[net.religion] Failure

pmd@cbscc.UUCP (Paul Dubuc) (06/05/84)

}Paul Dubuc - 
}I keep thinking that I have made my question clear, and I keep finding that
}someone misunderstands.  I will try once more to explain what I mean.

Sorry if this note reveals no improvement in my understanding.  I'm trying.
Also, I hope I have quoted enough below to do justice in representing
your explaination.

}
}Here is the question
}>     1. The objective evidence for Christianity is not strong.  It is 
}>certainly not stronger than the evidence for some other religions.
}>     2. The subjective evidence for Christianity is very much the same as the
}>subjective evidence for other religions.  Certainly, it is not stronger.
}>     So, how do you Christians justify your belief?
}>
}>What I am asking for here is how you Christians deal in your own minds 
}>with points 1 & 2.
}
}Please note, Paul, that in that discussion the terms
}"objective evidence" and "subjective evidence" were being treated as 
}understood. ...
}
}The terms were never defined in the discussion, but the ways in which they 
}were used made it pretty clear what was meant by them.  I won't pretend to be
}capable of a precise definition of these terms (I am well aware of the
}difficulty of delineating them), but I can give you the feeling of how they
}were being used.  Please note that the discussion (including my question) did
}not require that these terms be defined precisely.

I think that any discussion in which that main terms used cannot be defined
well is pointless.  At least the terms need to be narrowed down to 
discuss particluar bits of evidence.

}
}By "objective evidence" was meant evidence of an externally observable kind.
}For example, historical accuracy of parts of the bible, fulfilled prophecies,
}observed miraculous events, faith healing, and so forth.

I still think you need to discuss specific evidence.  If someone disagrees
with your first point (which you seem to treat as an axiom) where would you
expect them to start in doing so?  Would you expect them to support every
conceiveable event in the categories you mention, just to support their
disagreement with one sentence of yours?

}
}In the discussion, christians had pointed to various objective evidences
}supporting christianity.  Others had pointed out that other religions lay 
}claim to similar supporting objective evidences.  Now, I am not claiming that 
}I have been able to sift through the various claims of this kind made by the 
}various religions.  (Perhaps if I could do that, I would discover, for 
}example, that every claim to faith healing could be proved bogus except for 
}those made by christians.  On the other hand, perhaps I would find that only 
}the muslims' claims could not be proved bogus.)  What I am saying is that the
}sifting I have done does not support the christians' claims any better than 
}it does the others' claims.  

The sifting I did before becoming a Christian supported the Christian
claims better.  Can you accept that statment?  If not, how do you expect
me to accept yours?

You keep saying that you are not asking Christians to justify themselves
to you, but the last sentence seems to indicate otherwise.  

}
}In my question, I was inviting christians to "explain away" the faith healing,
}miraculous events, fulfilled prophecies, historical accuracies in sacred 
}texts, and so forth, of non-christian religions.  I am not trying to measure
}evidence.  But if chrisitan faith healing is held as evidence for 
}christianity, then muslim faith healing must be admitted as evidence for 
}islam.  A christian who points to the objective evidences for christianity
}surely carries, in his own mind, an explanation of the claims of objective
}evidences made by non-christian religions.  (This explanation might be as 
}simple as saying that the claims are bogus.)  In my question, I was asking
}for some christians to tell me what their explanations are.

Explainations for what particular evidences?  All of them?  Do you think
that there is one blanket explaination?  I don't think faith healing
is as objective an evidence as you think.  Atheist doctors who witness
dramatic healings often pass the whole thing off as just some quirk that
they can't explain.  "The body has amazing, unexplainable powers to
heal itself", they might say.  It's easy not to believe in faith healing
at all, preferring to believe that there is some unknown natural explaination
for the phenomenon, because it is not really just the fact of the healing
that is brought into question, but the cause.  And people will subjectively
assign a cause according to their beliefs.  The cause is unseen, unwitnessed,
and therefore subject to interpretation.  The only way I would
count healing to be objective evidence is in a case where the healer never
failed once, where he cured not only diseases, but severe structural deformities
also.  You might even throw in a few instances of raising people from the
dead.  To top it off he could even come back from the dead himself.  I only
know one with that kind of record.

}
}By "subjective evidence" was meant evidence of an internally observable kind.
}For example, sensations of god's presence or of communion with god, a sense 
}of spiritual growth, feeling one's life come together as one grows in one's
}faith, and so forth.
}
}In my question, I was inviting christians to "explain away" the inward
}experiences of followers of non-christian religions.  I am aware that I
}cannot accurately know the nature of the inward experiences of other
}people.  But surely every christian who points to his own inward experiences
}as evidence for the truth of christianity must carry, in his own mind, an
}explanation of the inward experiences of followers of non-christian religions.
}(This explanation might be as simple as saying that the experiences are
}delusions.)  In my question, I was asking for some christians to tell me
}what their explanations are.
}

}Paul, you wrote a lot about subjective religious experience, too much for me 
}to quote.  However, the main thrust of what you wrote seemed to be that 
}subjective experiences, such as feeling one's life improve, do not say 
}anything about the truth of what one believes.  I imagine then that you would 
}not claim that your own subjective experiences were evidence for the truth of 
}christianity.  (Though I suppose that you would still say that your own
}subjective religious experiences were caused by god, whereas those of the 
}muslim were not.  Is this true?)  The point is, though, that in the 
}discussion, christians were putting their own subjective experiences forth
}as evidence for the truth of christianity.

Explaining away the subjective experiences of those of other religions
does not prove the validity of my own.  If I were to have an explaination
for the subjective experiences of a Muslim, and assuming that explaination
is true (that they are not caused by God), it still does not mean mine are true.
So what is the point in having explainations?  Just to assure oneself
that others are wrong?  But we can't justify our beliefs in that way, which
is what you seem to be asking us to do.  As far as explainations go then
you can take your pick:  delusion, devils, or limited success due to personal
strengthes.  They are all plausible explainations, none of them provable
or disprovable over another.

As I said in my last article, subjective experiences cannot be compared
except first hand.  I once met a man who was a Brahaman Hindu priest.
I think that's the highest you can go as far as Hinduism is concerned.
I think it is fair to assume that the level of devotion he had to his
religion, produced in him the best possible subjective experiences.  He
is now a devoted Christian and attributes his former experiences to satanic
influence.  I cannot hold that explaination of Hinduism personally, only
he can because he has actually had the experience.  I can only choose
whether or not to believe him.  I don't think I can come close to 
spelling the man's name [ Robi (for short) Marahaj  (I think) ].  He has
written a book called "The Death of a Guru".

}
}Let me stress here that I am not saying that christians must justify their
}beliefs to me.  I am merely enquiring as to what christians say to themselves
}in their own mind on this issue of the evidences for other religions.

Then you can pick which ever of the explainations for "subjective experiences"
suits you.  The conclusion that they are not from God is one supported by
the Bible.  As for "objective evidences" you will have to be specific before
you can accuse others of failing to address your question.

In your other article, you said,  "If I was a Christian, I would certianly
feel challenged by, say, the spiritual experiences of an ardent Muslim ..."
It seemed to me that, relative to the question, you were asking Christains
to justify their beliefs by your standards.  Instead of saying "explain to
me ..." you put yourself in the place of the Christian and say "I would have
to explain to myself ...".  What is the difference relative to the question?

}
}I entered this whole discussion wondering why it was that people believed.
}As I have explained in previous notes, I myself have never had a "revelation" 
}of god's existence, nor have I found any "objective evidence" (for any 
}religion) that seemed convincing.  Nevertheless, I have often been exhorted
}by christians to believe in their religion.  But, until I have some evidence,
}why ever would (or should) I believe?  (If you want more about this,
}I can send you my earlier articles.)
}

As far as objective evidence goes, you would have to explain what evidence
you are talking about and what you consider convincing.  In looking for
convincing evidence, I only hope that you don't start asking for licence
plates ;-).  I wouldn't blame you for not believing without some evidence.
But some people demand more than others and the fact that some demanded less
doesen't make their religion and less true.

}Your own position on your faith seems to be that, until christianity runs out
}of answers, you will keep believing.  My simple question here is:
}Why did you believe in the first place?  (My muslim friend assures me that
}islam never runs out of answers either.)

I believed because I had some evidence (both subjective and objective)
that gave Christianity a suspicion of truth, and because I had a need.
Had some other religion filled that requirement I probably would have
started there.  When I first believed I had fewer questions than I do
now.  It more I learn, it seems, the more questions I have.

I find it amazing that your friend can give you such an assurance about
Islam.  If he knows it never runs out of answers, he must have asked all
the questions  and have all the answers.  I can't make such a claim about
Christianity.  Does that mean Islam is better?  Anyway, I'd be interested
in what your friend thinks about John W. Montgomery's characterization
of Muslim apologetics.  Particulary those of Muhammad Ali (no, not the
boxer).  [ See chapter four of "Faith founded on Fact:  Essays in
evidential apologetics"  Nelson Publ.  1978].

}
}Another point, Paul, why does a religion's attributing a personality to god
}make that religion any closer to the truth?  What if god doesn't have a
}personality?
}

It doesn't get it any closer to the truth,  but I think it allows for
the admission of more evidence.  If one doesn't know what God is like,
does he really know God exists (subjectively speaking)?

}Finally, Paul, you pointed out that the issue with regard to historical
}evidence for Jesus wasn't simply a matter of showing whether Jesus actually 
}existed, but was a matter of showing "who *he* was"  (I quote you).
}Yes, yes, a thousand times yes!  That is the point I was trying to make!

Then why did you consider Dave's reference to McDowell's "Evidence ..."
books disappointing?  That was the point I was trying to make.  What
is wrong with he evidence he brings up to support Jesus' claims about himself?
Why are the N.T. documents not to be trusted as reliable history?  You
don't think you need to talk about specific evidence, yet you are quick
to call Christians failures when they (speaking for myself) can't even
put a finger on what you are asking.  I guess I *don't* understand.

I haven't any intentions of getting into any detailed discussions of
evidence for Christianity.  I'll leave that for other Christians who
have more time and energy.  I have enough of my own questions to answer.
I have only been trying to point out what I think is wrong with Daryel's
question.  (And have taken too much space in doing it.)

Regards,

-- 

Paul Dubuc 		{cbosgd, ihnp4} !cbscc!pmd

  "The true light that enlightens every man was coming
   into the world..."		(John 1:9)