to prove something involving the Divine?
I recently watched '12 Years a Slave'. It was excellent. Was I watching a 'true story' or not? And what if another directors remakes the film. No doubt it will be slightly different, but will that second re-make also be a 'true story' or not?
Chirs: 'I went to Church today and listened to the Easter message. It is a wonderful story that goes right to the heart of the human predicament. No wonder it has appeal. Not for the reason Stephen tells me, but because I cannot find more than a shred of evidence for its veracity.'
Chris, I do hear you. I do think there is evidence for the truth of the resurrection story. But I want to put that aside for now.
For me, I often have doubts also whether the Easter story is literally true. But then I think, it is really impossible either way – so I am probably pissing in the wind thinking about it too much.
And then I think, wow, this story must really resonate with people – as you have just observed. This story is so powerful it changed an entire empire, against all odds, and now over a billion people believe it. Can you believe that – that is amazing – that is some story!
Dawkins like to point out his story of the Flying Spagetti Monster or Floating Teapot are just as 'true', in the sense they can't be proven or disproven with science either – just like God or the Resurrection can't be proven or disproven with science.
But Dawkins is missing a key point. His Flying Spagetti Monster doesn't speak to people in the same way as the Easter story does. So in that way, it isn't "true" in the same way as the Jesus' story is.
So the Jesus story may be "fact" and it may simply be "myth". But again the point is, we can't prove or disprove it with science either way. So even if we have to treat it as a "legal fiction", the Jesus story is "true."
Assuming there is a God (and Pascal's Wager suggests we should treat God as existing, even if He doesn't), I'd assume that God would be very pleased and appreciative of human beings who do consider the Jesus story as true. That is what faith is. People who assume the Jesus story as true, even if they can't prove or disprove it, live in hope. And a life without hope is not a life worth living – at least that is what Dostoesky said.
So maybe you are over thinking it? Maybe you are looking at it too much like a scientist and not enough like a theologian. If we want a story to describe God, humanity, this terrible planet with all its suffering, and hope for the future, is there a better story than the Easter one? Given you can't prove or disprove it, why not choose to embrace it as truth? But again, maybe that Western mindset of needing categorical "facts" has killed that mental ability of. If it has, then I feel sad for you, and much of the Western world with you.
Stephen Ferguson,
I have a several problems with your observations.
I don't think that the fact a story resonates with people can ever be a valid reason to accept its truth in the sense of it being true as a fact. There have been and are many stories (religious ones) that resonate with vast numbers of people. Islam may well count its billions over history too, and I would not take that as any evidence for its veracity.
Dawkin's spag monster is not a fair comparison. He is making a valid point with it, but the point is not about appeal to the human situation. The Jesus story was designed to tug the heart strings and hit the human need – if indeed "we" humans "invented" it, what else would you expect? Dawkins did not invent his illustration for the same purpose.
Saying we can't prove the story either way with science is also a questionable call. Let's take the flood story for an example on that point. We can demonstrate from scientific observation vast numbers of converging evidences that there has never been a global flood on this earth, and most certainly not during the last tens of millions of years. We cannot prove this beyond doubt of course. However, anyone making a claim that there has been such an event, not only needs to show evidence for it, they need to show how the evidence against it having occurred is invalid.
"A life without hope is not worth living". What scale does that hope have to be on to make a life worth living? I suggest to you that a human can find sufficient meaning, hope, joy, purpose, love, within the context of this life to have a life absolutely worth living!
Pascal's wager? You may find the link below interesting.
No, I don't think my Western mindset has killed anything of value; please, don't feel sad for me.
If you do wish to feel sad for me, you will do equally well to feel sad for the people for whom reason, scientific discovery, and a western mindset has enabled to stop believing in vampires, killing of witches, casting spells, pointing the bone, and whatever other fantastic, and crazy religious ideas we have, thank God, left behind!
http://www.relationshipwithreason.com/articles/philosophy/14-pascal-s-wager-the-epitome-of-irrational-rationalism
'I don't think that the fact a story resonates with people can ever be a valid reason to accept its truth in the sense of it being true as a fact.'
It depends on what you mean by 'truth'. We aren't talking about physical truth but metaphysical truth. By that, I mean truth about how or what God is, who or what we human beings are, and how God and mankind relate to each other, within the context of this world.
That sort of truth by very definition can't be tested down a microscope or test tube. Just as a parent's love can't really be tested scientifically. Oh, it can be tested with evolutionary-biological theories, and psychology, and a whole range of other tests and theories, but can it really explain the depths of love a parent has for a child? It comes a point when we realise the sort of factual scientific proof you crave is not enough, and limited if not empty, in answering many of our innermost questions.
In that sense, the Jesus story is indeed 'truthful' in a way that other stories are not. It is indeed hard to put one's finger on it in a rational, logical way, and it can seem totally crazy. Just like love – that makes no real sense when you think about it, and makes people do stupid things, even against their own self-interest or survival!
'Dawkin's spag monster is not a fair comparison. He is making a valid point with it, but the point is not about appeal to the human situation.'
Of course it's a fair point. Dawkins is mocking those who believe things that can't be proven. But the whole premise is wrong, because much of it depends on the type of 'truth' Dawkins is searching for. To paraphrase Oxford Mathatical Don Lennox (a Christian), "I don't believe in the sort of God Dawkins claims not to believe in."
'Saying we can't prove the story either way with science is also a questionable call. Let's take the flood story for an example on that point. We can demonstrate from scientific observation vast numbers of converging evidences that there has never been a global flood on this earth, and most certainly not during the last tens of millions of years.'
Who said anything about a global flood? Does the Bible actually teach that, or is that one interpretation of the Bible, so are you making straw man arguments Chris?
Are you saying you can categorically disprove Jesus' Resurrection, or even God? And can you disprove these stories as 'truth' in the sense they are stories derived from God, told to impart a message about God, about us, about this world, and how we interact?
'However, anyone making a claim that there has been such an event, not only needs to show evidence for it, they need to show how the evidence against it having occurred is invalid.'
Anyone Chris – anyone? Says who? Who says we have to adhere to such a riddiculous rule? Maybe you can say sceptics like you demand such, but certainly not 'anyone' or 'everyone' requires that onus.
People can believe whatever they want with whatever onus they want. Others can believe differently.
I believed in Y2K – remember that. I had no personal proof or expertise in IT. Did I believe – absolutely? So did millions of rational, logical and professed scientific people. Yet it was all bunkem wasn't it, despite billions spent by governments around the world.
So everyone needs to be less dogmatic – including sceptics such as yourself. You can rightly say that you don't believe but your suggestion a believer prove the evidence against it is invalid is simply absurd.
'What scale does that hope have to be on to make a life worth living? I suggest to you that a human can find sufficient meaning, hope, joy, purpose, love, within the context of this life to have a life absolutely worth living!'
Chris if you can live a worthwhile life without God or religion then good for you. Yet, for the vast majority of us, it isn't enough. It is a meaningless life of eat and drink for tomorrow I will die. For many, with a dead child or loved one dying of cancer, your secular search for purpose is pathetically empty.
God may be a lie, and may be simply an evolutionary adaption, but it is one that the vast number of humans need – not want – need. That is why severeal attempts to kill of God have not worked – most of us are hard-wired to believe in God. That sort of 'truth' is hard for scientific sceptics find hard to fathom, but it seems the truth.
And thus in that sense the Jesus story is 'truth' like none other. It may be a made-up delusion, but it is a story that best speaks to the hearts of human beings.
'The Jesus story was designed to tug the heart strings and hit the human need – if indeed "we" humans "invented" it, what else would you expect?'
What's wrong with that? Why do you think the Jesus story as a meme has been so sucessful? And that meme only works if one believes, even if it isn't factually true. But as it is impossible to prove or disprove, why not accept the delusion – if it was one?
'If you do wish to feel sad for me, you will do equally well to feel sad for the people for whom reason, scientific discovery, and a western mindset has enabled to stop believing in vampires, killing of witches, casting spells, pointing the bone, and whatever other fantastic, and crazy religious ideas we have, thank God, left behind!'
Chris I do feel sorry for you, just as I feel sad for most of secular society – like our Australian fellows. You see, the people who implicitly mock here, the 'uncivilised', the 'peasant', the 'naive', who believe in a range of fantastic things, they probably have far better lives than us. Anthropologists have observed that the world over.
They are happy and their lives seem to have joy, and meaning, and hope – even in the depths of poverty. But for our modern Western lives, with all its Ipads and plasma TVs, where death is now the last taboo, and where who strive to screw the world, rape its environment and live off the back of the world's poor – are our lives so superior? So yes, I am sad.
As for crazy ideas, remember Y2K? I doubt think we Westerners with our secular ways are much better or superior?
And Chris, seriously, if you can live without believing in a God or without craving an inner metaphysical truth (as opposed to your scientific physical one) such as the Jesus' story, then good for you – seriously.
But please accept the vast majority of human beings need God, need that inner metaphysical truth, and that the Jesus' story has been the most sucessful such story in all of human history. It might be simply an evolutionary adaption hardwired into our brain, but if so, what makes you think your scientific scepticism is going to work what wit?
Human belief is a most powerful emotion and has driven many to do impossible things. But nevertheless, their courageous or evil acts cannot be a measurement of actual truth, only their powerful belief. The best illustration is found in those who risk their lives daily to save people from burning buildings, floods, etc. But there is also the exceptional belief of many Muslims that anything that will spread their religious belief is blessed: whether it be bombings, preventing girls from receiving an education and forced marriages. Those are very poor evaluations of truth. Truth, like love, is in the mind of the believer. amd always subjective.
Yes Elaine human belief is subjective, which is why you can't always test such truth at the bottom of a test tube. Even our supposedly rational, logical beliefs, like Y2K or Climate Change, are subjective and emotional.
Stephen and Elaine, i agree with you two in the "reasoning and value" of your input regarding the Easter Season Story, of Christ, and religion in general. Chris, what it speaks to me is the "REALITY of the SPIRITUALITY" of the human creature, all through recorded history, of mankinds need, to identify with a superior intellectual being above and beyond themselves. Billions of people over time, havesearched for that bigger than human existence, with which to recognize as the reason and WHY they exist. They can't accept that their intelligence and the complexity of all life forms are possible without a higher intelligence having been involved. It has been estimated that a great majority of individuals, presently and past, have "created" for themslves, God, or Gods, to account for their being a reality, and people have dedicated their lives to their Deity. To me, that is truly "evidence", of a God or Gods, outside of Earth because that which is outside of Earth is so stupendously awesome, and magnificient, unknowing of its qualities and limits, if any?? This speaks to the heart of most, that an almighty power or powers is at work here. It is not in mankinds intellectual capacity to relegate this "REALITY" to happenstance, to an accident from nothing-stance. There is more, much more, to the humanity story, beyond our present revealed being. Perhapsthere is something to the concept of reincarnation of an eternal soul. We don't know, but we have myths, and or what some of us consider the "TRUTH". In consideration of past millenials humanities of billions of belivers in this concept, far beyond the few doubters, there is a valid reasoning passed down to us, and this is evidence we can trust. Logically, for the good of humanity, this is the single best possibility of our origin. Any who are unable to accept the "SPIRITUAL NATURE OF THIS UNIVERSE IN ITS INFINITE POWER", is travelling a road that is peculiar to his subjective nature.
Stephen Ferguson,
The only comment I will make re what you noted above is this:
Y2K. I did not believe in it. It was a con from the start.
Remember Tamiflu and the Swine flu thing? I did not believe in that either… how many poeple rubbished me over that? Two weeks ago here in Oz a study showed beyond doubt it was hardly even effective, and that the Government here has multi millions of dollars worth of it stockpiled for nothing.
The number of people I know who were "forced" to take it by their doctors and got sick as a result is large. It pays to examine the evidence sometimes…
The problem Chris is sometimes the evidence is not as objective as many think. As Elaine rightly says above, belief is often subjective. Even supposedly objective matters, whether it be Y2K, Climate Change or Swine Flu are not as objective as many of the so-called experts tell us.
And that is on something testable! How do we go about testing the metaphysical, like the idea of a dying and resurrected God? And what above love – how do we test that?
I'd be interested to know Chris, do you believe in: Climate Change or vacination of children?
Climate change? This planet has been through many cycles of heating and cooling and there is little to suggest it will suddenly stabilize just because we want it to.
How much man is contributing to any current change is unclear, but I suspect not as much as certain groups would like us to believe. If at all.
Can humans do much if anything about climate change? Imho we will at best tweak the edges and make ourselves feel better for having tried, probably at great expense to most economies. I have to admit I don't like it when small island nations pump out their groundwater for irrigation and create land subsidence and then blame sea level rise on their shrinking beaches – and moot the idea of compensation from "industrialized" nations who are supposedly causing it.
If there is any hype on the climate change front, I would suspect the USA is front and center, because imho there are political forces keen to capitialize on reasons, valid or not, to push up the cost of fossil fuels to make "green" competitive. Going green is a good way of no longer being exposed to the international market with people you may not particularly like if you did not have to buy their oil, or who can hold you to ransom over its supply.
I do absolutely agree with Brandis that there must be more freedom of speech to discuss these things without the labels.
Immunization? My kids are immunized for most things. Interestingly current trends here in OZ show that in many places the higher the education of a location the lower the immunization rates may be. Work that out. I'm one of those who think it has its limited place, but is not subject to the objective assessments it should be.
Sorry to be so OT..
Yes interesting.
And don't you find it interesting that to many, your views might seem just as much fideism as those who criticize Christianity as irrational.
But to paraphrase Barth, yes, Christianity is objectively irrational, and only 'truth' in a subjective sense – but we embrace that absurdity.
I have likewise always thought from a purely rational, objective point of view, social Darwinism made the most sense. When Hitler embraced the teachings of Nietzche and can 'good' is might, not the golden rule, and took that to mean the gasing of the intellectually disabled, maybe he was right. From an objective and wholly evolutionary point of view, it makes no sense to keep such people alive, given they are a 'waste' to society.
Now I know someone like Elaine will feign outrage, and reaffirm the golden rule as applying to the care of those who are a 'waste' to society. But why? On what scientific and objective basis? I suspect the golden rule is just another one of those inner truths, like love. They are both subjectively true in the sense of hard to explain, from a wholly individual rational point of view.
When we put although the scientific and logical 'facts' about Christianity aside, it is this subjective truth of the Jesus' story that seems most true. It rings true in an innate sort of way, in an innermost and inexplainable way, in the same way we all know exterminating disabled people is just wrong, regardless of the justifications and reasonings.
This world is a brutal terrible world, full of suffering. All religions agree on that much at least. The 'facts' you demand only confirm that horror. Humans, by contrast, demand hope. And the Jesus' story gives hope. There might be other stories of hope, but the Jesus' story is the world's most popular.
Don't get me wrong, I do believe in the 'evidence' of the Jesus' story, especially the Resurrection. But again, in moments of doubt, it is subjective truth of the Jesus' story that speaks to me most.
I have a Gnostic friend with whom I often discuss religion. There is much about her religion I disagree with. But what I do really appreciate if her emphasis that spiritual knowledge is not something you can just learn from a book or test in a test tube. It is subjective – proudly so.
It is a powerful emotion as Elaine says, but more than just an emotion. Love is an emotion, yet love is also much more than just an emotion. A parent can love and be angry with their child at the same time. Love is more than just an emotion we can fix with Prozac. Love is an eternal principle, that goes beyond objective and scientific explanations about genes or evolutionary adaptions.
And Chris, there is one thing that really continues to concern me. What do you hope to acheive by this discussion here on AToday? Given how hardwired human beings are to belief in God and religion, do you really think you will have any luck in proselytizing others to your state of unbelief?
If so, isn't that just as crazy as the crazy religions your mock?
If not, then what's the point here?
Why am I here?
Dr Taylor: "I leave it for those who wish to comment to respond to the question: “With so many faiths, views and religions out there, how do I know Seventh-day Adventism is the truth?” Cliff’s column did not provide an answer. Who would like to take a stab at answering that question? Please do not “scowl” or “squawk” while you are responding."
I simply joined the discussion and made some observations. Unfortunately, I seem to offer little that is acceptable:)
Kenneth Cox used to say "It is neither harmfull nor fatal to think", or something like that. I like to contribute to thinking…
I also like to think there may be readers here who struggle with questions about such topics, and if my input can be of value – great. The value does not have to be in them "joining" me. It may be in them seeing things quite otherwise; if clarity of thought and better understandings are the result of everyone's input on such topics – that must be a good thing.
Chris. You sharpen my thinking with your contribution. Ellen White said the following in the book Education. "Every human being, created in the image of God, is endowed with a power akin to that of the Creator—individuality, power to think and to do. The men in whom this power is developed are the men who bear responsibilities, who are leaders in enterprise, and who influence character. It is the work of true education to develop this power, to train the youth to be thinkers, and not mere reflectors of other men’s thought. Instead of confining their study to that which men have said or written, let students be directed to the sources of truth, to the vast fields opened for research in nature and revelation. Let them contemplate the great facts of duty and destiny, and the mind will expand and strengthen. Instead of educated weaklings, institutions of learning may send forth men strong to think and to act, men who are masters and not slaves of circumstances, men who possess breadth of mind, clearness of thought, and the courage of their convictions. {Ed 17.2}
I like her phrase to be a thinker not a reflector of other's ideas.
There is also a danger in becoming a critical thinker and not accepting others' ideas. One who thinks has read as much as possible on a given subject and often, after having done that, he recognize that there are far fewer absolute answers and even more questions. Like Socrates, a question that is answered with a question should lead to more evaluating. The quick answers are usually not truly studied. But most people want quick and easy answers to life's most perplexing questions.
And there is one who reads so widely they don't really believe in anything anymore, so they no longer have answers to any of life's most perplexing questions.
i doubt seriously that Chris thinks he is able to convince and claim a Christian on this web site to his outlook of religion. And its obvious to me that we who have accepted Jesus Christ as the world's Creator, and our Saviour, will not be successful in changing Chris's outlook. Chris has had access to the same data and observations and has been in the inner circles of Christianity's lifestyle, yet has decided some method of tangibility is required for him to accept the Bible story.
Nothing short of Christ appearing in His return to Earth will convince Chris. If the heart of a man isn't evil, who practices respect and love for his fellow creatures , human, and animal, i believe they will be acceptable to God, not for what they are ignorant of, or don't know for a certainty, which is truly all of us, to some degree. i find Chris to be a man of integrity, intellect, and concern for all creatures, and have been blessed of his quality being, and his input here.
Earl all very true. But one wonders then what the point of this discussion with Chris and others is then?
Yes, Chris, you did join the discussion; but it was not for the purposes of taking a stab at Ervin’s question. However, to your point, perhaps it did help me sharpen my weapon of choice in taking my own stab at it—and may even have had the value of helping some see things quite differently than you do; which can’t be bad:).
Exactly. Chris hasn't attempted to answer the question – he has just added his own further questions. And to what aim – simply to cut others' belief down – like most of our regular anti-Adventist and ex-Adventist commentators.
Stephen Foster,
You say I did join the discussion, but not to take a stab at Ervin's question.
I beg to differ… I've pasted below the opening point I made on this thread, and which whilst bouncing off Nathan's point, only did so to explain why I made that opening statement.
Why do you insist on telling me what I did and did not do and what I'm thinking…? It is tiring….
My first comment on this thread is below. I may have made limited direct comment about other comments, but I think most everything else has been in response to questions and prods by others.
Here it is:
“With so many faiths, views and religions out there, how do I know Seventh-day Adventism is the truth?” [Direct quote of the question Stephen!]
As "I" see it, there is no way of doing so. …… " [Clear answer to the question Stephen!] The rest of my comment explained this point.
Chris…uhm asking “how do [you] know…” assumes that you do know (or certainly that you think you know)—not that “there is no way of [actually] doing so.”
Stephen,
So now you are going to what, fuss over the way I put my "answer" to avoid admitting that I did in fact come on this thread to take a stab at the question?
I put I as "I" for a reason, and, yes, I did mean to say that there is actually, when all is said and done, no way of knowing if SDAism is the truth. If ever Nathan answers my question/s we may be able to get back to that point:)
Chris did you actually try to answer the question? I thought you have just asked further questions?
It all comes back to epistomolgy; i agree Chris.
Yes it does, and the epistomology of Chris, being the modern Western secular variety, is deeply flawed.
I think we’re simply misunderstanding each other.
Erv’s question was “With so many faiths, views, and religions out there, how do I know Seventh-day Adventism is the truth?”
Your answer was a legitimate personal opinion; but it didn’t answer the question, or seek to “take a stab at it.” It was a legitimate opinion of agnosticism.
It would be like asking someone, “With so many people who have ever played basketball, how do I know that Michael Jordan was the best to ever play.”
Only those who believe that Michael Jordan was the best player in history can have a go at that question Chris. It would be legitimate to opine that you don’t think that can be determined; but it doesn’t answer the question, bro.
Opining that the question can’t be answered is not an attempt to answer it. You joined the discussion to say that you don’t believe Erv’s question is answerable. You didn’t join it to answer it.
You continued the discussion with me to argue that Jesus probably didn’t even exist. That is certainly not answering Erv’s question.
I believe my wife is the most wonderful person and our wedding day the most wonderful in the history of the world. How does one go about testing (or in Chris' case, invalidating) that 'truth'?
That is a 'truth' (to me at least) even though it is wholly subjective. You can attempt to test that truth objectively, with personality tests (to test character traits), personal interviews (to test for possible examples of evidence of past alturism), or with a panel of so-called experts.
And yet, science doesn't quite have a test for 'wonderfullness'. Does that mean my wife's 'wonderfullness' must be rejected, because according to Chris:
'…not only needs to show evidence for it, they need to show how the evidence against it having occurred is invalid.'
Some might find that argument a 'cop-out.' Again, I am not suggesting we reject the search for rational and objective evidence, or of historic proof. But at the end of the day, the modern secular Western approach to Epistomolgy is fundamentally flawed.
You'll find in life, people more often than not make a 'gut' instinct decisions as to what 'truth' is – and then spend 99% of the time finding rational objective explanations to justify that subjective instinctive decision. And it isn't just religious people. Great scientific finds often start with a gut instinct idea of a hypothesis, and then all the research comes later to try and confirm that hypothesis is correct.
As for Jesus' story, of God who died and rose again, which is the Gospel, how does one go about testing that 'truth'? How can science say anything about God, which by definition, it outside of physical observation?
Now that is not to say all supernatural stories are equal. But the point is, as physical tools are by definition not able to testing the validity of such esoteric truths, it falls to metaphysical tools to test them. And despite the protestations of many, the judgment of the metaphysical is, at the end of the day, largely an intangible and subjective 'gut instinct'.
I've said it before and I'll say it again. There is an intangible and subjective truth to the Jesus' story, to me personally, that there isn't to say Dawkins' Flying Spagetti Monster. And as that is a subjective metaphysical judgment, there is absolutely nothing any of you can say to challenge that. You can reject it yourself – and good on you – but it is truth to me just as the 'wonderfullness' of my wife and my wedding day.
And it is an objective fact that there is no other metaphysical story in human history that has spoken to so many people's hearts as the Jesus' story. Now you can either accept this because human beings do have a connection to the Divine, being made in the Divine image, or you can say this is because of some human adaption that hardwires God into our brains. Either way, it can't be escaped by most of it, so your rationalist sceptical arguments are so much pissing in the wind.
So yes, I do greatly agree with Stephen Foster's great analogy of asking, “With so many people who have ever played basketball, how do I know that Michael Jordan was the best to ever play.”
It many respects it could be tested objectively, with player statistics etc etc. But on some level, saying Michael Jordan was the "best" ever to play basketball is a 'gut instinct' of subjective truth.
Part of the problem is that "best" is such a relative and subjective phrase. Does it mean: the person who scored the most baskets; played the most games; was the fairest player with the most sportsman behaviour?
And it is somewhat a relationship truth as well. Meaning, someone who loves and follows basketball closely has a much better ability to answer that, compared with someone who knows nothing about basketball and approaches the matter with cold logic.
Interesting Steve, your last paragraph was basically the thought I had in mind when the Michael Jordan analogy came to mind.
Someone, say, who doesn’t watch basketball, or doesn’t know basketball, or doesn’t like basketball, or has never seen Michael Jordan play basketball, wouldn’t and couldn’t answer that question.
An objective observer “[approaching] the matter with cold logic,” would appreciate that cold logic. I maintain that Chris is not objective. (I’m not either, but I admit it.)
Yes Stephen you are probably right. The very first thing they teach in Anthropology (of which I believe Dr Taylor is an expert) is the Sociological Imagination, which is the acceptance that no one is truly objective, and we all see things subjectively. We have to admit that.
As I said above with even scientific discoveries, even scientists don't research things in a cold calculate way. They come to a hypothesis on an inexpicable hunch, and then just the cold logic to try to prove their hunch true – not the other way around.
And my major point to Chris is some types of truth can never be tested with the scientific method. God and the supernatural for one, because by definition supernatural means beyond physical observation. Even well-understood 'truths' around us everyday can't really be tested, such as love.
Thank you all for your observations and advice…
Sorry to spoil the thread…
Enjoy the choir folks…
Steven Ferguson, the epistomology of your true love affair began with God's first created twosome, in a protected EDEN, with just the two sharing an intimacy that takes your breath away. It isn't that way with all romances. The twosome who do have that "made in heaven" scenario were predestined and prepared for the most exquisite sharing of love that human life can experience. It should be cherished and preserved and last your lifetime. Its following formula is building on the empathy of first consumation, and willing to give every single breath in your life, for each other. There is an ethereal essence of the "spiritual" dimension that is above and beyond the Earthly physical realm, and few are priviledged to having the experience. Savor it. Guard it. Live it. There is more, much more to life, than this Earthly sojourn.
In his blog title Dr Taylor missed out one important truth. Truth, Your Truth and Cliff's Truth – and Absolute Truth…
I would be interested in having Mr. Hammond explain how one determines what is "Absolute Truth." Remember, we are humans. (Just thought I would remind him of that.) Perhaps Mr. Hammond or someone other commentator on this thread has access to some magic portal to this state of knowing?
I agree with Dr Taylor. According to the Christian faith, only Jesus Christ is absolute truth. Not even the Bible is absolute truth. Jesus said He alone is the way, and the truth and the light.
And the challenge with the Christian notion of absolute truth is that because it is found in a person, not just a set of dogmas found in a book, it is very much a relational truth. And the thing about relational truth it it is very personal and subjective. It is hard to define or describe.
For example, assume there were sentient robbots or an alien race visiting earth, for which love is an alien concept, how does one go about explaining love? When you experience it, you know about it, and it is the greatest truth in the universe. But at the same time it is so intangible it is really quite difficult to explain in scientific or linguistic terms.
That is why I hate (or perhaps dislike) both ultra-conservative fumdametalists and ultra-liberal sceptics alike. You see, they both seem to agree on the test. Both see truth in objective, scientific and dogmatic terms, which both purport to prove or disprove with facts. But the truth of God is none of those things, which both of those two extremes never grasp.
Steve,
Now if you would stay here; don’t move. Jesus is the absolute truth.
Since Jesus is the absolute truth then 1) what He said represented the truth; 2) those that most accurately and/or closely represent what He was about in word and deed have the most truth; and 3) this is why my stab at Erv’s question centered around who He Is.
Positioning the absolute truth as an intangible seems to position it as practically inaccessible. One of the differences between fundamentalists and skeptics is that fundamentalists consider this truth as practically tangible and skeptics don’t consider it as absolute truth, much less tangible.
Doesn’t the fact that Jesus existed, and was crucified—in the flesh—connote tangibility?
Stephen, the only absolutely tangible thing is Jesus. Whilst Jesus's flesh is tangible, the descriptions of those flesh are not 'absolutely' tangible.
The Bible is the best source of information about Jesus. But the Bible isn't absolute truth. The Bible is only a filter.
What Jesus said was truth but we don't have what He actually said in its entirity and original context – we have a recording of what He said (in Aramaic), recorded in another language (koine Greek). And a pecursory study of the 4 Gospels indicates the authors redacted and recorded what Jesus says a little differently, which they had to, because John admits there wouldn't be enough books in all the world to record everything Jesus said or did.
In fact, even what Jesus said was limited in the sense that language is limited. The communication would only be absolute if Jesus could have used telepathy, and maybe not even then, because prophets often had trouble then understanding and putting in words what they saw.
There are other sources of divine knowledge, including experience, science, revelation, reason, logic etc etc. But these again are only filters of absolute truth. Again, they tell us something about absolute truth, but are not in themselves absolute truth.
I would certainly agree with your notion of 'most truth' because the most we can have is 'most' – not absolute truth. In fact, Ellen White herself made a similar point, in how we don't know everything, how future generations will overturn well accepted theories, that truth is present and progressive, and that into eternity we will keep learning more and more about God.
My concern is that people like Erv, Elaine and Chris, for all their supposed education and intellectual superiority, look for objective absolute proof in the same way as fundamentalists. They are looking at the filters as absolute proof, and then saying it must all be rubbish if the filters don't add up to their impossible expectations. The best example of this was Chris' statement to the effect that he didn't just need proof that Christians were right, but that he needed proof that the arguments against Christians were wrong.
My view is fundamentalist proponents of Christianity, and sceptics alike, have an unrealistic and unhealthy view of 'truth'. The sceptics are probably the worse, looking at everything with a modern secular Western mindset, that says it must be untrue if they can't see it proven with their own eyes. As they have never personally seen a supernatural event, or had one proven from science (which of course is impossible, because supernatural by definition is beyond scientific explanation), then they suggest is can't be true.
All the various filters help us understand who Jesus is. But at the end of the day, it has to be a personal experience. It is that sort of personal relational truth that matters most, but is the hardest to prove to scientific sceptics. That is the nature of saying ultimate truth is found in a person through a relationship.
I believe that is why personal testimonies are the most powerful. Much more than just intellectual dogmas.
“My concern is that people like Erv, Elaine and Chris, for all their supposed education and intellectual superiority, look for objective absolute proof in the same way as fundamentalists. They are looking at the filters as absolute proof, and then saying it must all be rubbish if the filters don't add up to their impossible expectations.”
Fundamentalists (or other believers) don’t necessarily “look for objective absolute proof at all;” much less in the same way skeptics, agnostics, and atheists do. But when we are in any way questioned about why we believe, do you suggest that we just say, “You ask me how I know He lives…He lives within my heart,” or something like that? While that may be reasonable it wouldn’t quite qualify as reasoning with a questioner.
“My view is fundamentalist proponents of Christianity, and sceptics alike, have an unrealistic and unhealthy view of 'truth'.”
Since Jesus represents (the) absolute truth, in what sense is there an “unrealistic” view of ‘truth’ whenever that reality is accepted/internalized?
I have questions of logic about your view of the Bible, but they’ll wait. (Besides, you’ve heard them previously I’m sure.)
Stephen I am not suggesting feidism, that we shouldn't dismiss historical-critical questions with historical-critical facts. That is where most religious debates occur, and that is fine.
I just think when it is all said and done, many of those sorts of debates get no where. They ultimately convince no one. I think ultimately people are convinced in the heart, not in the head. That Christianity makes the most sense, not just as a historical-critical question of what actually happened, but as a matter of philosophy, of what best depicts who and what God is.
Fundamentalist Christians will attempt to prove with historical-critical tools that Jesus was God and that the resurrection really happened as an event of history. And I am not against that, and do it myself. But sceptics will claim using their own historical-critical tools to say Jesus couldn't be God and He couldn't rise from the dead, because that is scientifically possible.
My view is ultimately historical-critical tools can't prove or disprove it. So it is a choice. And it is a question of intangible subjective truth, a matter of philosophical truth.
I agree with those who affirm that according to Christianity and Christian scripture "Jesus is truth."
But, what in the world does that even mean?
It means truth is relational (even a little esoteric) and not dogmatic, nor found in ritual, like most religions.
It is like saying the ultimate truth like love for a woman, but love is subjective and intangible. You can do things to learn more about your partner and strenghthen that love, such as talk to your lover (prayer), to talk to people who know her best to ask what she is like (history), read her love letters (read the Bible), go out on dates with her (rituals).
But ultimately your love is intangible. You know it when you experience it, but you can't really explain it to others who don't get it. It is both an emotion and more than an emotion, because you remain in love even when you're angry with your lover. It is an adaption for a biological purpose (like procreation) and yet more than just biology, a point Richard Dawkins himself makes when he talks about the use of contraceptions.
It would be quite legitimate for a sceptic to say love is just an illusion – a series of chemical and evolutionary manipulations against our own self-interest. But most of us, bizarrely, think love is much more than that, despite all the scientific evidence to the contrary. Most of us, including athiests, think love is some sort of eternal principle that makes the world go round.
So Christianity is a religion of love in a relationship between God and humanity. If you don't have that love, or believe it is real, then no words can describe it and convince you in some sort of intellectual manner.
Joe, I think it would mean that Jesus' teaching and life were the correct view (the correct demonstration) of who God is–God's values and essential character.
Joh 1:3-5 All things were made through him; and without him was not anything made that was made.
In him was life; and the life was the light of men.
And the light shineth in the darkness; and the darkness apprehended it not.
Here is a well known Chemist telling his experience with this question. http://youtu.be/PZrxTH-UUdI
Perhaps we need a whole blog on what is truth. It is quite a complicated subject. The Stanford University Encyclopedia of Philosophy in its introduction to TRUTH states "The problem of truth is in a way easy to state: what truths are, and what (if anything) makes them true. But this simple statement masks a great deal of controversy. Whether there is a metaphysical problem of truth at all, and if there is, what kind of theory might address it, are all standing issues in the theory of truth. We will see a number of distinct ways of answering these questions."
"Truth" presupposes 'Logic' and our ability mentally to reason about things independent of the physics and biology.
Joe. i would like to take a stab at your question: What does it mean for Jesus to be the truth?
We live in an alienated world, a world of fractured relationships. we see these fissures in the SDA church as well. Jesus came to show what true relationships are all about. His harshest criticisms were directed to those who placed behavior above relationshs. he refused to argue over which was the most important behavior when asked to rank the ten commandments, replying that a relationship with God and with each other was what counts. In his parting words to His disciples on the night before his death he said "By this will everyone know who my disciples (true followers) are by how they love each other (John 13:35). Notice that love is first a relationship before it is a behavior. That is what it means for Jesus to be the truth.
I'm thinking that "true" means real, genuine, faithful, legitimate, actual, accurate, exact, loyal, and not false.
Relativism (which to me is really what is being pitched in this blog) stands at the opposite end of absolute truth. Moral relativism is the extreme. Dr Taylor has asked how does one determine absolute truth which in itself is a fair question, although, the same can be asked in terms of how do we determine what is not absolute truth. One of the trademarks of secularisation is the denial of revelation. Yes, truth is revealed in/by the word of God – The inspired written word; the inspired spoken word and the inspired incarnate word. There have to be absolutes when it comes to truth – otherwise truth cannot be truth. Two worldviews are in conflict here: relativism and absolute truth. What is rather interesting to note is that relativism fundamentally has no reason yet those who hold this worldview contradict themselves by claiming to be reasonable. How can they call themselves progressives when their worldview allows no absolutes. This is how relativism works: "There is absolutely no such thing as absolutes – except for this statement of course."
Not surprisingly, Trevor, I do not see the concept of truth as you describe it.
My impression is that there is reality–even absolutely genuine and valid reality. The
difficulty is in being able to "know" that reality in ways that establish accurately what
the reality is–what the actual ultimate and absolute truth is. How can we access truth?
We can access some aspects of reality through our senses–and through our senses
as extended through technology. But when can we be confident that we have fully
and comprehensively sensed or measured anything, no matter how tangible or real
it is? And many phenomena that surely are real are not easily captured or sensed
or measured. So we typically have only a partial picture of the absolute reality. We
"see as if through a glass darkly." Our knowledge of reality is always incomplete.
One method of getting an impression of what is real is if we can establish some
"objective" method of observing or measuring–some way that is observable to more
than one person, and hopefully, by any observer. Without reliability of such observations,
validity becomes questionable. But some phenomena are notoriously unstable, and
being able to capture a representation of a phenomenon in such a way that it can be
seen and agreed upon by all observers is often difficult. Impressions of ultimate truth
can be elusive.
We do not all see things the same way. Our subjective experience does not align
perfectly with each other's. Sometimes we simply have to agree to disagree, and
respect one another's views. But a part of that process is to recognize that the "truth"
for someone else might be as valid for them as one's own (subjective) "truth" is
for oneself. None of this is a denial that some absolute reality exists–it is a
recognition that what you think is true and what I think is true can be different.
This is not to say that all opinions are of equal merit. Not at all. Some ideas and concepts
and impressions are certainly supported more by actual evidence than others–even if
none of them captures absolute truth.
The "Enlightenment" of which the American Thomas Jefferson was a product, tended to separate "actual" or "mathematical/empirical" truth from spiritual truth, and the dichotomy remains with us still and explains to my satisfaction a lot of the disagreements between People of Faith and People of Evidence, which I think is necessarily exaggerated in this particular blog by Dr. Taylor. Religion in the good old days was the cultural mother lode of truth, both empirical and spiritual. People could then choose the part of religion in which they were most comfortable, pondering spirituality on the one hand, and physical science on the other, and in many cases mixing and matching the two elements in tandem. In those times, most religious people seemed to believe there could not be, and in fact were not, any contradictions between physical science and spiritual science. The two arms of religion were believed to complement and in fact magnify each other. This was the world in which Ellen White wrote some of her most sublime, most inspirational (to me) prose.
For the past 150 years or so, however, we have been seriously wrestling to bring those two elements of religion back into compatibility, to keep Mom Science and Pop Spirituality living in the same house and sleeping in the same bedroom. Problems arise in part because some in the family think it's better if Mom and Pop just go their separate ways; yet others hold out fervent hope that the two will reconcile to their former oneness.
We can take some pride in the tremendous efforts made by Adventists for the past century or so to save this marriage, and I think this is perhaps what is happening in this blog. We're trying to keep Spirit and Science together where for centuries they have appeared to belong, and the problem is exacerbated as we learn more and more about the intricacies of both science and the human spirit, even as we're trying to patch up the differences in Mom and Pop's marriage. It's a romantic mystery of cosmic proportions, and Adventist Today is probably one of the most fascinating locations where the script for this drama is being hammered out in real time. There seems no end of interest in this compelling romance-gone-wrong.
At one point in my journalistic career, I was asked to write several articles set in Mexico City, one of the most complex and contradictory cities in the world. My editor cautioned me, “You will get bogged down in information if you try to learn too much about the city; work for 24 hours, find out as much as you can in that time frame, then write. Otherwise, there will be no end to your writing. You’ll get caught up in the narrative and you will never finish your work.”
Undoubtedly some of this has happened here on our Web site, and a lot of us are simply hooked by the enormity of this debate…. It’s a more than an encyclopedic topic, and it seems to touch the very rootstock of our identity as we try to evaluate the state of the union, without learning too far toward one or the other protagoniest as we write this “Can This Marriage Be Saved?” romantic mystery script.
Trevor: 'Two worldviews are in conflict here: relativism and absolute truth.'
Actually, as I said before, I believe modern Western secular thought can be rather absolute as well. It also demands 'objective facts' as much as the religious fundamentalist, as opposed to subjective relational truth. Alas, the extremes will screem loudest and crowd out the silent majority in the middle.
truth, or truths, and The TRUTH??
If a vote were taken by all members of society, globally, of the most important human expression of truth, what would be the great majorities answer, other than God.??
i would submit it is "Love for all mankind, each and everyone". (Love thy neighbor as thyself).
If true, this would be "objective truth". But without the author of Love, the Father of Love, GOD, there is no LOVE, There is no objective TRUTH, only subjective TRUTH.
Are you including the millions of Hindus, Daoists, and non-Christian religions? Too often Christians have the concept that theirs is the only "true" religion. But Buddhists, Hindus, and Daoists have a very different viewpoint.
As a Christian I believe ultimate truth is found in Jesus Christ – a person. As such, I believe other religions do have truth (as Jesus talked about sheep in other folds) but not suprisingly believe Christianity (and the SDA version of it) has the most truth.
I don't feel ashamed to say that – and if I didn't believe that – what would I be doing still in the SDA Church? A question perhaps for some of your ultra-liberal Adventist friends here on AToday?
And I should just say, I think to talk about 'most truth' is a far healthier way of looking at it (and in fact I believe the way SDA pioneer Ellen White looked at it) than silly notions of dogma amounting to 'absolute truth.' As truth is relational, because it is only found absolutely in the person of Jesus Christ, then we must accept to some extent it is subjective and intangible, and not capable of being tested in a lab or by a creed.
The supposition included "all globally". i didn't assume the Christian God only, in my first paragraph. However i zeroed on the Christian God in my last paragraph, as in my study of religions, other than the Christian God, i haven't noted the input of a God of LOVE.
I'm a little confused (not that that is anything new).
I sense that "personal relational truth" is being used with a special meaning. It is probably
being used to mean something like a personal and private mental/emotional/"spiritual"
connection with Jesus/Holy Spirit/God.
This is somewhat different from the distinction some make between "absolute" and "relational"
truth. "Relational truth" is often, I think, a term to convey the concept that what one thing is
or does can only be appreciated or understood as it relates to something else. "Relativity"
and "all things are relative" derive from such uses. Various "comparative" sciences are
based on recognition that understanding is amplified by comparing data across time and space
nd species, etc. Even "comparative religion" helps improve understanding of self and others.
While I certainly recognize that some phenomena are intangible, I get concerned when I
hear/read that people consider unverifiable private experience as more "real" or "true"
than that which is observable and measureable. One may wish to believe that intangible
experience is more important or more valuable than material reality, but it seems to me
that what is imagined or privately experienced or otherwise unsubstantiated is less
reliable and less valid (i.e., less knowably true) than things that can be objectively verified.
"Reality testing" is important to mental health. Without it we can quickly go adrift.
I can understand that one can adopt Jesus, or one's concept of Jesus, as the anchor
around which all else is viewed/"understood." That may be the basis of accepting
that "Jesus is truth." But the statement "Jesus is truth" leaves me feeling like the
words do not really match up with each other. That is why I asked awhile back
"What does that even mean?"
Joe,
The Bible (Paul) indicates that our world, though tangible, is not the permanent/eternal reality. As I understand it, those things we see and touch in our world are things that did not exist at one time and will not exist at another. In other words the table on which my laptop is now sitting did not always exist and there will be a time in the future when it will no longer exist; so it’s temporary.
Temporary things are not real Paul explains; but eternal things are (what are real). Christians believe that the Jesus of the NT represented/Was the eternal (and was real).
This concept or explanation can be found in 2 Corinthians 4:18 among other places.
Jesus, as incarnate representation of this eternal realm was tangible human flesh; which contributes to Him being considered the absolute truth.
Then, there is the all-important faith dimension. Christians believe that Christ’s righteousness is credited to them as a result of their faith in His sacrificial death on their behalf. They also believe that the Spirit of God changes them and empowers them. They are credited with righteousness that they cannot achieve but are empowered to seek.
Joe, what would ultimate Truth look like to you if you saw it?
Foster has given food for thought. All things that are associated with man on Earth
are temporary, as he is tempory as an Earthling. Yet the commodities he utilizes and associates with, Mental & Physical, tangible & intangible are REALITY. The tangible can be scientifically measured, objectively. The intangibles can be analyzed
qualitatived for its constituents and values, subjectively. Both are REALITIES. It seems that most are able to recognize and transition each of these, while some
cannot.
Darrel, I'm not sure if you intend your question to be serious, or whether it is sort of rhetorical and sarcastic; but never mind, I will respond, as I often respond too much. Being an old guy who has spent a lot of time in class rooms and lectures, I have often heard myself respond to people who preface their questions with "This may be a silly question, but…," with the statement, "Oh no. There are no silly questions." So, it is time for me to be consistent and provide a thoughtful and considerate response.
Even so, I have to also mention that my most common answer to questions, even on topics with which I am familiar and have some expertise is "I don't know," or "I don't know, but I suggest that you look at the work of so-and-so." So, no one should expect much from me in response to Darrel's question.
To me, "ultimate truth" suggests comprehensive knowledge and understanding, maybe of some limited entity, but more likely, of everything–all at once and continuously in time. That means, I think, full knowledge of every dimension. That means to me that "look like" and "saw" should not just refer to visual sensation within some limited aspect of light spectrum, but all values along the entire array of all possible sensory dimensions and characteristics (sort of an "n-dimensional hyperspace" taken to practically infinite proportions). Ultimate truth? I am confident that I cannot know everything about anything, no matter how tangible, let alone know everything about everything into infinity along an infinite number of dimensions.
One can, I suppose, imagine that there is an infinite Mind that is capable of wrapping itself around a comprehensive ultimate truth. It seems to me that is only imaginary and unattainable. But I can also imagine that what I have just described is what some people imagine God to be capable of–or even to BE, in a pantheistic sense.
Joe: 'Ultimate truth? I am confident that I cannot know everything about anything, no matter how tangible, let alone know everything about everything into infinity along an infinite number of dimensions.
One can, I suppose, imagine that there is an infinite Mind that is capable of wrapping itself around a comprehensive ultimate truth. It seems to me that is only imaginary and unattainable. But I can also imagine that what I have just described is what some people imagine God…'
Yes, to me that is God. But one doesn't have to have the right name for it because God is the name to describe the nameless. That is how I see God describing Himself with the title, 'I am who I am.'
The word 'imagine' is right in the sense we can't know for sure precisely because we can't know everything, as that indeed is who or what God is! But that word 'imagine' shouldn't be taking as a dirty word or a suggestion of untruth.
I am somewhat reminded of the holographic principle, which is a scientific theory that says:
'the entire universe can be seen as a two-dimensional information structure "painted" on the cosmological horizon, such that the three dimensions we observe are an effective description only at macroscopic scales and at low energies….
The physical universe is widely seen to be composed of "matter" and "energy". In his 2003 article published in Scientific American magazine, Jacob Bekensteinsummarized a current trend started by John Archibald Wheeler, which suggests scientists may "regard the physical world as made of information, with energy and matter as incidentals."'
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holographic_principle#High-level_summary
If athiests scientists can suggest that, why is it so hard to accept the idea of God? If the entire universe is actually information, not just matter or energy, then the descriptor "God" makes the most sense to describe the totality of that information? And whilst we need to be careful of anthropomorphising (as humans reflect God not the other way around), why then is it so hard to contemplate a "mind" for the totality of that information?
Why is it so hard to contemplate that "God" may be just an idea? Just a figment of the human imagination?
It seems to me that we have no difficulty at all suspecting (or even thinking we are sure) that all the gods we do not believe in are products of the human mind. The only one true God is the one we have in our own mind–and no one else knows or understands Him exactly as we do. We come to worship our own concept of God and our own perceived relationship experience with that concept.
Joe I am not sure if you mean that as perhaps sarcastic but yes, what you say is true. No one can contemplate who or what God is really execpt ourselves. Just like no one can contemplate my love for me wife but me. I can try to explain it to you, but it won't ever quite do. And our love for each other is 'a figmant of our human imaginations' in a way, as products of our minds, and yet I believe love is more than just a bunch of chemicals in a test tube.
Steve, I certainly agree with you that love is much more than chemicals in a test tube. Love is a wonderful and mysterious phenomenon that can be tremendously gratifying and transcendent. But private experiences of love and bonding and affection and attachment are not always congruent.
Experiencing both love and loss of love can change one's appreciation for the emotional connections and disconnects. I'm thinking that it is better to have loved and lost than never to have loved at all, but in those down times of unexpected estrangement or death of a partner, the pain and discontent can be profound. One sometimes wonders just whether the other individual with whom they shared love, or thought they shared love, really ever felt the same way as they did–or when that changed.
But yes, it is certainly more complicated than mere chemicals in a test tube.
Joe,
You’re not feigning objectivity on this, which is an excellent place to start. Obviously it’s not “so hard to contemplate that ‘God’ may be just an idea,” because that is precisely what you’re contemplating; and there are many others like you, who likewise have no difficulty contemplating this.
What is very hard for me to contemplate is that we are the most—or only—intelligent, self-aware/reflective beings there are; and that the levels of complexity and diversity that we see in our world did not have origins of any design.
I understand why—given the multiplicity of religions and perceptions of deity that exist—some may conclude that they’re all imaginary.
For some/others, the reality that Jesus was not “a figment of the human imagination” begs the question of ‘who was He?’ Clearly for many of us that entire narrative and explanation of things makes sense; especially in light of the fact that it identifies God as being essentially/inherently love.
But, Stephen, how confident are you that "we" (humans) are the "most–or only–intelligent,
self-aware/reflective beings there are?" We certainly are not the ONLY such beings, as is clear from careful studies of brain, cognition, and behavior of other species (e.g. chimpanzees, bonobos, gorillas, orangutans, other primates, elephants, dolphins, whales, and others). And my friend Tetsuro Matsuzawa in Japan has identified some intellectual tasks at which chimpanzees consistently out perform humans.
Further, as we think about how developmental characteristics limit or enable subsequent developmental trajectories, it is clear that that is tantamount to "design" in a sense of organized and orderly processes–though not necessarily having been purposely or intentionally designed by a designer. The process and the designer could have been natural, rather than personal–as in natural selection as a designing process (think of selective breeding of domestic animals to design standards).
But, regardless of the processes involved, just being able to conceptualize or imagine what might have happened does not mean that things happened that way. That is why it is help to examine the evidence–how things are–for clues about how they got that way.
Or, we can just make up the answers to suit our own preferences. We can believe whatever we decide to believe and ignore all evidence that is contrary to what we want to believe–or we can actually look at evidence and not rely entirely on the "authority" of revelation or imagination. We can invest our lives in a single-minded trajectory. Or, we can follow the best evidence we can find wherever it leads. I see that as real freedom–the kind of tentative truth that can make us free to change our minds and course if warranted.
Joe,
You refer to “[following] the best evidence we can find wherever it leads” as “real freedom—the kind of tentative truth that can make us free to change our minds;” but does it really?
We’ve been here before, but this does not leave you free to believe that which cannot be explained, observed, or studied. That is in itself “a single-minded trajectory.”
Besides you can’t possibly be free to observe that which might change your mind if it has not yet been discovered. So you’re limited by what has yet been discovered or observed—that’s not “freedom.”
Stephen, my brother, I do not think you and I are fundamentally different, even though our perspectives differ. Is there any end to this discussion? Probably not, and perhaps there should not be. Moving into a discussion of who is freer to change one's mind will probably not be a solution.
There is a certain kind of freedom in being able to believe anything, regardless of where evidence points. The freedom to follow where the evidence points is a different kind of freedom–and it is the kind that appeals to me. Even so, I am free to believe, and I do, that just because something can be explained does not mean that the explanation is valid or accurate. And, of course, there are plenty of phenomena for which I see no adequate explanation or credible evidence. That does not mean that I can just pick an explanation out of thin air or adopt the explanation of my parents or anyone else, whether cleric or scientist.
The freedom that I value most is the freedom not to accept anyone's dogma without giving due consideration to credible evidence. I am free to change my mind as new information is discovered or comes to my attention. That may not be ABSOLUTE freedom, but it is a far cry from swearing to adhere to some creed based on dubious evidence or someone's unverifiable subjective impressions.
I think we all value, and have, “the freedom not to accept anyone’s dogma without giving due consideration to credible evidence;”Joe. However what different people consider “credible evidence”—and evidence of what—will often differ.
Different people will also consider different/differing evidence to be “dubious” and “unverifiable” as well.
People do voluntarily take their baptismal vows. No one is forced to “[swear] to adhere to some creed;” unless of course you are talking about something altogether different.
When I took my baptismal vows I was as free as a bird – hatched in a cage! I made my choice freely, but I had no idea the wide, wonderful world that lay beyond what I was so freely (selectively) offered.
Courage opened the door…
So the question might be how much courage does it take to fly from one cage to another? If in fact you felt that you were in a cage; that would’ve been trauma by definition. Are ex-Adventists reacting to/from post traumatic stress? Now that would take courage to admit.
Chris you are as much a slave as you always were. You can't free yourself from God, as evident by the fact you are still here continually on AToday. Can you try to convince us and even yourself, but I think deep down in your consciousness is another story.
Stephen,
Don't take my metaphor to literally!
As for convincing you. You speak very much as I would have when I was perhaps not unlike you (theologically)… I would never have understood or believed someone speaking as I do now, from where I was then, so don't expect you to either.
as for being continually here, pot calls kettle black…
Chris, the pot is calling the kettle black because I am a self-professed kettle. You, by contrast, seem to suggest you are a kettle. And as this is a forum for kettles, it makes total sense for a black kettle to admit he is a black kettle. It is when black pots starting making comments about their liberation from kettle-hood that it all begins to become farce.
🙂 I guess the important thing is neither of us should get steamed up over it…
lol..
Ha ha, very true! LOL
btw… in case you don't know… this pot still goes to Church some. I don't go to Sabbath school because there's not enough breadth of culture to offer a class where I can "fit" in. So, out of kindness to the saints, it is better just not to go. I do wish I was near a church big enough to offer more groupings.
In spite of my perceived negativity re religion, I do believe there is a place for spirituality and there are needs it meets. I do wish for the day when "religion" per se has come to maturity fit for the world we live in and has widened its boundaries such that folks like me are are seen as less sooty..
Where is it written that this site is for "kettles"? It was designed specifially as an open forum for all who wished to contribute in a civil manner. No single individual can unilaterally determine who should be allowed posting privileges.
Thank you Joe. Yes I was not being sarcastic at all.
Your god is imaginary; but my god is real.
Break Through, without being in a cage, is a better quality of freedom. It seems that all are hatched in some cage and refuse to leave it or enter other cages of choice.. The freedom of choice requires there are no cages, and a selection of viable choices, once outside the birth chamber, and adults appreciation of viable choices. This Earth in near absolute terms as i can conceive is unknown by any other verses, or even within our universe, however, we are, and do exist. There is so much more infinite intelligence and knowledge beyond our selves and Earth's finite barriers. Barriers to each of our individual onboard computers of storage, and programming, and speed of operation. Why are some of mankind so accepting the dimensions of Earthly cages?? And refuse to accept the infinite vastness of intelligence that Spatial dimensions have, beyond our eyesight and sense of touch, because our Hubble lens of understanding is blurred and dark?? The Wisdom of the Ages is out there, waiting to be discovered, once mankind can envision its Reality, without the blinders and shackles we are burdened with. How can you qualify and quantify intelligence when you become so rigid with Earthly Science, you are unable to escape your cage. What is the ultimate certaincy test for intelligence?? You can think about it. You can form some subjective parameters of its existence. Mankind can objectively agree it does exist, but you can't put your physical fingers to it. There are many other dimensional factors of many other verses existing, outside Earth's cage, that mankind has been offered, they will ever through eternity, learn to sing of. We are so limited in our Earthly sojourn, to even offer our thinking to the MAJESTY of Spatial Intelligence to feast upon, to absorb into our CLOSETED SPIRITUAL EARTHLY DIMENSION, as we remain hidden in our individual choiced cages.
For it is written, Eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, neither have entered into the heart of MANKIND, the things which God hath prepared for them that love Him.But God hath revealed them unto us by His Spirit: for the SPIRIT searcheth all things, yea, even the deep things of GOD. The things of GOD knoweth no man, but the Spirit of GOD.
i beseech you, why does man place more value on the negativeism of Dawkins, and his ilk, when we have positive evidence of life outside our cages of darkness. And have evidence of scripture of life for our PRE EXISTING SOULS, if, we but let our current existing being able to perceive what's beyond the second veil, that JESUS CHRIST opened for us to behold, THE WISDOM OF THE AGES.
Gotta love ya Earl…
How does one really know the wisdom of the ages is not the wisdom of the cages?
Couldn't help that…:)
…but thinking about it… that is just asking Dr Taylors Question in another way…
Stephen Foster: 'I understand why—given the multiplicity of religions and perceptions of deity that exist—some may conclude that they’re all imaginary.'
Much agreed Stephen. But the amazing thing is, all human beings keep coming up with images of God, even if they describe God in different ways. I think that suggests the idea of God is not some socio-cultural tool dreamed up by those in power, a mere opium of the people, as many sceptics would have us believe. It would suggest God is real, either in an absolute sense, or at least in the sense that He is a concept that is rooted deep into human consciousness, which cannot be explained or extracted by our imminent sceptic friends. Those who suggest they are 'free' from God are deluding themselves, far more than those who say belief in God is a delusion.
Joe: 'But, Stephen, how confident are you that "we" (humans) are the "most–or only–intelligent,
self-aware/reflective beings there are?" We certainly are not the ONLY such beings, as is clear from careful studies of brain, cognition, and behavior of other species (e.g. chimpanzees, bonobos, gorillas, orangutans, other primates, elephants, dolphins, whales, and others). And my friend Tetsuro Matsuzawa in Japan has identified some intellectual tasks at which chimpanzees consistently out perform humans.'
But Joe, is there any other species on this world that really has culture, that can rise above its genes, that retains and transmits knowledge after we die, that can contemplate its own mortality, or that can contemplate its own origins? Can you attempt to say flecks or glimpses of these things exist in other animals, but the truth is man alone is an animal that is in many ways no longer an animal. As I like to quote, Richard Dawkins notes this himself at the end of his book The Selfish Gene, in pointing out humanking alone can rise above genetic impluses, which he says we do everytime we use contraception.
Many faith traditions suggests we are made in the image of the Divine. And Judaism and Christianity agree. And that suggests an idea that if we want to see proof of God, we see it around us in ourselves, in the human race.
Now even if the theory of evolution is true, think of just how amazing human beings are. We are the universe evolved to the point where it has become conscious of itself. We are beings that have the power to break free from creation itself, which unfortunately we do in both good ways (like modern medicine) and bad ways (like Global Warming).
Keeping that in mind, to suggest there is no higher origin for all this, and more importantly for us, seems just absolutely crazy to me.
i think "Dawkins" is deceiving us in multiple ways, especially since he changed the spelling of his own name from its former spelling "Darkens".
Steve, I do not wish to diminish the extraordinary characteristics of the human species. Humankind certainly is a distinct species, and, as such, has its own suite of distinguishable and unique features. Our brains are organized much like those of other animals, especially mammals, and all the more like those of primates and very much indeed like those of the great apes. Functionally, bonobos, chimpanzees, gorillas, and even orangutans have brains that are capable of many things human brains can do–and they can even surpass humans in some characteristics. Even so, the use of spoken and written language has enabled us to build cultures and societies, to have and promote ideas, and to invent gods and God–along with lying, stealing, cheating, torturing, killing, and engaging in nearly perpetual wars. We are good at identifying and occupying new niches–or by making new situations habitable. We do what we do because we can.
Having an effective concept of God can instill confidence. Confidence can promote effective action that can have consequences for survival. It may be that belief in God, and belief that one is His special creation, has value whether it is actually so, or not. If you are able to believe, good for you. It matters not to me that you think those are crazy who are not able to believe what you believe. That is a widely held perspective, however narcissistic it may be.
Joe not much I disagree with here. I believe God either exists, or is a concept so hard-wired into the human mind (i.e. as an evolutionary adaption) that telling people to stop believing in God is about as likely as telling people not to have sex. Sure, a few people might be able to or want to, but there is an overriding instinct there for the vast majority of us. In some respect, sometimes these discussions are interesting but ultimately futile for that very reason.
Yes, humans are like other animals for all the reasons you mentioned. But humans are distinctively different. I remember in Anthropology 101 at a very good University taught by atheist lecturers that no other animal really has culture. There are arguments from zoologists about this, but the truth is plain for all to see.
When I die, these exact words that record my inner thoughts will survive my death (probably in some dark corner of the internet). The same is not true for any other species or living thing for that matter that we know of.
We have indeed made a sort of leap outside of nature, have become even "post-evolutionary" in a way, and no other animal comes close to that. The fact we have used that power for evil as well as good is not the point – the point is our "god-like" ascendancy.
I know for you it is no proof, but for me personally, proof of God is found in looking in the mirror. I know how hillarious that truly sounds, but it very much fits with the biblical idea (found in many, many religious traditions) that we are made in the divine image.
Steve,
I agree with Joe’s perception that he and I are not really very dissimilar. I respect and I admire him. I know that he has studied primates (apes, etc.) and is an expert on them; and I respect that as well. However, I agree with your suggestion that it is not at all credible (to put it mildly) that Homo sapiens is not far superior in terms of our awareness/appreciation of life, mortality, and morality than are all other forms of observed life.
Sure, even insects can do some things that most humans can’t do; so what? We are the ones who know what they can do and what we can’t. It is just silly, with all respect to Joe, to even have this discussion.
The question is does our intelligence and self-awareness, and appreciation of beauty, and our facility for language and introspection…and love, reveal yet a higher creative, benevolent life form? I agree with the notion that it is foolish for humans to believe otherwise. It’s the sapiens part of Homo sapiens.
"…just silly, with all due respect…."
Even though we humans are very remarkable and special, I think it is very unfortunate if we ignore or forget that we are primates, mammals, and animals. As lofty as we are in some ways, we do have some limitations. Do you really think it is silly to regard humans as animals? I find the tangible similaries of human and ape brains quite remarkable, along with the detailed similarities of human and other ape genomes. Even cognition and emotion are similar is many ways–and then there is language. "In the beginning was the Word." "…and the Word was God." How literal should that be taken?
All that without disrespecting Homo sapiens, Homo erectus, Australopithicus, etc. [somehow the rest of my comment just spontaneously disappeared]
I was just saying that we humans are not the only sentient, feeling, communicating creatures. I have known many nonhuman animals, and I feel that they deserve great respect. They have feelings. They have emotions. They form bonds. They communicate in sophisticated and subtle ways that are beyond our abilities to discern. But then there is spoken and written language. That more than anything else sets us apart.
"In the beginning was the Word…and the Word was God." How literally are we to take that?
OK Joe, Homo sapiens have commonalities and similarities to other primates (or other primates have similarities and commonalities to Homo sapiens). No one has been disputing those realities
But the differences in sentience, introspection, culture, and communication (among other things) are self-evident.
We may be selling other primates short; but we don’t utilize our full capacities—and therefore effectively also sell ourselves short. (Is there a reason to believe that other primates are willfully underachieving and slothful?)
There are, I maintain, some (inconvenient?) spiritual implications to humans being so far and away intellectually superior to other life forms. It suggests that we have moral responsibility. Do you think we have moral responsibilities?
Joe are there any other "post-evolutionary" species out there? By that, I mean to refer to one of the greatest zoologists of all time, and one of the greatest proponents of atheism, Richard Dawkins, when he notes in The Selfish Gene, that humans alone can ignore their genetic impulses, something we do when we use contraception.
And Joe, are there any other species that can preserve their thoughts after death? By that I mean the stories we make specifically, both oral and written, which pass on from generation-to-generation, long after we are dead?
And are there any animals with "culture". By that, a species that has not merely transmutted the transferrance of genes as the most important purpose in life to instead the transferrance of memes – of ideas. Human beings will sacrafice their own children (or possibility of children) in order to save a mere idea.
And are there any other animals that deliberately engage in "genetic engineering", of both ourselves but more importantly of other plants and animals? I don't mean dolly the sheep but the ancient domestication of animals and plants, which was early genetic engineering. Interestingly enough as a tangent issue, the Bible itself seems to promote that genetic engineering.
And is there any other animal that has the power to destroy its own world by the push of a button? Yes, a great and terrible thing, but a "god-like" thing nonetheless.
When I say human beings are "god-like" that is not necessarily a positive thing. Adam and Eve wanted to be more like gods, even though they were already created in the divine image. And look how that turned out. Even if you reject the story as literal, and instead say embrace evolution, you can see in that story an object lesson about the "post-evolutionary" powers given to human beings, who ultimately used that power for evil, and not good.
Again, the way human beings are both animals and yet set apart from animals is something that fascinates me. And it has an uncanny spiritual dimension to me, given many religions say we are made in the divine image.
Joe: 'I was just saying that we humans are not the only sentient, feeling, communicating creatures. I have known many nonhuman animals, and I feel that they deserve great respect. They have feelings. They have emotions. They form bonds.'
Joe an interesting aspect of Adventism, in its strong rejection of Platonic-Gnostic ideas, is that we see eschatology as the salvation of the world, of creation itself. By contrast, the Gnostic ideas, which have influenced most Christian denominations and many other religions, sees salvation as escape from this world.
In the story of the flood (forgetting the point you won't believe it a literal story), we see God's love and care for creation, especially its animals. God saw them as innocents to be saved. It was humanity, who was still part of creation (i.e. best seen in being made from the earth of our earth itself) but was given "god-like" powers as the divine image, who was meant to care for creation. I see part of Adam's original job to care for the garden and extend it into the outside wilderness. And yet mankind screwed up that original role, and continues to do so, with the way we rape the earth.
So Adventists more than any other denomination should have sympathy for animals and for creation. Our whole end-time beliefs are based on the idea of saving the world and not just running away from it.
I am also reminded of Jesus' tempation, His test to become the Second Adam, where after He succeeds, He goes and dwells with the wild animals in harmony. There is an important little point in there. God hasn't forgotten about the innocent animals, and as Christians, who should aim to live as it was 'in the beginning', we should aim to bring protection and care for them.
Joe: 'I was just saying that we humans are not the only sentient, feeling, communicating creatures. I have known many nonhuman animals, and I feel that they deserve great respect. They have feelings. They have emotions. They form bonds. They communicate in sophisticated and subtle ways that are beyond our abilities to discern. But then there is spoken and written language. That more than anything else sets us apart.'
Sorry, a further thought on this came to me. I get Joe where you are coming from. You might be worried about the hubris of humans, who think they are above nature, forgetting we are indeed an animal ourselves. That type of thinking has long be found deep in human culture, as a justification to rape and pillage the earth, to in effect destroy nature itself. Christians have long been guilty of this, seeing God's command to 'subdue the earth' a call to destroy, rather than as a call to restore.
But for me if we reject belief in God, that itself can lead to hubris. I am reminded of the teachings of Anthony Levay, the founder of the Church of Satan (bear with me). Contrary to popular belief, Satanists don't believe in an actual supernatural being called Satan. Instead, they believe the only gods are us human beings. He also says human beings invented the idea of God because to worship ourselves would be an act of narcissism most of us can't accept. His solution is we dispense with the pretense and take our rightful place as gods of this world, to take what we want, for might is right.
I somewhat agree with Levay, except of course his solution. If there really is no God, as Voltaire said, we'd have to invent Him. It is crucial that human beings, who are indeed with "god-like" powers can both leave this planet and destroy it in a few minutes, have a concept of a "higher power" above us.
We human beings need to submit ourselves to something greater, because then I fear the very sort of hubris against nature you might seem to fear yourself. I am reminded of Soviet architecture of all things, which holding onto that atheist idea of supreme humanity, sought to dominate rather than live in harmony with the world around us. We also have Soviet megaprojects, like the destruction of the Ariel Sea, or Chenobyl, that demonstrate this. Of course Christian nations are just as guilty at times, but there was something especially anti-nature in atheistic Soviet ideology.
Wait a minute. Richard Dawkins is one of the greatest zoologists of all time? I don't think many zoologists would agree with that statement. Some might rank him among the top 50,000, or so. I think of him more as a popularizer of evolutionary psychology than as a practicing scientist. Just don't anoint him as the spokesperson for all zoologists. I imagine I agree with some things he has written, but it seems to me that he tends to write as if he knows things that I don't think he knows or can know. By all means, feel free to read what Dawkins writes, just don't place too much belief in it as representative of scientific consensus or scientific thought.
And where is this satanic and soviet stuff coming from? I am no defender of either.
As humans we are now aware that we cannot really ignore genetics as an important contributor to healthy functioning. The knowledge we now have of who we are biologically–very closely related to (not merely similar to) chimpanzees, bonobos, and gorillas–should be acknowledged (and is not by many here). This is information we need to incorporate into our concepts of God and origins. It becomes less-and-less easy to ignore. A human specialization is finding and inventing new niches that take us beyond our usual genetic limitations–but that surely does not mean that we have no genetic limitations or that we are immune to all selective pressures. I do not accept that humans are "post-evolutonary" or free of our biological roots. We can, and may, succeed in extinguishing ourselves.
Joe,
Do you think that our (human) intellectual abilities and capacities, being what they are, require of us a moral responsibility? If so, why; if not, why not?
Joe: 'And where is this satanic and soviet stuff coming from? I am no defender of either.'
Joe don't misconstrue me. I wasn't suggesting you were bringing this up – I was. I was using them as an illustration for points about different ways to look at mankind's view of nature. They came from my mind (scary).
Monkeys, Chimps, Gorillas, and Ape primates, because of some humankind features and characteristics, have been suggested to be early forms from which humans are descendants. i know hardly any thing about these creatures. While pleading ignorance to lack of knowledge of them, i will put myself into a similar opinion grouping of Dawkkins and others, as to whether i know what i can't know. As we observe that animal species that can walk erect (NOT UPRIGHT, as evenfew humans walk the talk of uprightness), must be related as forbears of humans because of some simularity to humans, is natural and easy to understand, as i submit the skeletal design was a good one.. The intelligence of how these bones should be shaped to produce a desired effect, considering the attachment of sinews and gristle, and flesh, and genes, and blood, and bacteria, enzynes, and senses of sight, hearing, smell, taste, touch, neural sensing and actions, directed and controlled by the programmed brain (Computer) is the ultimate masterpiece of it's inventor of Earthly life forms, who said, it was VERY GOOD. The magnificence of the creative planning of every species on Earth with the synergies required to enable it to perform according to plan, boggles the mind, as does everything outide of Earth. All animals were created with specific features and abilities to survive in their environments. The Lion, the Tiger, Dinosaurs, and other flesh eating creatures, were made with teeth for rending flesh, with the amazing teeth shaping that permitted them to be flesh eaters. And programmed as to their daily diets. Why these grotesque creatures were created to live along side man is a mystery to me. According to the Bible, the first Adam was instructed to have dominion over all that the Creator created. Obviously Adam was a formidable physical speciman, and even more a mental spiritual craftsman. Did he have far more access to his brain power available to him, maybe 90 percentile, before his fallout with God?
Now that i've ventured into the reality of a beyond Earth's (SPATIAL) limits, an Eternal Creator, a Supernatural Super Star, planted an experiment here, perhaps millions, but definitely hundreds of thousands of years ago. He has made some adjustments andformulations from His original concept, as needed, to save His investment in this Earthly enterprise, His Ultimate creation, MANKIND, at all costs, whatever was necessary, because He is the exact image of LOVE IN PERFECTION, by nature.He has all the universes in His hands, we are His handiwork. God doesn't have to prove Himself to mankind. "He is ALL IN ALL".
What is the history of Earth's inhabitants?? Every culture of society on Earth have,as some have theorized, talked about God, or gods, and have as some say, created their very own Supernatural, somewhere in the heavens, Superstar. The greatest and most beautiful structures on Earth have been built to honor God. As we had so many human varieties, cultures, tribes, and languages, over the milleniums, seperated also by earth locations, that mankind have many variations of what God was to them. But they all had a god or gods. Objectively, mankind has believed in a MASTER CREATOR and PROVIDER. All through the ages, Mankind, whereever on Earth, up until the past two thousand years, without communication between them, although seperated by oceans, have had their god. The god of us all is One and same GOD, singular, MANKINDS GOD IS ONE!!!!
i have lived most of the past 100 years. Aware, by my life time study of history, and observation of the world's masses, running, unable to stop, for rest and peace,or to prioritize the importance of these momentous moments in the history of the world in which we live, by the knowledge of all the ages, in all of lifes endeavours, the rapidity of education available to the greatest masses of humanity,alive at one time, discoveries by science, aircraft able to span the continent in less than two hours, the Hubble lenses looking directly into Deep Space, Space travel. How do you decipher the biblical words of DANIEL 12:4 "But thou o Daniel, shut up the words, and seal the book even to the time of the end: many shall run to and fro, and knowledge shall be increased". Time and eternity our God is. Imortality of the soul of man?? HE RESTORES MY SOUL!!!. The heavens, space is infinite, it will never reach the supposed outerlimits, there are no outer limits, trillions of Suns and planets in every galaxy. There was no "BIG BANG", GOD only. His Majesty has a role for each of us to play, throughout forever."I LOVE YOU WITH AN EVERLASTING LOVE".
If Richard Dawkins isn't speaking stuff that the athiest, evolution theory, scientific community supports and entertains, then where is the evidence of any real opposition to his views from the said groupthink? The fact that there is abosolute silence in this regard speaks for itself. It strongly suggests that they believe what he says is the truth. For example: in one of his books he says that humans could have evolved from cabbages (or something to that effect).
Trevor, plenty of scientists disagree with some things Richard Dawkins has saidor written. One example of high profile disagreement and arguing was with Stephen Jay Gould. Iam not taking the side of either one, but they disagreed plenty, and publicly. Most scientists are not prepared to spend much of their time or energy arguing with someone like Dawkins. Your characterization of science as "groupthink" could hardly be farther from reality. Dawkins is a prolific writer. It would be a profound waste of time for scientists to spend much time arguing with him. Most wisely choose to continue doing their scientific studies rather than trying to counter his assertions. We mostly just sigh and role our eyes when he or someone else says something rediculous.
Stephen, I do think that people have some moral obligations that derive from their abilities to intervene to prevent or address harm and to be helpful when possible. The thing is, it seems to me, that there is an obligation to intervene effectively–not to be ineffective or make things worse. We often do not know what intervention will be helpful. Good intentions are not enough. We have to wisely use the abilities we have.
Perhaps let's not get distracted by the question of how great Richard Dawkins is? The fact is he clearly is pretty great, because you don't end up as a Professor at Oxford otherwise. And name another scientists who has made such an impact on the world stage? My understanding he is credited at coining the notion of the selfish gene, which is that it is not survival of the fittest organism but surival of the fittest gene. And he also coined the term meme, which was a raddical idea now widely accepted.
But I prefer to focus on what Dawkins says. The fact is, I do think human beings, as a manner of speaking, are "post-evolutionary" beings. And I don't mean that as a theist, because I think an atheist could come to that same conclusion.
Humans have a moral obligation to intervene wisely for the purpose of preventing harm. Is that what you’ve concluded about morality?
To whom and why would human beings have a moral obligation to do anything? Do other sentient beings have moral obligations?
Excellent question Stephen.
There are ways in which we humans are "post-evolutionary" and there are ways we aren't. It is true that we have some pretty dramatic abilities to alter our environments. At the same time, we often do so in unwise and unsustainable ways. My point is that even these post-evolutionary abilities might not save us from extinction. There are enough things we do not have control over that could wipe us out–or thin us down to only a few survivors.
I'm not asking anyone to disrespect Dawkins. Just the ability to write as much as he has and get as many people as he has to read and listen to him is pretty great. Much greater than I am, for sure. But being a professor at Oxford or Cambridge or ANU or Harvard or Stanford or Yale should not be overblown. Every one of those universities and many others has a number of scientists who would be widely considered as more distinguished for their actual scientific contributions than Dawkins. Dawkins' chair at Oxford was in something like "public communication of science" and was an endowed chair–the funding was donated on the condition that he be the first one to occupy it. Those who seek to discredit him say his Oxford professorship was "bought" for him. That is a bit harsh. It would not be easy to get a wealthy person to donate millions of dollars/pounds to establish an endowed chair at Oxford. Perhaps Dawkins earned his way to full professor rank through tenure-track promotions. He is certainly a prolific writer. Even so, one should evaluate his ideas on their merits in the light of evidence.
The "selfish gene" certainly was not a new idea at all. In fact, it was a reaction against the assertions of others about what was often called "group selection," which many zoologists and evolutionary biologists and ethologists were accused of using inappropriately. There was (and to some extent still is) a tendency for zoologists (and anthropologists, I might add) to explain findings and then BELIEVE and DEFEND the clever explanations with greater vigor than the evidence warranted. While Dawkins vigorously reacted to what he saw as the "sins" of others, he seems to have become rather enamoured of his own explanations. I'm not much for making celebrities out of people. Dawkins deserves due consideration and respect. He does not deserve the label of great scientist–whether or not some "evolutionist" might reach that conclusion.
The "selfish gene" concept seems to me to imply that "genes" have minds and are purposely striving for survival. I expect Dawkins has had to clarify many times that he did not mean that. My opinion is that selection can and does occur at every functional level of organization. Whether the selection has long-term consequences for "genes" or individuals or groups or populations depends on many factors.
~~Joe, would you agree that the ‘general consensus’ in the public arm of science education in this country if not the world is that ‘differential selection’ does in fact explain the diversity of life and all mechanism thereof on this planet? I think we will agree this is the ‘received view’ and includes all of the science of evolutionary psychology. This materialist view rejects a Creator God and view all the constructs of our minds as simple "selfish survival strategies', so, back to Stephen’s question:
“To whom and why would human beings have a moral obligation to do anything? Do other sentient beings have moral obligations?”
Some weeks ago, Chris, you posed several interrelated, redundant questions as to how I can know that my values and beliefs, and the body of evidence on which they are based – personal experience, experiences of others, my own reason, and senses – are anything other than a product of my own mind. That strikes me as a sort of ridiculous question. Everything we know, or think we know, is, in the finite realm, a product of our own mind. How could it be otherwise?
You and I see truth very differently. You seem to place great weight in proposititonal assertions, as if somehow, because they are abstractions, which may be verifiable by the self-referential methodologies in which you place a priori confidence, they have greater validity than the wisdom of experiential reality. If we had the time, I would tell you story after story about how my life has been transformed and changed for what I believe to be the better by experiences in communities of SDA faith. I cannot tell you my story – and I can guarantee you that my story would not be my story – without the story of the Christ of scripture. And I cannot tell you the story of Christ without also telling you my story. Each validates the other.
I can tell you that my wife would not be working with the kids she works with, or telling the stories she has to tell if she did not believe in a living Christ leading her life. How can I know what is good, true, and beautiful? After all, aren't those the important realities around which our lives revolve? Would Bach have composed as he did without a deep faith in a transcendent God? Certainly the great composer, John Eliot Gardiner doesn't think so (c.f. Music in the Castle of Heaven).
So really, for all of us, Chris, our lives and experiences are very much the validators of the values (truths) we hold dear, as well as the manner in which we prioritize those values. Some of us admit it and embrace it. We do not cling to the conceit that, because we can know much without resort a belief in transcendent reality, all that can be known and understood lies within our grasp. Unfortunately, many SDAs and former SDAs have been conditioned by the reflexive modernism of Adventist abstractions and chain link logic. Those are their tools for arriving at truth. I was fortunate at Union College to have a wonderful professor who took me under his wing and, with great passion, introduced me to Catholic mystics like Thomas Merton and Protestant existentialists like Paul Tillich and Rudolph Bultmann. Literature professors introduced me to fiction writers like Flannery O'Connor.
But instead of abandoning my SDA heritage, because I realized it wasn't TRUTH, I informed that faith with the thoughts and experiences of others. And in the process, my faith grew deeper and stronger. It became more and more my own. And yet at the same time it took on meaning and significance that enabled me to see the outside world with greater clarity, compassion, and conviction.
Now, Chris, if you can find a community of believers in the Greek gods who, as a result of their belief in those gods, seem to be living transformed lives that produce beauty and goodness in the midst of tyranny and chaos, then I will certainly be most interested in hearing their compelling stories. I won't be so interested in knowing whether their abstract formulations or the principles that guide them are true, as I will be in looking at the relative cross-validation between their guiding "myths," the stories the tell, and the lives they live.
All of Bach's compositions were dedicated "De Solia Gloria." But many of the most beautiful music and themes were composed around mythological characters.
To imply that those living transformed lives of beauty and goodness were inspired by belief in God, you must compare the many who fully believed in God and committed terrible atrocities. I've been to the Rothenburg museum of torture which has many of the various torture mechanisms to get people to recant of their beliefs. You may have heard of the Inquisition where Christians forced all Muslims and Jews to either be converted or be expelled from Spain? Be careful of attributing everything beautiful and good to belief in God. The Muslims are more fervent believers than are Christians. Would you join them?
None of Earth's murderous acts were God ordained. Many Armies marched and annihilated all in their path, and in passing ingested all of the nutrients, and left a scorched wasteland. "WE DID IT BECAUSE GOD TOLD US TO". Hogwash. Itwas done for greed and Self elevating honors, because they had the power to do it. But they borrowed a moral cover "FOR GOD AND COUNTRY". All is vanity. If made by decree it was "EVIL THAT MADE US DO IT". Mankind, collectively "MORAL", HOGWASH AGAIN. Their is no morality collectively. Review Earth's history, and prove me wrong. No, there is no morality in any other Earthly sentient life forms. Fang and claw, blood and guts is the condition of all life forms on Earth, past and present, collectively. All have fallen short of the LOVE of Jesus Christ. Subjectively as sentient human creatures, we can honor and praise our GOD. Salvation is received by being convicted of our personal sins, repenting of our evilness, and being led by the Holy Spirit in the TRUTH of Jesus Christ that the WAY is LOVE. Those who have assumed the Banner of Christ to cover their murderous actions are not Christians but charlatans of evil, hiding under the Banner of Christ.
As to noted celebrity darlings, honored for their articulated mudderings of imagined truth, and Earthly wisdom, because of it's original concepts of anti-god atheistic precepts of the reality of life past, present, and future, is so aluring to those seeking truth without being beholden to a deity of LOVE, GRACE, MERCY, PEACE, and RESURRECTION, whether a voice speaking in the wilderness, or with a purchased Chair at one of the prestigious colleges of renown,have their moments of acclaim, but as for heavenly notice, would not wish to be included adherents. Praise GOD, our, ALL IN ALL.
Nathan, let me remind of the point you made and to which I was responding:
Nathan: "What I find particularly fascinating is that, despite their denial of freedom, the deniers cling tenaciously to the imperatives of their own moral and value judgments, without acknowledging that they are grounded in anything besides their minds, and that that grounding makes their moral judgements self-contradictory. If everyone – wealthy or poor, criminal, or law-abiding, liberal or conservative, religious or secular, is simply dancing to their DNA, how can any moral or value judgments possibly be made?
1. How do you know that writings such as the Bible are products of anything other than the human mind?
Your reply above states: "Everything we know, or think we know, is, in the finite realm, a product of our own mind. How could it be otherwise"
Exactly my point, yet you said I was wrong.
2 .. What is there besides your mind, or the thinking of other human minds, that you have used to come to that judgment?
My expected answer was: "There is nothing besides my mind and the results of my fellow human minds that I have used to reach my conclusion."… You have admitted this is correct!
3. If Religious constructs, with their "moral and value judgments" are the result of human thought, and your acceptance of those judgments is not grounded in anything besides your mind, how does that not make both your moral judgments and your judgments of truth just as "self-contradictory" as the supposed "deniers" you are shafting?
Of course it did!!
Now, I note in your second paragraph above you state this:
"You seem to place great weight in proposititonal assertions, as if somehow, because they are abstractions, which may be verifiable by the self-referential methodologies in which you place a priori confidence, they have greater validity than the wisdom of experiential reality."
Nathan, I was objecting to your saying that because the "denier's" moral value judgments were grounded in nothing besides their own minds, it made their value judgments self-contradictory. YOU are introducing the idea that I am saying they have greater validity! You gave your moral value judgemnts total validity, and denied the other. I'm just saying, you have no greater basis to do so than does any other person. No book, nothing outside your own mind or that of humanity. Just as self-contradictory if you follow your own logic and rules.
Perhaps for the latest post you did you can just answer one question:
How are "propositional assertions", or even moral assertions, based on "self-referrential methodologies", any different from propositional or moral assertions based on the "wisdom of experiential reality"?
Personal testimonies when people cannot answer gets tiring..
You just don't get it, Chris. Personal testimonies are the answer. Everything else is pretty much B.S. The tautology that everything we know is the product of our own mind is not meaningful to me. It doesn't really have anything to do with the big questions of goodness, truth, beauty, and freedom.
I do not agree that there is nothing besides my mind and the results of fellow human minds that I use to reach my conclusions. I believe that there is a transcendent God, who exists separate and apart from my mind's conception and experience of Him. I can only apprehend that reality through my mind. But that does not mean that there is no reality beyond my mind.
The qualitative difference between the moral judgments you and I make is that I believe in freedom, and therefore personal responsibility. Without freedom, sin, guilt, condemnation and moral praise are highly irrational, are they not?
I don't know that, when one places great weight on propositional truth, it really matters a whole lot what the person claims as a basis – theory or experience. Seldom does one rely on theory to the exclusion of experience, or vice versa. Those who give high priority to propositional truth as a moral guide usually try and fit experience into the procrustean bed of theory to reinforce ideology and then force it on others.
Answers, when people have no personal testimonies, get tiring…
Personal Testimonies are the answer?
And how much B.S is defended in this world on their basis? S. Loads.
All depends on who's P,T, wer'e going by doesn't it? (As Elaine noted)
Your P.T, is another's B.S,
btw Nathan,
I should add. It seems to me that to make the statement "Without freedom, sin, guilt, condemnation and moral praise are higly irrational", suggests you do not understand the concept re the absence of freedom.
Certainly, the term "sin", and to a lesser degree guilt are religious terms, but, no these concepts are not removed by seeing our human "freedom" in a different way.. imho.
If any readers here think that Personal Testimonies are the answer, have a read of the PT below.
Even given the assumption that there is a Truth and we can know it, stories like that linked below suggest that PT's are definately out as a means of assessing their merits! By extension, that would mean that PT's are of no use in determining whether SDA has truth or Truth either…
(I'm still thinking about other "how to's"..)
http://yushaevans.com/bio/
… and the list of PT's goes on..: Yusuf Estes, Khalid Yasin, Yusha Evans, Hussein Yi, Hamza Yusuf…and on…
btw… it seems to me that if everything we know or think we know is, in the finite realm, a product of our own mind, and it goes without saying that any views we may have of an "in"finite realm are equally the product of our minds, there is only one option left.
That option is to respect the equal starting point of all human ideas, thinking, views, assertions on moral truths: Humanity.
When we do this it seems to me we are left with the imperative to begin to work together to discover what offers the best to enable humans, nature, and the "creation" to thrive and survive.
Apart from the two possible assumptions Dr Taylor offered us to begin with, I'm not sure how this effects the question posed at the end of the blog… ?
I do suspect it impacts Darrel's view about which he is badgering re morality, mind, and so forth:)
"We are in the position of a little child entering a huge library filled with books in many different languages. The child knows someone must have written those books . It does not know how. It does not understand the languages in which they are written. The child dimly suspects a mysterious order in the arrangement of the books but doesn't know what it is. That, it seems to me, is the attitude of even the most intelligent human being toward God." Yes Elaine (and/or Chris,) I know Einstein did't believe in a "personal God;" he didn't believe in Quantum Mechanics either completely, but I find this statement from him is extremely on target. At least, at the very least, a Mind, a Creator, is discernable through Science and Logic!
Let's say, Mind precedes matter. If Matter is primary then ‘Mind,’ being an infinity higher order of complexity, could not have logically come to be from matter. What we call mind, what we think is rational thinking and free will is an illusion. This conclusion would be in harmony with the atheist suppositions. But to argue like Sam Harris argues, that “we are better off knowing we don’t have free will because it frees our thinking” is the part that drives me crazy. “HOW CAN I KNOW ANYTHING IF FREE THOUGHT DOES NOT EXIST?????
We don’t have a mind really if materialism is true! The discussion here that we think we are having is epiphenomenal to and predetermined by, the pattern of neurons firing—nothing more!
Observe our Earth, it is spinning thru space at an alarming speed. Should it slow down slowly mankind would be fricasseed by noonday. Should it stop suddenly
mankind would be ejected into the athmosphere. Should it not have winds blowing from one artic pole to the opposite continually, we would be toast. Should the axis shift substantially Half would burn and or freeze. Life forms have existed on Earth
for …….thousands of years. This barren planet before mankind entered its hood
was a wasteland with nothing, absolutely nothing, to indicate it was any different
than any of the other planets and associated moons, if they instead of us had an athmosphere, gravity, and water in abundance as we do. We live in a protective environment like no other we have been able to observe. Why is this?? MAN has been tremendously gifted, by whom?? A building is beginning to rise in Saudi Arabia that will be 3700 ft high.
TO BE CONTINUED:
Darrel,
Why do you leave the first sentence off the quote?
"I'm not an atheist. I don't think I can call myself a pantheist. The problem involved is too vast for our limited minds. We are in the position of a little child entering a huge library filled with books in many languages. …."
Hi Earl, hear what you are saying! Reconsider this one–"Should it stop suddenly
mankind would be ejected into the athmosphere"
Thanks Darrel, for the supposed correction. i dare say, being moved rapidly forwards or sideways would be totally life changing. lol. Especially at the equator.
I don't know Chris, since it is in harmony with what I was saying, I could have added it. Do you see something in this statement that counterdicts what I was saying? If so I don't see it!
Yes, I do because you use his quote to suggest a "Mind", a "Creator". I'm not sure you draw valid implications from what he said, because by saying what he (Einstein) was not (atheist or pantheist) he does not go on to state a positive position. He uses it only to state the problem is too vast for our limited minds. That does not imply the "solution" you offer.
"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.”
Did we caught the words "an intelligence?"
Es ist 'catch.'
Yes, I catched that, but perhaps context and source of your quotes would be of value… did I missed something? 🙂
Here you gone: http://einsteinandreligion.com/
Chris, you might have a copy of Walter Isaacson's 'Einstein' on pg 388 you will find my quote
No, I don't have it, but context, translation and so on does make a difference on how these quotes are taken.
More importantly, why E should become the authority on such questions is fascinating. People love to take "bits" of his work and use them to further their cause. Bit like Dawkins stuff too really..
Something to think about that's all!
Darrel, no I do not agree that the consensus of scientists or science educators is that "differential selection" explains the diversity of life. There must be variation in order for selection to occur. Variation creates the possibility of differential selection. There must also be processes that create variation. Various replication errors, mobile elements, etc., result in variation from which variants can be selected. The mechanisms are often quite complex and are not easily described or summarized in a few words.
You can assert or assume that "mind" precedes matter all you like, but that does not make it so, and what does that even mean? I don't see how you can just make up answers and believe them (or just accept the ideas you like from those proposed by others). I can see admitting that you do not know or don't think you need to know.
I thought "variation" is implied. Of course variation!
So Joe, is it your understanding that we have minds? Rationality and a high degree if free will?
Coming back to the consenses of science educators. There is an interesting article
in The Wall Street Journal on research at Boston University, by psychologist Deborah Kelemen. She has discovered that it's possible with Darwinian storytelling to suppress common sense in children of the kind that leads them to recognize artifacts of intelligent design in nature. I am not joking!!
The Journal notes that quite apart from religious instruction, kids are primed to see life as reflecting "intentional design." It's intuitive. The corrective is to catch them at an early age and train them to see things in a Darwinian light. By elementary-school age, children start to invoke an ultimate God-like designer to explain the complexity of the world around them — even children brought up as atheists.
Kids aged 6 to 10 have developed their own coherent "folk biological" theories. … Dr. Kelemen and her colleagues thought that they might be able to get young children to understand the mechanism of natural selection before the alternative intentional-design theory had become too entrenched.
They gave 5- to 8-year-olds 10-page picture books that illustrated an example of natural selection. The "pilosas," for example, are fictional mammals who eat insects. Some of them had thick trunks, and some had thin ones. A sudden change in the climate drove the insects into narrow underground tunnels.
The thin-trunked pilosas could still eat the insects, but the ones with thick trunks died. So the next generation all had thin trunks. Before the children heard the story, the experimenters asked them to explain why a different group of fictional animals had a particular trait. Most of the children gave explanations based on intentional design.
But after the children heard the story, they answered similar questions very differently: They had genuinely begun to understand evolution by natural selection. That understanding persisted when the experimenters went back three months later.
But these results do suggest that simple story books like these could be powerful intellectual tools according to the article. The secret is to reach children with the right theory before the wrong one is too firmly in place.
The mammalian order Pilosa (anteaters and sloths) is real, but "pilosas" are not. Second, it is decidedly in the micro-evolutionary realm — a kind of evolution that no one disputes, certainly not advocates of intelligent design and I don't think young earthers either.
There's no reason to think that the "pilosas" are on their way to true macro evolution of the kind that evolutionary theory is challenged to account for.
The extrapolation from such a trivial thing into the origin of all species and all biological complexity by unguided natural processes is a cheat. Most enlightening is that Dr. Kelemen and her colleagues would, to begin with, seek to talk children out of their intuitive response. Among ID researchers, the approach would be to test that intuition, objectively weighing the empirical evidence without preconceptions.
Dr. Kelemen would "suppress" it: her own word! If you look at the original research, reported in the journal Psychological Science, the language is even more revealing I think: ("Young Children Can Be Taught Basic Natural Selection Using a Picture-Storybook Intervention"). From the Abstract: In a novel approach, we explored 5- to 8-year-olds' capacities to learn a basic but theoretically coherent mechanistic explanation of adaptation through a custom storybook intervention. Experiment 1 showed that children understood the population-based logic of natural selection and also generalized it. Furthermore, learning endured 3 months later. Experiment 2 replicated these results and showed that children understood and applied an even more nuanced mechanistic causal explanation.
The findings demonstrate that, contrary to conventional educational wisdom, basic natural selection is teachable in early childhood. Theory-driven interventions using picture storybooks with rich explanatory structure are beneficial. The initiative to program children is repeatedly referred to as "intervention," a term used in psychological counseling to refer to an attempt to thwart counterproductive, dangerous thoughts or behavior. Re-education camps anyone?
The intuitive response of human beings, seeing design in nature, is implicitly compared to destructive patterns of abuse, alcoholism, drug addiction, and the like!
Given that bizarre premise, suppressing design thoughts becomes the preferred solution. It worked better with slightly older kids, as Kelemen and her colleagues are remarkably candid in saying: Both age groups learned a great deal, but as might be expected given their enhanced linguistic and processing capacities, 7- to 8-year-olds showed especially robust abilities to suppress any emergent competing commonsense ideas and master task demands, such that they could abstract and transfer the mechanism to markedly different species.
More: Repeated, spaced instruction on gradually scaled-up versions of the logic of natural selection could ultimately place students in a better position to suppress competing intuitive theoretical explanations. "Suppressing common sense," "intervening" to throttle natural intuitions — I could hardly have put it any more directly myself.
The defense of Darwinian theory already centered on an avoidance strategy, dodging a direct confrontation with genuinely challenging critiques, while dishonestly conflating scientific alternatives (intelligent design) with dis-functional thinking!
That wasn't good enough, evidently. Even adults raised from childhood to see the universe as void of purpose may have a lingering suspicion that natural selection alone can't explain the panaply of life around us.
It becomes necessary, then, to choke off the illness at its origin, somewhere in early childhood. The more obvious and responsible alternative of answering arguments for intelligent design is, of course, not thinkable.
Selection is not an "explanation" for variation. Selection depends on variation. Differences must exist for various alternatives to be selected (selected in or selected out). Darwin and Wallace identified selection as a mechanism of change across generations, but they knew nothing of molecular biology. The idea of "mutations" was offered and over time some "mutanogenic" agents were identified. But now, much more is known about genomic plasticity/flexibility/change, including the impact of viruses, the incorporation of retroviral material in host genomes, etc. No variation is not merely implied. Development of knowledge about the origins and mechanisms of variation and developmental processes involved in "gene expression" are essential to fuller appreciation of life and its continuation and change.
"Minds?" My training is in biological psychology, comparative and developmental psychology, and neuroscience. The term "mind" is widely used. Various people mean different things by the term. Consciousness. Awareness. Rationality. Ability to think. But "the mind" is clearly not a thing. Certainly the brain is where the activity we call "the mind" occurs. We have some rationality–some of us more than others, and each of us sometimes more than others. The anesthesiologist can remove us from consciousness awareness, but when s/he brings us back we are still the same person. We sometimes have relatively free will in some matters. We are sometimes reasonable and rational–other times, not so much. Am I out of my mind? None of us is very able to explain what "a mind" is–yet it is widely acknowledged that humans and other animals "have minds," even though we don't know exactly what that means.
Well Joe, we may not know exactly what “a mind” means, or perhaps cannot define what we mean by “the mind;” but we all know about moral responsibility. We know that some things are good and that other things are definitely evil.
Do other sentient beings have moral responsibility? Does intellectual capacity require this of us? To whom are we responsible, and why?
Variation and Natural Selection storytelling. Explaining to children how we all came from water and mud 'just naturally.' "Yes, you can believe impossible things. Sometimes I've believed as many as six impossible things before breakfast."
Lewis Carroll
Joe, bless you Brother, you could have taught Dale Carnegie "Human Relations".
The "mind" of man is the "SOUL", the reality in action. That which seperates man from primates. Primates are not our fathers.The brain houses the soul. It is the immortal essence that God communicates with. It is eternal. The India religious groups have an understanding of this. However, God never relegates the Human Soul a role below His image.
Greetings to you, esteemed brothers Earl, Stephen, and Darrel. Yes, earl, I think what some people call "mind" is what others call "soul" and stil others call "spirit" or consciousness or awareness. And some people define those as exclusively human characteristics–while others see evidence that dogs or horses, and certainly apes, exhibit signs of having awareness, "sentience," and "mind." Opinions vary. That is nothing new. We can respect and love each other whether or not we agree on such matters.
And yes, brother Stephen, we do value some things above others. We mostly do not like pain and prefer pleasure. We mostly think it is better to be constructive than destructive. We don't think others should harm us, and we turn that around and feel that we should not harm them either. Some actions are better than others, as we all recognize; even so, we are not always able to see that some complicated things are either all good or all bad, and what may be good for one is not necessarily good for someone else. Even if we sometimes try to find "win-win" situations, there continue to be winners and losers in many transactions. I'm just saying, good and evil are not all there is, even if one attempts to live in constant awareness of the GREAT controversy between good and evil.
To whom are we morally responsible? To ourselves and to each other–and probably to generations beyond us who can be affected by our actions. And, I might say, not merely to other humans–but to other animals, if not all else that we can influence.
Why do we have moral responsibilities? Because of our awareness that our choices can have consequences, and the extent of that awareness. For those of diminished capacity, we blame them less for the choices they make. We have difficulty extending blame or moral responsibility to those not of our own species–probably because we are not comfortable that they have the same choices as we do. Even so, we scold our dogs if they do something of which we disapprove.
I have grown quite fond of you, my dear friends. I do not want to hurt or harm you. I wish you nothing but the best.
Joe,
The reality that we have moral responsibilities “to ourselves and to each other—and probably to generations beyond us who can be affected by our actions; and…to other animals, if not all else that we can influence;” …and the fact that we have moral responsibilities “because of our awareness that our choices can have consequences [due to] the extent of that awareness;” and the fact that to whom less intellectual capacity is given, less is expected in terms of the scope of moral accountability/responsibility—are effectively other ways of saying that man is created with moral responsibilities because he is equipped with more intellect; and that his responsibilities for moral behavior have far-ranging and far-reaching consequences for others.
This, along with the fact that many of us have grown fond of one another, and don’t want hurt or harm for one another, and wish nothing but the best for one another, are precisely what the themes of the Jesus scriptural narrative of Him as God are about. Actually this meta-narrative explains the concept of moral accountability and responsibility better than anything. The fact that other life forms on Earth do not have such accountability and responsibility explains the concept of being created in the image and likeness of God.
Included in the scriptural narrative are the concepts of “the mind” and freewill, all together with the over-arching theme of “love.” Upon reflection it all makes sense Joe. One shouldn’t discount it out of hand.
Wholly agree. Mankind contemplates these questions precisely because mankind has the ability to contemplate these questions. Do other animals contemplate these issues?
Religion seems one of the major ways, if not the major way, humans explore these most basic questions about our species, our world and the relationship between both. The fact mankind can even contemplate these questions is indeed proof, in my mind at least, of something special and "post-evolutionary" (again that term), "god-like" and "extra-environmental" about mankind.
Joe: 'None of us is very able to explain what "a mind" is–yet it is widely acknowledged that humans and other animals "have minds," even though we don't know exactly what that means.'
The Oxford Don and theist Lennox makes this exact point in support of theism. There are lots of things we are sure exist as real, and yet we can't quite explain at the bottom of a test tube. I would postulate love is another – it is an emotion and yet more than just an emotion. The mind and consciousness seems to be a case in point.
Joe, sorry but i can't accept that any non human creatures have a soul. Many have brains,or sensing, with programmed limitations which govern how they react to stimulation, but actions are instinctive of acquiring food, of procreation, and protection. They do not have any ability to think of moral issues, or the means to any pursuit of changing their environments. They are cultural along tribal (animal not human) groupings, but are unable to bridge the voids between, so all others are enemies. Now, you may suggest that in experimentation, we have found that…….., but that is not a general potential, as we also have insanity in the human creature. Yes we have some animals who permit domestication, and they are a true joy for humans, but the vast majority of non human creatures still among us, including Primates, most cats, bears, and large mammal undersea Orcas and whale species, poisonous reptiles etc, remain of the tooth and claw deadly enemy of man, unable to have a viable interchange, other than that which requires them to be protected in closures, and we feed them. Some in research tend to think they are breaking the barriers ofinterchange, but it is just a response to being a prisoner. No, Joe, i don't deny your life career of study of man and beasts, but Man is a special creature, able to know right and wrong, morally responsibile, created in the Inventors image.
Earl, while I agree with you that nonhumans do not have "souls," I don't think humans do either. It was easy for me to discard the disembodied "soul" concept, having grown up adventist, where the prevailing view was that humankind were holistically "living souls." But neither do I accept that "mind = soul." For me, the closest I come to accepting the concept of "soul" is a sort of dynamic energy that is apparent in the singing of Etta James (for example, "At Last") or as is described by Bob Dylan as a "soulful bounding leap." But whatever dynamic energy might be called soul or spirit, I do not see it as exclusvely human. Humans are certainly very special and remarkable, and most of us have some abilities not shared by other animals. Even so, the nonhumans can also do some things we can't. Having known many nonhuman animals well, it is clear to me that they are not mere mindless automatons. They make decisions, act deliberately, develop affectional bonds, value things differentially, and seem, at least in some cases, to have a kind of moral sense (which, by the way, does not seem to be universally true in our own species–some humans act as if they cannot tell right from wrong, or at least have diminished moral abilities). Even though I see humans as being quite special, we are, after all, actually animals–whether made specially by God or descended from a common ancestor with bonobos, chimpanzees, and gorillas (who, if specially created, were designed and created by the same designer as were we).
I'm probably the wrong guy to discuss this issue with. One of my current consulting engagements is with The Gorilla Foundation, home of Koko gorilla, who has learned to communicate with humans using sign language. I have also visited Kanzi bonobo and Washoe chimpanzee. I've sat with mountain gorillas in Rwanda and observed orangutans in Borneo. All have demonstrated remarkable communication abilities. I do not find this surprising, however, given the "soulfulness" of many of the dogs, cats, horses, and other animals I have known. There is an intense spark of awareness present in most of the mammals I have met. Actual human spoken and written language convey exceptional abilities, but humans are still human, even if they have not learned to write or even to speak. Maybe humans resemble God more than we resemble gorillas, but even if that were true, gorillas would look alot like God too–not so far from God's image.
As one of my students once commented "Dog and God are remarkably similar words. Coincidence? I think not. Dog bless you, sir!" I said, "OMD!"
Since you’ve studied this stuff pretty extensively, are you convinced that mankind, i.e. Homo sapiens, represents the most evolved life form? In your opinion, is it likely that we are the most evolved life form in this galaxy, or perhaps the universe?
I see every extant species as being at the end of a branch of the "tree of life." In a sense, that means that every surviving species has evolved well enough to survive, at least into the present. Whether or not the characteristics exhibited by each species equip them well enough to survive into the future is another matter. Humans have brought some species to extinction, and will probably continue to have impacts on the survival of other species. Our activities will also continue to impact out own survival in mixed ways–some adaptive. Others? Not so much. Ultimately, I suspect, some of our remarkable abilities will result in our demise.
It is now clear from genetic/genomic studies, that humans, chimpanzees, bonobos, and gorillas have all continued to change across the years since they shared ancestry. Thus, rather than humans and chimpanzees being about 6 million years apart as has often been said (the ancestral split appears to have been about that long ago), we are TWICE that far removed from each other. Humans and chimpanzees have EACH had about six million years to change–and both lines have done so.
"Most evolved" does not have much meaning in this context. One could make the case that the "most perfected" species are those that have survived for much longer than humans, without very much change.
OK, let me try it this way. Since it is your understanding “that humans, chimpanzees, bonobos, and gorillas” all share ancestry, something has occurred for humans to have developed our relative degree of intellectual capacity compared to all other species of animals.
Whatever you would call that development, are we more developed along these intellectual lines than every other life form there is? In your opinion, do we have a more complex or developed intellect than every other form of life (or that no other form has a more highly developed intellect than do humans beings on Earth)?
Ah, so I spent some time writing a detailed response, and when I posted the comment it seems to have miraculously disappeared. Ah well….
If you look at the genomes and the hardware from gross anatomy to cell biology, humans and the other apes are transcendent over other existing (and extinct) primates. The humans and other apes are far more alike than they are different from each other. However we got the way we are, it is hard to imagine how we might have arrived by different processes. Do you think chimpanzees and gorillas were God's prototypes of humans, designed and made almost, but not quite, in His image? With brains just about as complex, but without the Word (language)?
Joe, you know that I believe that chimpanzees and gorillas are animals created by the creative God as are other animals. I can only speculate as to why they are similar to humans of course; but I would suggest human prototyping is more in keeping with your theory Joe.
You see, my point is that there is much more than language that separates us from chimps and gorillas; much more. Our intellectual capacity demands of us moral accountability; or assigns moral responsibility to us.
The scriptural narrative in fact explains this.
While I think I understand the point you are making, it is a point with which I respectfully disagree.
There is no sense in which humans are not animals, vertebrates, mammals, and primates. To claim that humans are distinct from all other animals in the sense that these are mutually exclusive categories, is simply false. All humans are animals. Not all animals are humans. All humans are primates. Not all primates are human. The biological category called "great apes and humans" by some authorities is just called "great apes" by some. They make to point that "all humans are apes, but not all apes are human."
So, if we accept that humans are mammals and primates, what exactly does separate us from the other apes? Language (perhaps "The Word") is high on the list. There is a group centered at UC San Diego that seeks to identify the specific ways in which humans are different from all other apes, primates, mammals, etc. Have a look at "anthropogeny."
Joe I perhaps take a view between you and Stephen – maybe I agree with you both. I don't deny for a second we humans are animals. I don't deny for a second the 99% similarities between us and other primates – or the 97% between us and fruit flys.
I don't deny the amazing abilities of animals. I don't even deny animals have emotions, minds, reason or "souls", or may well be afforded some kind of afterlife.
But in all that, in that 1% difference, human beings are in a total different league. Our abilities make us so much "transcendant" in so many ways: we can literally leave this plane; we can alter our genes, or trick them in some ways, and alter other animals' genes through domestication-cloning; we have spread to virtually every habbitat in the world; we live apart and above nature in many ways; and we have the power to destroy our own planet!
The greater philosophical question is how did humanity make this leap effectively out of nature – out of the animal kingdom itself? Maybe to you that sort of philosophical question is of no interest, and you just say – chance happens. But to many of us, we can't see the absolute reality of humanity's transcendance (both good and bad) and not wonder if there is some meaning to it all?
"The greater philosophical question is how did humanity make this leap effectively out of of nature?"
It's called "evolution."
Indeed Elaine, and that is one of the important scientific discoveries that has borne out of this inner search for that exact question. In some ways, Origins proves my point, because that discovery was only made because of this intangible quest for meaning found deep inside every human being.
But the questions don't stop at Origins of the Species. Origins says we evolved by chance, but doesn't really get to an inner 'why'? There also seems to be an inner human acknowledgement that the Darwinian struggle we see around us is not 'right' or not how it should be. Assuming Eden never existed, there seems to be an Eden-shaped hole in all of us, searching for a paradise that never existed. This idea is found in many, many different religions and cultures. Even atheist Utopian fanatasies, like communism, seem to replicate that drive.
The ancient creation and flood epics, Enuma Elish, Gilgamesh and Atrehasis Story, all show this inner search. They are remarkably Darwinian in nature. The Hebrew accounts, whilst similar, show a fundamentally different theology, saying that the Darwinian struggle we see around us is not 'natural' and is not how it should be.
So where does this Eden-shaped hole come from? Evolution can't answer that question it seems.
Stephen,
What is the qualitative difference between an Bonobo seeking shelter from a storm, or comfort after a fight, and a human seeking shelter from his human predicament or comfort in the stresses of life?
It is, of course, one thing to wonder about the meaning of it all or if there is some transcendent meaning. It is quite another to settle on some rather specific meaning and devote one's entire life and every fiber of being to defending the meaning one has decided on against all else.
Is the ability to destroy much, including ones own species, an "adaptive" characteristic? We, as a species, have remarkable abilities, and yet, there is a sense in which we are a population of loose cannons.
Joe,
For sake of advancing our discussion, I have no problem stipulating that Homo sapiens is an animal, mammal, primate; whatever.
My points are simply that this particular animal was created in the image of a higher and greater life form—certainly at least from a moral cognition standpoint; and that no other animal on this planet comes close to this level sentience; and that the chances that we are the most highly developed intellects in the universe are so astronomically small as to be mathematically impossible in my humble opinion.
(I have tried, to no avail, to get your opinion on that latter point.)
Human destructive and nihilistic tendencies, to which humans are cognizant, are part of the moral cognition to which I refer Joe. There is an acknowledgement of good and evil, and of the results of love and hate (which are life and death). The scriptural narrative thoroughly accounts for this.
We are human, in thought, word, and deed. Mentally far superior to apes. We are"ape like" in our skeletal forms. We have a transcendant "moral" essence that non other life forms have. With this moral essence, most humans sense the resultant responsibility to unite and cooperate in the "live and let live" societies on Earth. There are renegade personalities who rise to the top, who are megalomanics and the peace loving masses, usually apathetic and hopeful, awake too late to challenge their destructive fallout. In our political strutural societies, the choices made by the masses tend to seperate us, rather than unite us to the recognition of dangers to our peaceful co-existence. The other "ape" animals, live in small comumes, with a "strong man killer" in charge, who will kill progeny of other males , and any and all migrant creatures who invade his turf which he thanks are a challenge to his leadership. The chimpansee is more vicious than an insane pit bulldog. Yes, the human will react violently when his home is invaded, and also we have a lot of insane humans roaming around, protecting their turf and businesses. Law and order breakdown in some cities is a real danger, Some places in the innercity the police will not respond to cries for help. Prisons are no deterent to those in the gangland armies. The business goes on directed by the leaders in prison, who have every new communication device available. Who get anything they want thru the smuggling guard force. Back to the "morality theme". The fact that the masses are apathetic and peaceful, is a trait not shared by the other "animal ape families". They got a raw deal in the natural selection lottery. Why do we still have the apes?? If we derived from apes, why are the apes still with us??
Stephen, I'll try to answer the question you don't think I am answering.
Humans are the most advanced of any animals we know of in the kinds of intellect humans value.
But are we better at doing what we do than bees or birds or dolphins are at what they do?
I take your point. I believe you believe "that this particular animal was created in the image of
a higher and greater life form." I have no objection at all to your belief or your right to assert
that your belief is true.
While you do not believe that any other animal comes close to this level of sentience, we differ
in that regard. As special as we humans are, we live on this earth with some other exceptionally
bright species. We are not smart enough to completely figure out how smart the other smart
animals are.
While I'm inclined to say that odds cannot be calculated on such matters as whether we are
the brightest creatures in the universe, the universe is a pretty big place–of such size and
complexity that it seems unlikely that life exists only on earth, or that no other place exists
where intelligent life is no brighter than are humans.
I simply do not know and refuse to pretend to know.
“Humans are the most advanced of any animals we know of in the kinds of intellect humans value.”
This is cute, and I understand what you are saying. Clearly humans dominate this planet (have “dominion.”) Humans are by no means superior to big cats, or elephants, but they can’t be taught to drive your car safely; much less to read the owner’s manual. Aren’t human infants more helpless than any other primates, or mammals, for that matter? How does that lend itself to survival?
“But are we better at doing what we do than bees or birds or dolphins are at what they do?”
Yes. Let’s put it this way, bees, birds, and dolphins have been doing the same the thing, the same way for hundreds or thousands of years at least; right? On the other hand, 30 years ago we would not have been able to communicate the way we are right now. If language is our main difference/advantage (which it isn’t); we communicate in better and/or more varied ways than we did a generation ago—and that’s only one example.
“As special as we humans are, we live on this earth with some other exceptionally
bright species. We are not smart enough to completely figure out how smart the other smart
animals are.”
No one questions the fact that “we live on this earth with some exceptionally bright species” (and certainly not the creationists among us). But humans are surely better equipped to figure out that other animals are smart, than other animals are equipped to figure out that we are smart. That’s obvious.
..the universe is a pretty big place–of such size and complexity that it seems unlikely that life exists only on earth, or that no other place exists where intelligent life is no brighter than are humans.
Thank you for your answer. I agree with that assessment and just happen to also believe that God and the angels represent extra-terrestrial higher life forms; just as humans represent higher life forms than bacteria, cockroaches, sheep, canines, or apes. (Might chimpanzees be similar to humans as humans were to be similar to angels?)
Big Correction: Humans are by no means physically superior to big cats, or elephants…
Perhaps i am the exception here as to origins, inheritors of, identity and assoiciation with other living life forms. Sorry folks, but i refuse the Darwinian evolutionary concepts. That the beginning of life's initial moment, a one celled nit, started it all, from no previous non-life form. A micro/micro protein from nowhere split and split and split until "voila", we have life begun. And we today are the ancestors of such a uncelebrated, unnoticed, unknown event. That the mighty forces of billions of humanity had such an unauspicious origin, is not logical for my observation. Look beyond Earth's limits. What do we see. TRILLIONS AND TRILLIONS of Galaxies, Suns, Planets, Stars, Dark matter, Black holes, Universes without limits, Gravities of varying powers, athmospheres of every description, all with a majesty of panoramic high intensity lazer brilliance of every possible coloration, covering such vast distances that we on Earth measure in the velocity of the speed of light travelled in one year. Truly breathtaking. i observe that we here are in a special protective oxygen breathing element which has harbored us safely for…….. …..thousands and or millions of years. We humans have, through our gift of intellectual superiority, have dominion over all other life forms, and have subdued the Earth. No doubt we would be reduced to choice morsels of meat for the predatory animal killers in the hinter lands, preserves, and zoos. In California we still have human victims of the Mt. lion, the Cougar, every year. But the fate of a horrible death should we become the victim of a charging bull elephant, hippo, or reinorcheros, alligator, shark, rattlesnake or cobra. Animals have a much lower intelligence, operate in their habitat with programmed instincts. They do not have morality. They do not build, or plan beyond their programming. Although some are built on the skeletal frame as humans, the nobility of the human is founded on a plane of abilities to cope, to overcome most of life's barriers, to plan, to build, to undertake vast scientific ventures, that a gorilla, bonobo, or chimp would have no ability to even begin to understand. There have been other Pre-man creatures on Earth. Why, experiments?? i don't know. But they like most of primates, are no longer with us. How can one believe, logically, that from that lowly one celled nit, to the mighty mankind we observe today, has occurred from one, two, three infinitim celled forms, without any planned intelligence, from one to the next, by happenstance, O pardon me "natural selection" how do you qualify or quantify a
process with no beginning, no nothing, exception, an expression of 2 words, to account for the massive intelligence and accomplishments, just in the past 50 years only.???? No, brothers and sisters, mankind is a very very special creation, regardless of who created us, we are a master race of humanity, which has a destiny beyond Earth's borders. i believe, as do the Brahmin Hindis, of a series of phases to our eternal souls, but , i do not believe that created mighty computer BRAIN of man, with massive abilities,out of sight of man made computers will ever have a phase beyond the majestic being of it's Creator. Is another universe our lot, next time around, when our soul has been restored???? God is not about to destroy this Earth's potential, for inhabiting the outer reaches of HIS universes.
I think I’m with you on this, that is, to the extent that you’re saying that you’re not an evolutionist as to the origin of mankind on Earth
To the extent that my communication to Joe, Chris, et al might leave any impression that I might believe what they believe about the origins of mankind, then I have poorly communicated what I believe.
I believe that the Bible is true; and that it was inspired by a higher life form than we (humans) are. “Somebody bigger than you and I” wanted us to know why we are here and what this life is all about.
Stephen, Earl, Steve, Chris, Elaine, Erv, et al.,
Thank you all for participating in this discussion. I think it has been enlightening–at least, for me. It has helped me better understand what you believe and how you see the world. While some are quite bound by what most of us were taught as children being reared as adventists, others have grown in awareness of the complexities of reality. Each has, in his/her own way, come to terms with impressions, understanding, evidence, and belief.
This thread has gotten very long. When I am away from home using my tablet, I find it less easy to navigate to the end of the thread than when I am at home using my laptop. I think I'd prefer to move over to a shorter thread. I'll see you, no doubt, over there. In any case, I wish you all well, my friends.
Is it possible, Joe, that people who don’t agree with you have also “grown in awareness of the complexities of reality”?
Yes, of course. I expect we have all grown in one way or another. I did not intend to insult anyone.
I don’t intend to badger you either; but saying that "we have all grown in one way or another,” is a qualified or modified answer to my question. (If you had just said “Yes, of course,” that would have been quite clear.) Is it possible, Joe, that people who don’t agree with you have also “grown in awareness of the complexities of reality?”
People change, whether they wish to or not. I expect we all become more aware of the complexities of reality, whether or not that is comfortabke for us or aligns with our worldview. Let's not haggle over this, Stephen. I do not require that everyone or anyone completely agree with me, and I am aware that you and I disagree on many matters. That's okay, as far as I am concerned.
Joe,
For better or worse, most of what is discussed on these boards appears to be differing worldviews (most often, though not always, centering around Seventh-day Adventism).
We may agree on many matters while disagreeing on many others. I believe the worldview I have aligns with “reality.” I’d bet that you believe that the worldview you have aligns with “reality” too.
I’d also bet that other animals do not have what we’d classify as worldviews. Then again, most humans don’t either; right?
i am indebted to each of your submissions.The past 18 months here at Atoday have been a growing experience for me. i have fortified my life search for truth, and i'm strengthened by what i am certain is the leading of the Holy Spirit in my life. i pray that each of you also have been enlightened and are at peace with your inner being.
May we be ever blessed in our life's search for truth. LOVE is the eternal value that i believe is the epoxy that binds us together. THINK, and LOVE, is the motto of Elaine, and i agree.
Right on, Earl. "Think and love" is also a good motto, I think. Earl and Elaine have levels of wisdom that certainly deserve our consideration and respect. For them, and for me, I think, commenting here is therapeutic.
I do not think we can glibly dismiss nonhumans as not having something like "world views." The concept of "cognitive maps" came from studies of nonhuman animals–not to mention some nonhuman navigation/imigration abilities that we do not yet fully understand. Many people do have some sort of "weltanschauung," although what that means differs from person-to-person and place-to-place.
Joe: 'Earl and Elaine have levels of wisdom that certainly deserve our consideration and respect. For them, and for me, I think, commenting here is therapeutic.'
Joe for me, commenting here, and engaging in philosophical warefare, isn't therapeutic but purgatorial (if that is a word). But our motivations differ, and there is of course nothing wrong with that.
With respect to Elaine Nelson, I believe she is about both the smartest and wisest person I have ever had the pleasure of meeting, and yet in other ways the silliest person I have ever come across. But like Christ in the wilderness, I now doubt that I will ever come across a challenge to my faith that Elaine, in the last 3 years or so of regularly visiting AToday, hasn't thrown. To that I count her comments, and the regular dialogue of ex-Adventists, a real blessing.
By worldview, I mean “a collection of beliefs about life and the universe held by an individual or group.” (From dictionary.com)
(Weltanschauung –noun German
a comprehensive conception or image of the universe and of humanity’s relation to it. [literally, world-view])
I should begin by stipulating that no one is against LOVE and THINK, just like no one is against motherhood and apple pie. We’re all for both, needless to say.
But it isn’t exactly silly (not that anyone said that it is) to suggest that other animals don’t have philosophies of life that they’ve consciously chosen to accept/advocate. Respect for the intelligence of other primates is one thing; suggesting that they have worldviews (in the sense that I refer to it) is perhaps a bit hyperbolic.
When my dog rings a bell at my back door, that act is based on some recognition of her own bodily state (needing to pee) and expectations about the back yard beyond the door. She is not "thinking" in words as humans do (even though she behaves as if she understands some words very well). She does have some sort of cognitive/thinking modality–probably using a combination of sight, smell, sound, and proprioceptive urges. Why is it so far-fetched to consider that nonhuman animals have some sort of cognitive representation of their world? It is common for animals to relate to their environments in nonrandom ways (that is, in systematic ways). The degree to which that cognition relates to awareness of self and others is open to investigation.
In most ways, I think, humans are very much like other animals. Our facility with language is a game changer that enables all sorts of cultural consequences–but even our language abilities have biological bases, some of which are found in other animals to some degree.
Joe,
With all respect, and I do respect you and your years of scholarship, no one here has come close to suggesting or implying that nonhuman animals do not “have some sort of cognitive representation of their world” or that they do not “relate to their environments in….systematic ways.” But it is indeed quite far-fetched to think/suggest that any of them have developed a particular philosophy of life that differs from any of others of their species.
Last time I checked dogs don't use contraception, contemplate their own mortality, build rocket ships that leave the orbit of the earth, make nuclear weapons that can destroy the planet, compose music, write poems or contemplate the existence of God.
Bless you, Steve. But, please, these discussion should not be viewed as "philosophical warefare."
I certainly do not have much philosophical armour. Answering questions by just thinking about them
does not appeal much to me. Considering evidence does.
Steve, I in no sense deny that humans are very remarkable animals–but we are animals, with brains and language that have equipped us to do all the things you mentioned. Every one of the things you mentioned depends on our language and culture, including not just composing music, but inventing instruments on which to make music. Rocket ships, nuclear weapons, etc., are pretty late developments of human culture. Various sorts of contraception–mostly not fully effective have been practiced, but the most effective methods are recent discoveries. Many of the things mentioned have been developed by humans while making use of studies of other animals. Were humans less human 5000 or 50000 years ago?