david@ssc-vax.UUCP (05/07/84)
[] Daryel Akerlind: >From what I have been reading in net.religion lately, the Christians have >been challenged with a question regarding their belief, and they have failed >to meet that challenge. I don't think so. Net.religion is polarized between Christians and non-Christians (with a tiny smattering of articles in catagory "other"). All the mail I've recieved is just as polarized; people think I am doing a great job of defending Christianity or a lousy job. The evidence seems to indicate that the basis for such judgements are the predispositions of the judge. > 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? >Surely, you Christians feel challenged by points 1 and 2. Surely, in your own >mind, you feel called upon to answer that challenge. Please sit down at your >keyboards and answer honestly and openly. Here is my honest and open answer. No, I do not feel challenged by points 1 and 2, nor do I feel "called upon" to answer that challenge. Because that's just what it is; a challenge; a request to enter into a debate (or verbal battle). Most of the Christians on this net are not here to enter a debate. I am personally willing to discuss Christianity with anyone who asks honest questions of me. This is best done by mail, as such correspondence is not so easily sidetracked with public comments; I am usually in active correspondence with 4 or 5 netters at a time (BTW, the quality is usually much better than the public forum). As an aside, what measuring stick you use to examine and compare subjective evidence; i.e., A's subjective evidence is better than B's? >Christians point to certain historical evidence that Jesus actually existed. >That evidence is weak. I do not think that the evidence is so weak. See Josh McDowell's "Evidence that demands a verdict". Albright has some good stuff for archeology-oriented people. >The most convincing evidence, in a Christian's mind, is probably subjective. A relationship IS subjective. -- David Norris :-) -- uw-beaver!ssc-vax!david
dsaker@iuvax.UUCP (05/22/84)
[] David Norris - Let me thank you for at least giving some kind of a reply to my note entitled A Challenge. But let me say that I was very disappointed with your reply. First, I think it is obvious that the question I posed has not been met by the Christians. The question is >>> 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. Come on, David, none of the Christians, including you, has answered this question. Now, my note stated this question directly, but it seems to me that several other notes dealing with the issue of evidence for Christianity have virtually stated the same question. None of the Christians has answered this question. That is why I wrote >>>the Christians have been challenged with a question regarding their belief, and they have failed to meet that challenge. I wasn't talking about whether they were, in general, meeting challenges. I was talking about their failure to answer the particular question. Also, David, you seem to have misunderstood my use of the word "challenge". Let me quote you. >No, I do not feel challenged by points 1 and 2, nor do I feel "called upon" >to answer that challenge. Because that's just what it is; a challenge; a >request to enter into a debate (or verbal battle). When I wrote "Surely, you Christians feel challenged by points 1 and 2", I wasn't calling you to do verbal battle with me. I was using "challenged" in the sense of "personally challenged". I meant that you must wonder about how such things can be, that you must try to explain them. As an example, I was expecting some replies to say that the subjective evidences experienced by followers of non-christian religions were caused by the devil. If I was a Christian, I would certainly feel challenged by, say, the spiritual experiences of an ardent Muslim. I can imagine asking myself: "How it can be that he has such experiences? His beliefs are false. How can he have these inward experiences of spiritual growth and confirmation of his beliefs? Do they come from God? Or do they come from the devil? Or is he just deluded?" So, you see, I was just asking how you Christians deal with the issues raised by points 1 and 2. I was asking how you, in your own heads, explain them. I was asking a question, not requesting a verbal battle. (BTW, it seems to me that you often debate with non-christians on the net.) You asked me a question. >As an aside, what measuring stick you use to examine and compare subjective >evidence; i.e., A's subjective evidence is better than B's? I expect that you are referring to my point 2. I expanded on this point in the latter part of my note, but I will try to rephrase things here. What I meant was that the subjective experiences reported by Christians as confirming their beliefs (the feeling of spiritual growth, their life coming together, and so forth) are very much like the subjective experiences reported by followers of non-christian religions. (Only the details vary according to the beliefs of the believers.) Now, if Christians were the only ones who had these experiences, and the followers of other religions had to report that they had none or only very minor experiences (like feeling happier), then the subjective evidence for Christianity would be stronger than for these other religions. You replied to one of my statements by writing >I do not think that the evidence [that Jesus existed] is so weak. >See Josh McDowell's "Evidence >that demands a verdict". Albright has some >good stuff for archeology-oriented people. I find this sort of reply really disheartening because you ignored the rest of the paragraph within which my statement occurred. The paragraph was >>>Christians point to certain historical evidence that Jesus actually existed. That evidence is weak. Besides, the evidence that, say, Mohammed existed is an awful lot stronger. BTW, there is even better evidence for the existence of the Rev. Moon. That doesn't make the Moonies' claims for him true. You see, David, suppose the historical evidence for the existence of Jesus was just as strong as the evidence today for the existence of the Rev. Moon. That would not make Christians' claims about Jesus' divine nature true. Finally, David, if you don't want to answer my question by posting to the net, then you can mail your answer to me. Daryel Akerlind ...ihnp4!inuxc!iuvax!dsaker
labelle@hplabsc.UUCP (WB6YZZ Labelle) (05/24/84)
Come on Daryel, don't challenge the poor guys, the've got enough
problems already!
Haven't you seen the bumper snicker-
God said it
I believe it
That settles it
That is why their are Xians. They don't have to show you any
"stink'n badges" either!!
Georgepmd@cbscc.UUCP (Paul Dubuc) (06/01/84)
Forgive me for butting in on a discussion that I haven't been following from the begining. I haven't seen Daryel's original "Challenge" article or David's response to it, but the two points made by Daryel seem open to all Christians. Seeing also that we have been accused of failure and being the cause of disappointment, I guess I should at least offer my bit before the disheartening we have wrought is considered complete. To restate the two points: }First, I think it is obvious that the question I posed has not been met by }the Christians. The question is } }>>> 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. Come on, David, none of the Christians, including you, }has answered this question. First off, I don't think Daryel can expect much more than disappointment in a demand for an "answer" to a question stated in such a way; not just from Christians, but from the adherents of any belief. I think the the two statements above, along with the question, will bring equally disappointing results when rephrased and directed toward anyone. Just subsitute the name of the belief in the place of "Christianity" and "beliefs" (to make it more general) in the place of "religions". I think there is little shame in not being able to answer such questions. I do think that there are some cases of inquiry where more problem is to be found in the question than in the lack of a definite answer. My parents have a dog that likes to chase a Frisbee. When the Frisbee lands flat on a concrete surface the dog can't pick it up. She can only push it around because there is no way for her to get a hold of it. That is how I feel in trying to handle this question. There's no way to pick it up, let alone answer it. So I'm going to stop trying and concentrate on pushing it around. Sorry if this disappoints you, Daryel, but I don't feel bad about it. The two statements are vague. Taking the first I would have to ask, what to you mean by the *objective* evidence *for* Christianity? You say that it is certainly not stronger than that for other religions. Which evidence for what religions? This assertion seems to suppose that you are objective and have a comprehensive understanding of the all the "evidence" in existence to support the different religions. I would like to know how you obtained this point of view. Secondly, the statement seems to make the assumption that all religion is the same stuff. Do you think you can measure "evidence" (objective or otherwise) to support the different religions on a linear scale? Is measuring the evidence for different religions like the evidence for the viscosity of different kinds of oil? Some religions plainly require no objective evidence to support their validity. i.e. they are purely mystical. Others that are grounded in our history will depend on the historical events being accurate. I think Christianity relys most heavily on historical events. If all religions claimed to be equally grounded in "objectively verifiable" historical events, then you might be able to compare the evidence accurately. Even ignoring the implied comparison of evidence between religions, I still disagree with you that the historicity of Christianity is weak. }When I wrote "Surely, you Christians feel challenged by points 1 and 2", }I wasn't calling you to do verbal battle with me. I was using "challenged" }in the sense of "personally challenged". I meant that you must wonder about }how such things can be, that you must try to explain them. As an example, }I was expecting some replies to say that the subjective evidences experienced }by followers of non-christian religions were caused by the devil. } I'm glad your not baiting Christians here. I too have no intent on being drawn into a verbal battle. Given that such baiting goes on often in this newsgroup I don't see how you can blame anyone for seeing your questions as just another attempt to make Christians look bad by trying to answer questions that ask nothing specific. }If I was a Christian, I would certainly feel challenged by, say, the spiritual }experiences of an ardent Muslim. I can imagine asking myself: }"How it can be that he has such experiences? His beliefs are false. How can }he have these inward experiences of spiritual growth and confirmation of his }beliefs? Do they come from God? Or do they come from the devil? Or is he }just deluded?" } Why would you have to be a Christian to feel such a challenge? The Muslim's experience is different from yours also (assuming you're not one). How do yor justify not being a Muslim? Do you really think you have a handle on the subjective experiences of devoted members of the different religions just by listening to them relate those experiences? If not, how can you imply a comparison by saying that the subjective evidence for one is not stronger than that for another? The only plausible basis for comparison that I can see is to become a devoted member of each of these religions yourself and open yourself up to these experiences first hand. I know some whose exprience encompasses sincere devotion to one or more major religions (Buddism, Judaism, Hinduism, Islam, Taoism as well as Atheism and Agnosticism) who think Christianity is true and their former beliefs false. Some will tell you their former experiences were Satanic in origin, some will say they were delusions. I am only comparing people who were strongly devoted to these beliefs and by "Christianity" I mean Bible-governed belief, not cultural Christianity. (If you have read Lewis' "Mere Christianity" you know what I mean.) So I would exclude the conversions of those who came from nominal religious backgrounds from consideration. } }[Dave] asked me a question. }>As an aside, what measuring stick you use to examine and compare subjective }>evidence; i.e., A's subjective evidence is better than B's? } }I expect that you are referring to my point 2. I expanded on this point in }the latter part of my note, but I will try to rephrase things here. }What I meant was that the subjective experiences reported by Christians as }confirming their beliefs (the feeling of spiritual growth, their life coming }together, and so forth) are very much like the subjective experiences reported }by followers of non-christian religions. (Only the details vary according to }the beliefs of the believers.) Now, if Christians were the only ones who had }these experiences, and the followers of other religions had to report that }they had none or only very minor experiences (like feeling happier), then the }subjective evidence for Christianity would be stronger than for these other }religions. } There is still no measuring stick. Suppose a Christian and a Muslim both tell you that their religion is the greatest thing that ever happend to them, yet each has never been devoted to the other's religion? Is there any real basis for comparison? Even if the beliefs have achieved similar changes in a person's life, we are still talking about two *different* people and, of course, it is many times possible to achive the same results though deception as through genuine belief. Also, your comparison cannot take into account the eternal ramifications of subjective religious experience. That is the main focus of Christianity, the worldly benefits of the belief being consequential. So what if both a Muslim and a Christian are both delivered from severe problems as a result of their beliefs? (For many, e.g. the Apostle Paul, circumstances only got worse.) What does such improvement say about the condition of the soul or where it ends up after death? Comparing subjective experiences is only valid when one has actually had those experiences. So how do those whose subjective experience is only through one religion justify their belief? Justify to whom? You? Why is that necessary for them to hold their own beliefs? Such a person is justified in himself and also justified in offering his beliefs to you if you want to consider them. He is not justified, however, in insisting his beliefs are true and another's false when that other person feels no need and is convinced his are better. Also, the limits of his experience or lack of knowledge of the evidence does not mean the person is wrong in his choice of belief. It is possible to be correct in one's choice the first time and fully benefit from the fact of its correctness without being able to explain it fully. For others justification is a continuing process. One has to stand somewhere in evaluating his own beliefs against those of others. For me Christianity has never run out of answers. I only run out of time to find them :-). We all stand where we do by faith. None of us knows all the facts, or has enough time in life to know them. The faith we have in our own positions is either justified or weakened by our examination of them in light of opposing positions. Of course, the personal relationship one has with his God is included. I think Christianity has this advantage over other religions. As an example, the Jehovah Witnesses I have talked with can really test you with their theology, but when you ask them what God is like they fall apart. A god with a personality isn't included in their religion. In your points above why didn't you include one for comparing sets of beliefs philosophically or theologically? I think the best comparisons can be made in those areas. }[Dave] replied to one of my statements by writing }>I do not think that the evidence [that Jesus existed] is so weak. }>See Josh McDowell's "Evidence >that demands a verdict". Albright has some }>good stuff for archeology-oriented people. } }I find this sort of reply really disheartening because you ignored the rest of }the paragraph within which my statement occurred. The paragraph was } }>>>Christians point to certain historical evidence that Jesus actually } existed. That evidence is weak. Besides, the evidence that, say, Mohammed } existed is an awful lot stronger. BTW, there is even better evidence for the } existence of the Rev. Moon. That doesn't make the Moonies' claims for him } true. } }You see, David, suppose the historical evidence for the existence of Jesus }was just as strong as the evidence today for the existence of the Rev. Moon. }That would not make Christians' claims about Jesus' divine nature true. Are you playing with words here, Daryel? I don't think the point is proving the mere existence of Jesus, Moon, or anyone else. Take a look at Mc Dowell's "Evidence" books. They are an anthology of references from the work of many others. The issue is not only the existence of Jesus (which I think is more than adaquate) but also *who* he was. Well I guess I can rest now and accept the label of failure with respect to the answer to Daryel's question. Failure is not always fatal, or even harmful. When is it going to be your turn to justify your beliefs on the same basis? And what will you do if you fail? -- Paul Dubuc {cbosgd, ihnp4} !cbscc!pmd "The true light that enlightens every man was coming into the world..." (John 1:9)
dsaker@iuvax.UUCP (06/04/84)
[] 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. 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. In my original note, I pointed out that this question could be posed to quite generally, but that I was directing it to christians because that was the context in which the discussion of objective and subjective evidences for religion had arisen. Please note, Paul, that in that discussion the terms "objective evidence" and "subjective evidence" were being treated as understood. (Before you attack me for not defining my terms, you should look at the context in which the discussion arose.) 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. 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. 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. 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. 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 the discussion, christians had pointed to various subjective evidences (primarily their own sense of spiritual growth and of having their lives come together) as supporting christianity. Others had pointed out that followers of other religions lay claim to similar subjective evidences, that they too claim a sense of spiritual growth, of moving towards the truth, of having their lives come together. 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. 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. 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.) 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.) 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? 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! You see, in the original discussion (from which all of this sprang), christians had claimed that the reference in Josephus to Jesus was evidence for christianity. Now, that reference in Josephus only states that a Jesus exists; it says nothing about his divine status. (BTW, it is my understanding that the reference is now considered to be a later interpolation into the true text.) If you want me to explain any of my beliefs, then just ask me and I will give it a try. If I find that I have a belief that I can't justify, then I will freely admit it. (And maybe I will drop it.) Daryel Akerlind ...ihnp4!inuxc!iuvax!dsaker