dsaker@iuvax.UUCP (05/05/84)
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. (This question can also be posed, in a suitably
modified form, to believers in other religions, but it has usually been placed
in a Christian setting, and so I will also place it in that setting.)
The question can be put as follows:
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. Please don't give me any silly
quips like "The difference between Christianity and other religions is that
Christianity is true" or "Christian belief doesn't need justification".
Please don't play games with the wording of my question. You understand the
sort of thing I am asking. Please answer me.
In the rest of this note, I want to expand upon the question.
Christianity lays claim to miracles and faith healing. So do other religions.
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.
Christians say: "If Jesus wasn't a miraculous figure, why would his followers
have believed in him?" The same thing applies to leading figures in other
religions.
Christians claim that (sometimes) their prayers are answered. Followers of
other religions make the same claim. Besides, prayers are only answered
sometimes. When Christians pray for a terminally ill person, sometimes the
person lives, other times they die.
The most convincing evidence, in a Christian's mind, is probably subjective.
The Christian feels that Christianity is true, observes their life coming
together where it used to be a shambles, feels themself growing spiritually.
I can understand someone (initially) being convinced by this. If it works, it
must be true, right? But then followers of other religions are saying the
same things. Their religion works too. This makes me doubt whether a
religion working for somebody has anything to do with the truth of that
religion. Some Christians say: "I tried Buddhism, but it didn't work;
Christianity does." But some Buddhists say: "I tried Christianity, but
it didn't work; Buddhism does." I can understand that a Christian's feeling
of certainty can be very strong, but surely the fact that others have such a
feeling of certainty about quite different beliefs makes that Christian
question the meaning of their own feeling of certainty.
So, please, you Christians out there, explain to me honestly and openly how
you deal with these challenges. If you just shut your eyes, say so. If your
personal conviction is just too strong for you to doubt it, say so.
Come on, all I want is an honest answer.
Daryel Akerlind
...ihnp4!inuxc!iuvax!dsakerrjb@akgua.UUCP (R.J. Brown [Bob]) (05/07/84)
The "Challenge" of Daryel Akerlind is difficult to meet.
My personal Christianity is not objective to the degree
that Daryel or I would like, i.e. parts of it are not
thoroughly rational.
How can I rationally discuss that "I know" something to be
true with an almost infinite certainty. That experience
has been mine on several occasions and proven to be true
on items that I should have objectively had zero knowledge.
Anyway, even what I just wrote is fraught with subjectivity.
Of course, nobody is required to be a Seeker of Truth but I
notice that many of the Skeptics of the Net appear just plain
hostile to faith, supernatural things, religion in general,
and Christianity in particular (probably because of majority
status in the culture). Certainly it would make for dull
reading if Rich and the Agnostic Hordes just rolled over and
played dead, but I detect a meanness of spirit in a lot of
what passes for skepticism.
"By the way, this IS net.religion"
"How do you know that is true ? Where's your evidence?"
Bob Brown {...clyde!akgua!rjb}
AT&T Technologies, Inc.............. Norcross, Ga
(404) 447-3784 ... Cornet 583-3784tims@mako.UUCP (Tim Stoehr) (05/09/84)
> Of course, nobody is required to be a Seeker of Truth but I > notice that many of the Skeptics of the Net appear just plain > hostile to faith, supernatural things, religion in general, > and Christianity in particular (probably because of majority > status in the culture). Hostility is the wrong word, frustration is more like it. To explain what I mean, I'll give you a real example. Mr. Norris defies a scientific explanation of the creation of the universe because it does not explain the creation of hydrogen. OK, fine. The natural question to then ask Mr. Norris is to explain how God was created. His answer will be that your question does not make sense or cannot be answered scientifically, thus avoiding the same type of question that is staunchly used to defend Christianity. Now, THAT is frustrating. In other words, I am told that God exists, is everywhere, is omniscient, omnipotent etc. yet I can see no evidence anywhere, then I'm told that I'm not looking in the right way for the right things, and on and on and on. Naturally, it frustrates people when they are given arguments, NONE of which, can be shown to be true or false, which I believe is the case of arguing for God's existence, even though the likelihood seems extremely low to me. > Certainly it would make for dull > reading if Rich and the Agnostic Hordes just rolled over and > played dead, but I detect a meanness of spirit in a lot of > what passes for skepticism. "Agnostic hordes?", "roll over and play dead?" You sound a bit mean and hostile yourself, unless of course, it's just skepticism. > "By the way, this IS net.religion" > "How do you know that is true ? Where's your evidence?" It says so at the top of the article. Also, I found the article in /usr/spool/news/net/religion/1643. The article is therefore net.religion, therefore I was "in" net.religion when I read it. If only there was as convincing evidence to support christianity's claims.
emjej@uokvax.UUCP (05/17/84)
#R:iuvax:-170001900:uokvax:8300058:000:528 uokvax!emjej May 16 18:58:00 1984 What, skepticism having majority status in the culture? Perhaps the subculture of the net, but my memories of the folks who have had their person and property threatened because they did not want their children to participate in prayer in schools are too vivid to let this one slide. With creationists, ESPoids, astrologists, Velikovskians, and von Daenikanites raking in the dough, you really think that skepticism is popular in the modern world? Surely you jest. "what are now religions were once cults" James Jones
rjb@akgua.UUCP (R.J. Brown [Bob]) (05/21/84)
Oh why don't you roll over and play dead ! :-)
Bob Brown {...clyde!akgua!rjb}
AT&T Technologies, Inc.............. Norcross, Ga
(404) 447-3784 ... Cornet 583-3784