John W. Burgeson wrote:
>
> Derek also wrote a long response to an earlier post of mine.
>
> I'll try to be brief:
>
> DM>>How can you be sure? Maybe it is unanswerable *because* it
> is not true.>>
>
> That one is easy, Derek. I can be sure because "I was there."
I don't understand. Where were you? Obviously not in 1st century
Palestine!
JB> I can be sure I have white socks on right now because I can see
them.
> You can never be sure.
I can be relatively sure if my experience of you is as an unfailingly
reliable witness in such matters.
JB> I can be sure my dad, deceased now 25 years, was of a
> certain character. You can never be sure. Kitty Ferguson's book
> explains the concept better than I can.
In both of the above cases, you are talking about tangible reality.
> DM>>"Proof of Jesus" or, more specifically, unambiguous evidence
> of the claims of the New Testament with regard to the divine
> nature of Jesus, is certainly a matter that history could
> address, but fails to do so in any convincing manner.>>
>
JB> "Scientific" proof? Of course not. "Historical" proof. I think a
> number of historians would debate that.
Absolutely. And there would be no shortage of other historians prepared
to debate them vigorously. On the other hand, if a historian were to
deny that Gaius Caesar (Caligula) were divine - even though Gaius
claimed to be - he would have a difficult time finding another historian
argue against him.
>From this it can reasonably claimed that the probability that Caligula
was not divine is higher than the probability that Jesus was/is.
> DM>>Given that there is no such thing as scientific proof (in
> spite of the efforts of marketing departments and
> advertising agencies), I find the prospect of
> "non-scientific proof" incredible. It has long been my
> understanding that proof is limited to mathematics and
> logic. In any event, I wasn't asking for anything so
> difficult as "proof" - only some testable evidence.>>
>
JB> Fair enough. I was using the word "proof" in a popular, not a
rigorous
> manner.
Fair enough. I used to use the word "proof" this way myself, even when I
should have known better. However, years of debate in forums like this
have left me very shy of using it at all!
JB> Do you, personally, "know" anything that cannot provide "testable
> evidence?"
No. I have opinions on such matters.
> DM>>What about "non-scientific evidence"? Can any idea that is
> untestable by science be more than merely opinion?>>
JB> Absolutely. I gave some examples above. Polanyi writes of it (I gave
> you the reference). Ferguson writes of it (same comment).
The colour of your socks is scientifically testable. In fact, I expect
that you used a very sophisticated image recording device connected to
an even more sophisticated computer to conduct this scientific analysis
yourself before you put the socks on, if for no better reason than to
ensure that they were both the same colour.
On the other hand, a person's character is a matter of opinion. I am
sure that you could ask 10 people who know me well to describe my
character and, while you would hear a number of observations in common,
you would also hear many unique or rare observations, and much
difference in emphasis.
> >>It would seem to me that the only way to study it
> "sincerely" is to half believe it before you start.>>
JB> Absolutely NOT. When I began a serious study, I very much did not
believe
> it. Not even half-believe. As my study progressed, I found I did not even
> WANT to believe it. But what I forced myself into was a frame of mind in
> which I said, "If the thing appears true, and its negation substantially
> unconvincing, then I have to follow it."
This is reasonable. Belief in the material is easy - the evidence is all
around us - but I find supernatural beliefs unconvincing.
JB> Analogy. The doctor says you have cancer and that it is terminal.
You are
> going to study that area rather carefully. Or -- you can simply declare
> him a quack and forget about his claim. One would rather do that of
> course -- but not if what he says is true.
Not a good analogy. The doctor's claims are scientifically testable. So
I would be seeking a second (and perhaps a third) opinion very quickly
and then deciding on a course of action.
> DM>>I don't know about you, but my intellect guards the door to
> my commitment.>>
>
> I think mine does too. My intellect tells me that logic and reason have
> their place but that place is not primary.
My intellect tells me that testable evidence is primary and that logic
and reason are tools that can be used - carefully - to turn evidence
into knowledge.
JB> Pascal said that best, I
> think: "The heart has reasons that the head never understands."
> (Probably badly misquoted, sorry).
If my "heart" can't explain those reasons to my "head", then, unless the
matter is trivial, my "heart" misses out!
> DM>>I am interested in the phrase "commitment knowledge". It
> sounds like "salvation history" or "origins science". I see
> no need for special types of history, science or knowledge
> that are only applicable to Christians.>>
>
> OK. I'll agree with your second sentence. "Commitment knowledge" has
> nothing (that I can see) in common with "salvation history" or "origins
> science."
I was simply observing that theists (and I see it far more frequently
among evanglising Christians than any other theists) have their own
special brands of knowledge, history and science.
JB> What it is is this: One may study some areas of knowledge "only
> in the head." Most areas of knowledge are of this type, I think.
>
> But some areas of knowledge carry with them a necessary commitment to a
> goal, or a person, or a cause.
I'm having a lot of difficulty accepting this claim. Do you have any
secular (dare I say materialistic) examples that might help clarify it?
> You can study them "in the head" all you
> want but never apprehend what they are really about.
The way I see it, if "head study" doesn't provide understanding, then
either the "head's" intellectual limits have been reached, or "they are
really about" nothing significant.
JB>I see Christianity
> as one such area. The following question might be asked:
>
> "If I, after serious study, finally conclude that Jesus was "the Christ,"
> am I then prepared (committed) to living my life trying to follow his
> claims?"
>
> If one answers that "no," or even answers it with a "maybe," or even
> answers it with a "yes" but has in mind some caveats, then (I think) he
> or she will never figure out what Christianity is all about.
I can't see how one could answer anything but an unqualified yes; since
- by most accounts - this Christ's Father deals eternally and brutally
with those less than fully committed to His Son.
> DM>>I was a Christian once, too. I would probably still be one
> except that I never had any personal experience of God, and
> I eventually figured something out. If there are millions of
> Christians that all believe fervently in the Christian God
> and all that such a belief implies, and if there are
> millions of Muslims that all believe fervently in Allah and
> all that such a belief implies, and if there are millions of
> Hindus that all believe fervently in Brahma, Vinshu, etc.
> and all that such a belief implies, and if there are
> millions of ....... you get the idea - then all of these
> fervent believers can't be right, but they can all be wrong.
> (Much later I was introduced to the concept that the most
> reliable indicator of a person's religious beliefs is their
> parents' or community's religious beliefs - not any innate
> correctness of the religion itself.)
>
> Now, if all of these fervent believers can't be right, in
> spite of the strength of their belief, then it is reasonable
> to assume that there is something innately unreliable about
> belief, particularly fervent religious belief.>>
>
JB> That's a very fair question to ask. It remains perhaps the 2nd most
> important question for Christians (and others) to wrestle with.
> I would hardly tell you the answers are easy, or simple, or even
> worked out (at least not to my satisfaction).
Given that there have been some fine minds working on this issue for
thousands of years, doesn't it trouble you that no reasonable answers
have been forthcoming?
JB> However, you conclude with
> the phrase " it is reasonable to assume that there is something innately
> unreliable about belief... ." I would say it is reasonable to do so, but
> not so reasonable that one stops there. Even if the question cannot be answered!
> Again, Pascal.
How much more reasonable does it need to get before one stops?
JB> Christ is not approached (apprehended) through reason.
Neither is Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny or the Tooth Fairy! I know this
looks as though I'm trivialising the issue, but really, if reason
doesn't guard the door, almost anything can be made believable. Look how
many people believe in astrology.
JB> I love my wife dearly. Sometimes that does not appear reasonable.
Doesn't
> matter.
I also love my wife dearly. And it has *always* appeared reasonable for
me to do so. The joy has been a huge bonus.
> DM>>I'm sure one could say the same thing to an astrologer,
> numerologist, dowser, spirit channeler, etc. and walk away
> half an hour later as a firm believer. If I were really
> willing to believe in the authenticity of any of these, it
> would only take a skilled evangelist to turn my willingness
> into actual belief.>>
>
JB > I hope not. There are some people of whom the above could be said.
> I don't perceive any of them on this LISTSERV however. I don't perceive
> CS Lewis or John Polkinghorne as one, or many others I could name. That's
> far too easy a cop out!
I wasn't talking about others; I was specifically talking about me.
> DM>>Fortunately, I treat all such extraordinary claims with the
> extraordinary scepticism they deserve.>>
>
JB> I have no quarrel with your "extraordinary skepticism." But I'm sure
you
> would agree that assuming the claims of Christ to be true negates the
> word "Fortunately" in your sentence above.
Since I regards "the claims of Christ" - the supernatural ones, anyway -
as not very different in principle from the claims of spirit channelers,
then I see no reason to negate "Fortunately".
> DM>>And I have little doubt that if you had been Iranian or
> Indian instead of American, your thoughts would have led you
> to be a Muslim or Hindu, assuming you managed to survive
> your first 30 years as an atheist in either of those
> countries.>>
>
JB> I cannot speak to that possibility. I am who I am. There are
Christians
> in those countries too, of course.
And there are Muslims in the USA and Australia, too. But, in both cases,
a very small - and frequently discriminated against - minority.
> DM>>I lost interest in CS Lewis when I first came across his
> "God, liar or madman" argument, and found the fatal flaw in
> 30 seconds. (He assumes, without independent evidence, the
> historic accuracy of the Gospel stories and the validity of
> Paul's concepts of "Christ".)>>
>
> You have not read enough Lewis, methinks. His address on that occasion
> did not cover EVERY possibility, of course. Should he? He apparently did
> not think so, as MERE CHRISTIANITY went through many printings after his
> initial radio broadcast. I always thought he should have addressed the
> other possibilities, but he did not ask me! < G >
My memory of this is that Lewis specifically stated that Lord, liar or
lunatic were the *only* possibilities. The strength of his claim was
grounded in that "only".
> DM>>It appears as though you also assume the historic accuracy
> of the Gospel stories.>>
>
JB> I have much to learn in this area. I've read some of the claims of
the
> "Jesus Seminar" people and find them unconvincing. But my relationship
> with Christ is not part of that particular question.
I don't know how to answer that without calling into question your grasp
on reality. Since I can't assess my own grasp on reality with certainty,
I have no right to question yours.
> DM>>If your knowledge of God is objective-public, then everyone
> who "knows" God (or Allah or Vishnu or ....) knows the same
> God, in the same way that we all "know" the same physics
> equations. This is obviously not the case. If your knowledge
> of God is objective-private, then how can you testably claim
> that everyone else's knowledge of God (or Allah or Vishnu or
> ....) is not also objective-private?>>
>
JB> I cannot, of course. The key word above is "testably."
OK. I'll withdraw "testably" and replace it with "confidently". Does
this help you to answer?
> DM>> If we have a range of
> contradictory items of objective-private knowledge, doesn't
> that invalidate your use of the word "objective" in this context.>>
JB> Of course not.
I think that you and I might mean different things by "objective". I
mean "external to the mind, actually existing" or "dealing with outward
things or exhibiting facts uncoloured by feelings or opinions" (quoted
from Oxford Reference Dictionary, 1986, Oxford University Press).
JB> It does pose some interesting questions, of course, said
> questions being largely unanswerable. I can live with that.
So can I. But my response to unanswerable questions is to discount the
premises that created them.
> DM>>I would suggest it is more like one type of
> knowledge and two types of opinion.
>
JB> objective-public
>
DM> presumably, knowledge that is, in principle, available to
> all and testable publicly
>
JB> objective-private
>
DM> presumably, knowledge that is, in principle, available to
> all but is only testable within the confines of an individual's mind.
>
JB> subjective-private
>
DM> I can't find a definition that separates this from
> "objective-private".>>
>
> Try Polanyi's book.
It looks like I'll have to.
> DM>>Might I also recommend two books to you.
> "Belief and Make-Believe - Critical Reflections on the
> Sources of Credulity", George A. Wells, 1991, Open Court
> Publishing Company
> "After God - The Future of Religion", Don Cupitt, 1997,
> Weidenfeld & Nicolson>>
JB> Thanks for the references. I've added them to my "look up at the
library" list.
> Understand, though, that I've read many books written from the viewpoint
> that I suspect these are written from. Sagan's THE DEMON HAUNTED MIND is
> one last year -- there have been 2 or 3 since then but I've returned the
> to the library by now.
I have also read "The Demon Haunted World?" by Sagan. It deals with many
forms of superstition. The other books are almost exclusive to Christian
beliefs.
> DM>>This is the central issue. I don't see how assessment of the
> evidence can be left to each individual. Very few
> individuals have taken the time to study and compare in
> detail the claims of the world's major religions, let alone
> the claims of the minor ones. On what basis could a person
> untrained in comparative religious studies choose among
> religions? >>
>
> If there are none which are "true," there is no way. If there is one
> which is true, or even one which is "more true" than the others, assuming
> Christ's claims to be true, for instance, then supernatural help must be
> given and will be given. In my case, at least, it was given. I can go no
> farther than this. Your milage may vary, as the auto ads say! < G >
I'm curious as to who has been giving "supernatural help" to all of
those devout Moslems to make them so strong in their faith.
> DM>>It appears to me that, when such wildly divergent beliefs,
> each with many millions of followers and many thousands of
> scholars, have existed for so long without significant moves
> toward common "truth" on central differences, that the whole
> concept of belief in deities is horribly flawed. This is
> especially so when one considers the amount of violent death
> associated with religious differences.>>
JB> Understand. When I was a non-Christian, that was exactly my
> observation also.
How did you resolve it? The only way that occurs to me is by deciding
that Christianity (which brand?) was right, all the others were wrong,
and it wasn't Christianity's fault if the followers of other religions
couldn't or wouldn't accept their error! But it sounds so arbitary!
Regards,
Derek
--------------A253BCB867A0604CB4DCA1BB
Content-Type: text/x-vcard; charset=us-ascii; name="vcard.vcf"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Description: Card for Derek McLarnen
Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="vcard.vcf"
begin: vcard
fn: Derek McLarnen
n: McLarnen;Derek
adr: ;;;Melba;ACT;2615;Australia
email;internet: dmclarne@pcug.org.au
title: Mr
x-mozilla-cpt: ;0
x-mozilla-html: TRUE
end: vcard
--------------A253BCB867A0604CB4DCA1BB--