Original Caption: "A missionary of the Middle Ages tells that he had found the point where the sky and the Earth touched..."
Cosmologies
This is an illustration called the Flammarion Woodcut, depicting the ancient understanding of the world. A traveler has reached the end of the (flat) earth, and peers through the sky to see the heavenly dimensional plane beyond.
Living in our post-Enlightenment age with our 21st-century sensibilities, we cannot truly appreciate these old cosmologies. We take for granted that the earth is round, in a heliocentric universe. Sure, we know that peoples in the past did not always believe this—but we do not fully appreciate how genuinely prevalent and sophisticated these cosmologies were. (Plato records that Socrates spoke of different levels of horizontal earthly realms, with different people-groups inhabiting each.)
In the ancient Near East, it went without saying that the earth was of course flat. The land was disc-shaped, surrounded by vast waters. Beneath the earth were pillars that supported the land, and held it up in place. The sky was a tremendous dome, called a “firmament” or “vault,” which was completely solid. It is described in ancient literature as a “pavement” or “stone,” and its blue color is ascribed to it being like “sapphire” or “lapis lazuli.” Surrounding the perimeter of the land was a tall mountain range, and the sky’s dome rested and was supported on the peaks of these mountains.
This solid vault of the sky also held waters above it, which would periodically be released when the rains fell. Precipitation would come through “windows” or “gates” in the sky. The celestial bodies (sun, moon, and stars) would travel in mapped-out circuits across the firmament, rising and setting in patterned fashion. Finally, above the pavement of the sky was the heavenly domain of the deities, where they reigned above and made their abode.
The Old Testament
Most interestingly, we see this same cosmological language used within the Old Testament itself. In an otherwise confusing passage, this understanding of ancient Near Eastern cosmology helps us better interpret the creation account:
And God said, “Let there be a vault between the waters to separate water from water.” So God made the vault and separated the water under the vault from the water above it. And it was so. God called the vault “sky.”
Ancient Cosmology Illustrated
This references how “waters” came to be “above” the firmament of the sky, according to the understanding of the time. Proverbs says that God “made firm the skies above” (8:28), and Job corroborates: “Can you, like him, spread out the skies, hard as a cast metal mirror?” (37:18). This cosmology also helps us interpret what we would otherwise call “poetic” language, when God sends the great flood: “the fountains of the great deep burst open, and the windows of the sky were opened” (Gen 7:11).
Perhaps most striking is the account of Moses and the elders climbing Mount Sinai, after receiving the 10 Commandments:
Then Moses and Aaron, Nadab, and Abihu, and seventy of the elders of Israel went up, and they saw the God of Israel. There was under his feet as it were a pavement of sapphire stone, like the very heaven for clearness. (Ex 24:9-10)
Another translation reads, “a pavement made of lapis lazuli, as bright blue as the sky.”
In the opening passage of Ezekiel, we read, “Then there came a voice from above the vault over their heads… Above the vault over their heads was what looked like a throne of lapis lazuli” (1:25-26).
According to this cosmological understanding of the time, God’s throne was above the firmament of the sky, and above the heavenly waters, in the heavenly domain above. It is for this reason that the psalmist writes, “Yahweh sits enthroned over the flood; Yahweh sits enthroned forever” (29:10).
Contemporary Significance
Obviously, this poses tremendous questions for anyone who takes the Old Testament as holy scripture. These passages are often described as “poetic language,” or the more sophisticated “phenomenological language,” simply meaning that things are described as they are observed. But the fact of the matter is that the Bible is a very, very, very, very old book—and as we hold our laser-printed English translations, we cannot appreciate the distance between our world and the world of the authors of scripture. And for the ancient world in which these texts were written (and intended to be read), these descriptions are exactly how they understood the world to really be in reality.
What is important to note here is that Yahweh does not offer an alternative cosmology to the prevailing worldview of the day. And perhaps more significantly, Yahweh does not deem it necessary to correct these ideas about the universe, which are, according to post-Enlightenment standards, demonstrably false. God does not explain that the “firmament” is in fact an “atmosphere,” or some such thing.
Does this mean that the Bible contains elements that are in fact false? If we expect the Bible to be a modern, post-Enlightenment, scientific book, then these passages are indeed difficult to reconcile with a contemporary scientific understanding of the universe. However, if we understand that the Bible is an ancient text, and take the Bible on its own terms, then these elements are to be expected, and are not problematic whatsoever.
What, then, do we make of these phenomena?
These texts demonstrate that God wants us to be with him. God wants to reconcile ourselves to him, and wants to reveal himself to us in ways that we will understand. And he is so resolute on making this happen that he is willing to stoop down to us in our time, place, language, culture, and context, and speak in the street-lingo that we are familiar with and can understand. Just as today God does not speak to us about intricacies of quantum physics that we cannot understand, so too, he speaks to the ancients in language they can understand.
These texts are not “blemishes” on the Bible that we should explain away. These are the very texts that reveal the glory of God: a God who loves us, a God who condescends himself to us, a God who becomes one of us. He is a God who “made himself nothing, taking the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men; and being found in human form, he humbled himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross.” These texts are a testimony to the gospel.
†
[...] the collaborative blog that I contribute to, “Dust and Light.” It is titled, “The Gospel According to Ancient Near Eastern Cosmology,” a title which I was quite pleased [...]
Thanks for the background information on the Ancient cosmological theories – very nice summary of some very complex thoughts.
I suppose it all comes down to what has already been mentioned on this blog – holding onto some things with a looser hand than others. For example, I believe that Adam and Eve truly were the first created people, for a variety of reasons. Yet I don’t have a problem with Christians who choose to believe that God decided to begin things with something as imaginative as evolution. Something so time-consuming and unlikely as a single-cell organism transforming through the lost ages of time into human beings seems very much like something a endlessly patient, creative God would enjoy demonstrating his power through.
My point is, however we choose (or are able) to understand the workings of God, we can never allow ourselves to forget who he is, and who we are. Someone who clings to the written words of God as his ‘Manual for Living’ (as I’ve heard it called, along with ‘Basic Instructions Before Leaving Earth’ and numerous other useless catchphrases ranging in cleverness and brevity), yet does not take the time to get to know the Almighty being himself, is in real danger of missing the forest for the trees.
Good stuff, Chach. Our long discussion on Theologica was good. It was good to talk through some of the questions surrounding a very detailed understanding in regards to inerrancy. In the end, and I am sure you would agree, I don’t think the Bible has error (the whole one or two angels, one or two demoniacs, science, history, etc). But we must keep it in perspective to its purpose as given through the authors whom God used.
So, in the end, we must conclude that the Bible is incarnational, as was the Son. (I’m surprised you didn’t use the word ‘incarnational’ in this article, your favourite word.) He condescends and comes to our level. Calvin called it God’s ‘baby talk’. Amazing to ponder!
Steve S.—
“I don’t have a problem with Christians who choose to believe that God decided to begin things with something as imaginative as evolution. Something so time-consuming and unlikely as a single-cell organism transforming through the lost ages of time into human beings seems very much like something a endlessly patient, creative God would enjoy demonstrating his power through.”
I am tremendously open on adopting scientific advance, because I firmly believe that scientists simply study God’s “general revelation” in the same way that theologians study God’s “special revelation” in the scriptures. But because I have been raised in conservative American (fundamentalist) culture, I have it ingrained within me to be hostile toward evolution by default. But I am beginning to relax a little, and I think you phrased it here so well that you may have just now convinced me
. Haha!
I feel somewhat chastised, though, because I thought “Basic Instructions Before Leaving Earth” was quite clever
. Shoot! 
ScottL—
“In the end, and I am sure you would agree, I don’t think the Bible has error.”
I definitely agree with you, but we have to define “error.” Evangelical scholars would actually call this “error.” Evangelical scholars argue that (a) the cosmology of the ancient Near East is obviously wrong, and not the way the world really is (which we would agree). But then the evangelical scholars go on to say that (b) therefore, because the Bible is inerrant according to post-Enlightenment 21st-century standards, it cannot contain any of this ancient Near Eastern cosmological language, because this cosmology is wrong.
So we have to define “error,” and “inerrant.” If we define “inerrant” by saying that the Bible is perfect according to God’s standards and expectations, I firmly believe the Bible is perfectly inerrant. But if we define “inerrant” as meaning that the Bible has to be a manual for a 2004 Honda Civic, then the Bible is wildly and completely errant, and full of errors. And in the same vein, if we define “inerrant” as meaning that the Bible has to meet standards that it was never intended to (post-Enlightenment 21st-century standards), then I also believe the Bible is completely and wildly errant and full of error.
Because the simple fact of the matter is that the Bible does indeed report this ANE cosmology. But what’s more important is that this is not a problem, it is the glory of God! He speaks to us in ways we will understand.
G. K. Beale wrote a brand new book, “The Erosion of Inerrancy in Evangelicalism.” He explicitly addresses these issues I raise in this blog post, and argues directly against this. He says that the Bible doesn’t “really” use the cosmology of the ANE period, because this would be “wrong.” Therefore, it’s “phenomenological” language, describing things “as they appear.” But this is a gross mishandling of the data. And I think G. K. Beale is really, really cool, by the way. But the fact is that the Bible says that the sky separated the oceanic waters below from the heavenly waters above (for precipitation, as we see falling through “windows” in the flood). This is errant according to evangelical demands, but it is not errant according to a more reasoned expectation of scripture: that it should be “incarnational”
.
I was going to add Calvin’s “baby-babble-talk” line, but I was over my word limit
.
So, if I am forced to play on the turf of Evangelicalism, then I do not believe in the traditional doctrine of inerrancy, because I believe it is spawned from an Enlightenment-standard of historiography that the Bible is not concerned with. But if I can play on the turf of what I believe the Bible itself is claiming for itself, then I would believe in a modified doctrine of “inerrancy,” which I would argue is a far more biblical one.
Chach-
What I have noticed with our interaction with those on Theologica is there are a few phrases we have to be careful in stating, for the semantics are not lending themselves to help us agree, which I think we agree on more than we are willing to recognise. There are the two phrases:
1) Inerrancy is a post-Enlightenment idea. This might be mainly true, as in a technical definition of inerrancy that we saw in the Chicago Statement, but I think Rey quoted Augustine in the inerrancy thread I started, and it seemed to point to a more ‘modern’ idea of inerrancy. Thus, I think that when we claim that inerrancy is a more modern, post-Enlightenment idea, this will lose certain people. Such a claim will offend them, whether nobly or wrongly. So I would steer clear of simply claiming that inerrancy is a post-Enlightenment, modern view (albeit if you have ton’s of good citations you can refer to).
2) Most reasonable inerrantists do not claim that the Bible has to be in line with a 2004 Honda Civic manual in regards to inerrancy. They give accommodation for poetic language, phenomenological language, round numbers, cities being labeled in the text according to what they were called during the day that the text was being written rather than what they were first called (hope that made sense). And they would not see the one angel/two angel or one demoniac/two demoniac discussion within the Gospels as one writer missing the correct calculation, but rather highlighting that one angel was maybe a ‘lead’ in the interaction (as Paul had a lead when travelling with Barnabas), or give another explanation. So, all discrepancies or contradictions (as liberals would label them) are usually reasonably explained. And, to this, I would agree. I think they would even explain the ANE cosmology as not a recording of error, but God allowing that specific cosmological understanding to be recorded knowing that these people lacked scientific understanding, but He allowed it to be recorded to accommodate these people. Thus, it was not ‘error’ from their scientific perspective. So, this would be in line with what you are suggesting in your article above.
I think that challenging the typical evangelical box is noteworthy at times. It is good to ruffle feathers and make our boxes extend a little further. But it is also noble to try and find common ground.
Good stuff.
Scott, the modern notion of ‘fact’ and ‘error’ simply did not exist before the Enlightenment. Post-enlightenment ‘fact’ = that which is objectively and scientifically verifiable via neutral, autonomous reason. It is from Descartes, mostly. Nothing like this even existed before modernity, because there was no such notion of ‘autonomous reason’. Pre-modern sources, which are all in one way or another theological, tended to have a much fuller picture of the human self.
Even when terms like ‘fact’ and ‘error’ may have been used in pre-modern sources, they were spoken in a completely different context, which is alien to ours, and so meant something different. To our minds now, Augustine held to the doctrine of infallibility, not modern inerrancy, which is why he interpreted Genesis 1-2 allegorically.
[N.B. The idea that Augustine was a pre-cursor to Descartes in terms of his view of the self, which has been argued by some, is rubbish and has been shown to be so.]
Today, many streams of philosophy have debunked the Cartesian notion of ‘autonomous’ reason, and deem the pursuit for truly ‘objective knowledge’ futile. This would be anyone from Nietzsche to Heidegger to Derrida. This is why many people are returning to a more pre-modern, holistic view of the self and of knowledge. It is odd that only ultra-Darwinist atheists (e.g. Dawkins) and very evangelical Christians seem to be the only groups still sustaining the modern notions of objective fact and error without any kind of qualification. As Chachi said, we do indeed need to define ‘error’ better, and for me that means jettisoning the post-Enlightenment concept of error, and therefore the modern notion of inerrancy altogether. Some others may merely want to qualify these things, however.
Silly old semantics again
Thanks Simon. I like what you’ve put forth. I was just trying to guard against certain phrases that might keep us from moving forward in the discussion. As you know, evangelicals can get quite upset when someone challenges the idea of inerrancy in regards to Scripture. Most don’t realise such a minutely defined position comes to us post-Enlightenment. So I was just encouraging that dialogue be done on common grounds, at least on Theologica, though I don’t see any shifting taking place in most peoples view.
Great post Aaron. I like how you laid out the argument and I agree with your points.
I just realized that you weren’t on my bloglist on my blog. Welcome to the club (if there is such a club).
Chach -
I thought this article might be of interest that Marv posted on Theologica – Whey Genesis Chapter One Is Not Poetic.
Simon,
Your statement is demonstrably false. I think Aristotle believed in the correspondence theory of truth. I recommend that you read his “Categories”, “Analytics”, Metaphysics, and Physics. Of course “objective”facts did not come about until Descartes, but we know now that the enlightenment conception of “science” is outmoded also. Haven’t you ever heard of scientific anti-realism, or um… instrumentalism?
TReid, I’m afraid you seem to have missed the point by some way. My point was not about the correspondence theory of truth, or about ‘objective’ facts – obviously, that would be absolutely (ABSOLUTELY) absurd – but about the theory of the self and about Descartes’ conception of what constitutes knowledge and ‘facts’. The Cartesian ‘fact’, which is essentially the Enlightenment ‘fact’, is rooted in the Cartesian self. The Cartesian self (as I’m sure you’re aware) is a strict dichotomy of mind/body. The mind is autonomous from the body; man is *essentially* a ‘thinking thing’. Hence the notion of autonomous reason, the ‘view from nowhere’ – that we can somehow become detached from our mind/emotions, social context etc. and gain a fully objective view on reality. If you have read Descartes you will know that his whole project consisted in a pursuit of ‘absolute certainty’, to know something without any doubt whatsoever, according to this meter of autonomous reason. As such, he defined ‘fact’ incredibly narrowly as that which was ‘absolutely certain’ in this sense; something that was universally demonstrable according to autonomous reason. For Descartes, real knowledge consists of these kinds of ‘facts’ alone; he had a very sceptical view of what constitutes knowledge.
Given that this notion of autonomous reason has been largely debunked as a myth (Freud, Marx, Nietzsche, Heidegger, the ‘post’moderns etc.) we are left with two options. 1) Maintain the Cartesian concept of knowledge as consisting only in (absolutely certain, indubitable, universal) facts, and assert that, if that is the standard of knowledge, we can’t really know reality at all – everything is a mental or linguistic construct, relative; reality, if there is such a thing, is behind a veil (anti-realism and instrumentalism, loosely fit here; as would David Hume incidentally) OR 2) Throw away the Cartesian concept of knowledge entirely and be a little more generous epistemologically – that while we cannot gain this ‘view from nowhere’ that Descartes wanted, that does not mean we don’t ‘know’ anything, or that we can’t be realists (or qualified realists).
Thing is, I want to get away from Descartes’ system (and he is a bit of placeholder, because there are others involved too, but for the sake of brevity…), but if I go with option (1) I have not really got away from him, I have just said he was wrong about autonomous reason; I am still playing by the rules of his game. I have to go for option (2) to get away from him, and this leaves us a much broader notion of ‘knowledge’ to work with – one which does not set such stringent epistemological guidelines. I think THIS notion of knowledge, a broader more generous one, is what we find in the likes of Aristotle. Of course the ancients believed in objective facts (I think you’re wrong there) and a realist correspondence theory, but they didn’t claim that, in order to call these bits of knowledge ‘facts’, you needed to meet Descartes’ stringent guidelines of absolute certainty. One can be a realist without asserting that we have to have *absolute* certainty about what we know to be able to claim that we know anything at all; to affirm belief in an objective fact does not mean it has to utterly and strictly indubitable, according to Descartes framework. We may assert that a fact is objective, and is a description of reality, but that our knowledge remains necessarily subjective. That was where Descartes was so misguided. Indeed, this even takes us helpfully beyond Kant, who, while qualifying adjusting Descartes’ scheme, was still very much in the same ballpark.
This was what I meant when I said the modern notion of ‘fact’ and ‘error’ did not exist before the Enlightenment – that is not ‘demonstrably false’ at all. Of course the correspondence theory was held to before modernity – as I say, again, that would be STUPID to say otherwise. BUT that is to ENTIRELY MISS THE POINT, which was that these things were understood differently prior to Descartes and the Enlightenment.
Now the doctrine of inerrancy was born at the height of modernity, and thus adopted (unconsciously) the Cartesian/Enlightenment notion of fact. This means for the Bible to be factual it had to reach Cartesian standards of what a fact is – that which is universally demonstrable, by autonomous reason etc. In my opinion, the collapse of the Cartesian framework has rendered this ‘doctrine’ irrelevant and unhelpful. Of course, ‘inerrancy’ is just a name, and we could fill it with whatever content we wanted, but I think it has too much post-Enlightenment baggage. Which is why I think infallibility is far more helpful.
In short, you seem to have entirely missed the point. Unless I have missed your point. But thanks for the condescending tone, very helpful.
[...] post is my recent one, “The Gospel According to Ancient Near Eastern Cosmology,” posted at the collaborative blog that I contribute to, “Dust and [...]
The historic perspective, all the way back to Jerome who rejected a Hellenistic cosmology reading of Genesis 1, was that scripture spoke in terms of every day experience. We “see” a dome, in comparison the earth is flat, the sun rises. If your cosmological reading were true, then we should read OFTEN and CLEARLY of ancient cosmologies in scripture. Did they change over the 2000 years of OT writing. They had changed by the time of the NT. Was there a universal ancient cosmology? There was not. In addition if your theory is correct, there should be many references to the sun traveling at night under the earth and the moon traveling during the day under the earth in the Bible. If a cosmology is being taught rather than a description of the world I would expect far MORE clear references to that cosmology. But I do not see this. Am I missing something?
Casey: “If a cosmology is being taught rather than a description of the world I would expect far MORE clear references to that cosmology. But I do not see this. Am I missing something?”
Yes, you are missing something:
The cosmology is NOT being “taught.” It is being assumed.
When a pastor preaches about redemption, and mentions a story that involves the sun in the sky, he doesn’t “teach” about the atmosphere and astronomy. He assumes everyone knows that, and carries on with his true message, about redemption.
Even the Patristic fathers at the time of the NT held this same cosmology. John Walton, “Ancient Near Eastern Thought and the Old Testament,” there are many passages from letters and writings that mention this cosmology.
Are you serious? God did not tell them the truth back then because he wanted to put it in terms they’d understand. Dude, please tell me you are not serious. That is hilarious. Even more entertaining is all the folks commenting that bought it. Wow, I expected a more interesting conclusion. God is so sweet, I would never have guessed.
And you told me it is the literalists who twist to make things fit !
Hi Sabio,
For example. If there is a God (and I know you are an atheist), and he wanted to speak to Sabio, how would he do it?
Would he speak to you in Mandarin? Or Lebanese? Or in fact would it likely be English, if he in fact wanted to actually communicate with you?
Moreover, if English, would he speak to you in 14th century English? Or 29th century English? Or in fact, would it likely be 21st-century English, in order to actually communicate with you?
First, it is not silly to say that God spoke to people in terms they would understand.
Second, you are mistakenly assuming that God is trying to teach them about the sky/firmament/atmosphere. But this is incorrect. God isn’t trying to teach about the sky, he’s trying to teach about redemption. The sky/atmosphere just is a means to an end.
In which case, it is not a significant detail to expound on the details of an “atmosphere” to simply explain that “God made the sky.”
As another example, let’s say that God wanted to speak to Sabio today, and redeem you. Would God have to explain to you 29th century astro-physics and quantum mechanics to talk to you about redemption? Of course not.
Similarly, God doesn’t need to explain an “atmosphere” to people to talk about his true intention: redemption.
Sabio, amidst your laughter you failed to make any kind of substantive point.
In order to communicate to anyone we have to put it in terms they’d understand. Finding out how to do that is *the* task of communication. That you find this absurd in relation to God has nothing to do with the point made; it has everything to do with the fact you disbelieve in God. That’s fine, but for any orthodox Christian it really is not a contentious point.
@Simon, you are right, I actually knew when I was writing that it was not substantial. It was late at night and I was just surprised by the article. I hadn’t heard that spin. I have heard Christians try to say that the Hebrew description did not say what it appears and is actually accurate (that one is painful). I have heard some Christians say the Bible is myth but we are to try and learn the themes, not the details. But I never heard this one where, “Yeah, it is weird, but God spoke in their terms”.
@Aaron, nice defense. I just really don’t see any god communicating at all. (But I am sure you get that). By golly, we can clearly see when humans are communicating and you are proposing a god ! A god’s communication should be undeniable — even Simon is asking me for better communication.
If a god were interested in communication it would not take much imagination to expect many orders of magnitude improvement in communication. Not all this apparently subtle stuff that we have to argue about.
If prayer is communication and answered prayer is the communication, we have no evidence of it. If miracles is communication, we have no present evidence of them. If a book is written by a god, we could expect much much more of it.
Yes, I may be putting much expectations on a god and reading my stuff into it, but wasn’t I suppose to be made in her image?
In my fervent Christian days, I thought I heard god. But I fooled myself and I squinted my eyes and had one-way-conversations with all the others who played along. But there was never any real communication. We just use that word to describe the psychological tricks we were pulling.
Mind you, I think having a make-believe friend, if done well, can be very healthy. I perhaps you boys are doing it well too. But come on, a god writes a whole creation myth in order to communicate and does that poorly — he could have gotten the order right, and even the process right. How tough is that? It would not have confused us. It would not have been speaking Lebonese to me.
Sabio, thanks, that’s more helpful. A few points; just thoughts really.
1) What you seem to be wanting from God is an account of the world that is accurate according to contemporary science. But what if that’s not the issue, what if God’s not all that concerned with what we think about how round the earth is, what order things were made, and is simply concerned with our knowing we are *created* beings, meant to be in communion with their Creator? By judging these ancient texts by contemporary science (which is valid in some respects) you seem to be missing the point, which is that God’s communication is not that they may know more *about the world* (how it came to be etc.), but that they may know him (I’ll use the orthodox ‘him’ for now; I apologise if that’s awkward for you [genuinely]), and by knowing him may know more fully themselves as created beings.
2) Related to this, given that we Christians believe that sin has made us stubborn towards God, I see no problem with God using the ‘subtle stuff’ that you mention to reveal himself. Again, the alternative seems to be God making himself obvious to us in an objective fashion. That, though, doesn’t address the relationship issue, it would simply make us aware if his existence. Perhaps God’s subtlety in his self-revelation is because he must only be ‘found’ by those who truly ‘seek’ (again a basic Christian notion). Also, speaking from a detached perspective, the subtlety and mystery of the whole thing makes it far more romantic, poetic, beautiful than any kind of brash, heavy-handed or obvious self-revelation. As something of an aesthetic, that is far more attractive to me; there seems more truth and beauty in it.
3) Answered prayers and miracles are simply not God’s communication. That is a typical Western capitalist view of God as a vendor of spiritual goods there to give us what we want. The point is not so much answered prayers as it is the act of praying; the act of communing with God and the contemplative and meditative posture that this requires. God is indeed far more subtle than one who simply gives us what we want when we ask, unless what we are asking for is him. [As a side note, I would dispute that miracles don't happen anymore. That is a Western belief, and is not evidenced anywhere else around the globe. In fact, the miraculous and the supernatural are largely assumed anywhere but the West, and not just in Christian contexts. That is not because non-Westerners are 'less advanced' or 'less scientific' (a shockingly snobbish and colonial suggestion) but because their worldviews are more rounded, and include the spiritual. The dominant materialism of the West is to me deeply reductionist and oppressive, and this is why, in the UK at least, there is a renewed and rapidly increasing interest in spirituality].
Simon,
Thanks for writing. You gave me some substantial things to actually work with.
No , I don’t want a god to give me “an account of the world that is accurate according to contemporary science.” I just want evidence from god-declarers of their claims — god-declarers say their god communicates. I want a way to test communication from no communication and see if it works. We know how to do it with people. I do it almost everyday as I visit my patients who are hospitalized (most of them in their 70s or older).
If your god wants us to communicate with him, he could have made us Angels, right their in heaven but given us will (apparently in some Christian cosmologies, Angels are deficient is some aspect to limit their tightness with the creator). We would have been closer, we would see all the amazing stuff plainly and we could have focused on the relationship stuff you feel is at the core of this. Seriously, there are so many better ways of doing this , and I am merely a mortal. Can’t you feel your mind bending to make all this work?
You proceed with 3 defenses of “Why my god is subtle”
1) Our fault
Ah, yes, sin makes us get the watered-down (subtle) revelation — it is our fault. I say, “Hey, a god could do better than this !” and you say, “Yeah, OK, this form of revelation sucks, but it is our fault.” OK, end of that discussion. Imagine that none of your story is true, then your sort of explanations are exactly what we would expect. You’d be deeply critical of them if they were the arguments of a religion you disagreed with. You’d never let this sort of argument fly.
2) Test Our Faith
Ah, yes, the “God is subtle to test our faith” argument. Only those with enough “faith” — meaning those willing to believe without real evidence. Wow, that is the sort of folks he treasures? See last 3 sentences in paragraph above.
3) Wants to Keep it Poetic
Love this one. Your god wants it romantic, beautiful and not brash. So he cloaks it in weird mythologies when he could have given simple yet closer to reality ones if he wanted. He just did not want to bore his audience. That is fantastic !
Finally you end with: Prayers and Miracles are for Capitalists !
Your god adopted text by writers who told us Jesus said prayers are answered if we have faith. But since you know they aren’t answer you are now twisting it into — well, it is just the act of praying that is important. Seriously !
It is not a Western belief that miracles don’t happen. Your “Western Belief” stereotype is a classic, just like your “Capitalist” screams. You expect that just by using those words you gain credibility. You might want to change your Rhetoric — I lived in Asia for 12 years and speak a few languages and am a free market person. (even your American buddy, Art, on finitum non capax infiniti, is a libertarian — we share that). Yes, much of the world assumes miracles — they are disproportionately uneducated, poor and desperate — the perfect audience for nonsense. It is not a Western thing at all. We have the same thing in our Appalachian Mountains ! (smile) Oooops, was I just Colonial and Snobbish ! Shame on me. Research shows that education level is proportional to belief in miracles. But you could argue that it is because the education makes you stupid — and you’d be partly right. For education gives someone the skill to obfuscate, which makes discussing this stuff with Educated Christians a greater challenge (smile). I love your Marxist Margaret Mead idealism that sees the non-western worldviews as “More Rounded”. Boy, you have a lot of stuff packed in with your theology ! (smiling)
Have a good day Simon (I must say, I enjoy your writing style — full of mystery and poetic)
I have no idea why someone like yourself would want to spend your time writing nonsense on a theology blog. Surely you have better things to do. Again, a complete lack of substantive argument (or, this time, coherency) hidden under a light mist of ridicule and condescension. You simply took what I said and characterised it as easy to dismiss straw men arguments.
I have no idea who Art is.
That you see the rest of the world as poor, uneducated and desperate and *therefore* as the ‘perfect audience for nonsense’ shows your incredible naïveté. The old secularization thesis (as society develops, religion declines) is shockingly outmoded. Only in America could you even get away with saying that. There is a substantial return to religion going on in (secular, scientific) Europe in both the general populous and among academics. Dawkins/Hitchens and their brand of fundamentalist modernism are the atheist reaction to that.
Sabio, I’m surprised at your responses here, given that your blog, which I just looked at, seems reasonably intelligent.
Simon — no sure what you consider nonsense except the politically correct stuff. But trust me, I am well aware that I often generate nonsense. Off to exercise and then the hospital. Good Day mate.
Sabio:
“A god’s communication should be undeniable”
“If a god were interested in communication it would not take much imagination to expect…”
“If a book is written by a god, we could expect much much more of it. ”
“he could have gotten the order right, and even the process right.”
“I want a way to test communication from no communication and see if it works.”
“he could have made us Angels…”
This is the crucial mistake: expectation. If God is the one in charge, then why do we dictate the expectations God must jump through in order to communicate to us?
Sabio, from the tone and condescension in your posts, it doesn’t seem like you’re genuinely interested in dialoging on this issue…
For me, I would say it is absolutely astounding that God would even want to communicate with me/us. Even setting aside the whole sin thing, who am I? Who are we?
My first child was born 5 days ago. I realise that he is absolutely helpless. Yet each and every day I talk to him in baby talk and ga ga’s to show that I am interested in a relationship. And I think that is what God does with us. He kind of stoops down and speaks baby talk with us. We wouldn’t understand the full out God talk, and he knew it. So he spoke in a simple way that we could grasp.
I find that kind of illustration astounding.
Wheeeew, long week, eh ! Happy Weekend !
@ Aaron: Curious focused question, I wonder if what you consider my tone problem comes partially from the way I phrase things.
For example, I would say , “your god”.
I would hope putting the word into small letters and not talking about one god is OK.
How should atheists talk to Muslims, Hindus, Mormons and more about their god?
Does anyone feel that is offensive?
@ Simon: I write on sites like this because I actually like dialoguing. I am not ginger, but I actually learn stuff and it helps me catch up on the way non-literalists think (which remains a puzzle to me). Don’t get me wrong, I feel non-literalists are much closer to my position that the fundies.
You said, “There is a substantial return to religion going on in (secular, scientific) Europe in both the general populous and among academics.”
Is your word “substantial” easily substantiated? Curious. And I wonder what role immigrants have in the increase. Would you happen to know.
Sabio, I don’t feel your use of “your god” was offensive; I didn’t find anything you said offensive, particularly. I felt you tended to misrepresent what I and Aaron were saying somewhat, reducing it to rather stereotyped and shallow statements that anyone with half a brain could easily dismiss.
Re. Europe. First – academically: I am referring, for instance, to the ‘turn to religion’ or the ‘theological turn’, in French phenomenology and continental philosophy in general. This is obviously not a return to ‘orthodoxy’ necessarily (though sometimes it is), but is a definite renewed interest in the transcendent and the divine from anyone from Derrida, Marion, Nancy, Michel Henry, Ricouer and, more recently, a renewed interest in Christian theology from atheists such as Badiou and Zizek (much more sophisticated in their rejection of theism than, say, Dawkins or Hitchens), or an agnostic such as Giorgio Agamben. This is definitely a continental rather than analytic trend in philosophy, and therefore much more evident in academic departments in Europe than the States. One of my tutors, a theologian/philosopher called John Milbank said in class a while back that in France today 40% (ish) of academics are now either practising Jews or Christians. I can’t verify that here, but all of the above does indicate an opposite situation to the States, where the mainstream academy is very highly secularized and, like yourself, tends to associate religious belief with make-believe, ignorance and a lack of education (my father-in-law is a history professor at MSU and a Christian, and works with mostly atheists). That is decreasingly the case here among intellectuals and academics, even though (perhaps because?) religious belief has been in radical decline among the general populous since the ’50s.
There has also been a much more concerted effort from certain newer and postmodern Christian schools of thought to engage in a more sophisticated way with society. Radical Orthodoxy for instance is very politically and economically minded, but not in the block-headed Religious Right kind of way, and has been influential, READ THIS for instance (much prettier link, you’ll agree). They are not the only ones.
Secondly, re. the general populous: a return to spirituality of various types has been in evidence in the UK for a long time, and is widely documented. This comes in many forms, often (not always) unrelated to ‘institutional’ forms of religion, taking on a more syncretistic personal mix-and-match type thing: bits of paganism and new age spirituality (again, a huge increase in this kind of thing – including belief in the miraculous, angels etc.), perhaps some Buddhism, a certain qualified belief in Jesus, that kind of thing. Go to some towns in South West England (e.g. Glastonbury, Stonehenge area) where I’m from, and it’s like going back to pre-Christian times. Last time I was in Glastonbury I met a very well educated and nice man who believed a goddess lived in the nearby hill.
Charles Taylor’s recent book ‘A Secular Age’ charts this kind of thing. He himself argues that religion (defined widely) is certainly not on the decline in the West, and notes a return to spirituality in Europe among many regular people. Secularization theorists used to talk about the ‘American exception’ (America being the only developed nation still religious); that seems to have shifted to talk of the ‘European exception’ (the only society to have existed in human history without widespread belief in God since the 1950s-ish, and now seeing a resurgence in religious belief and a kind of re-enchantment when it comes to the spiritual). (E.g. HERE)
These are examples of what I mean, and not exhaustive, by the way. You will note that none refer to immigration in particular, though that has had an impact in a different way; the rise of Islam for instance has contributed to a more general re-politicization of religion. In response to your points about education I am referring mostly, however, to a shift among educated Europeans whose ‘default’ position could be considered agnostic or atheist and tending towards materialism (default position in the sense that their parents rejected religion, and they have been brought up irreligious, which is the case with my generation in the UK [e.g. there were two practising Christians out of 300 in my year group at school - a common situation - but many who had a much greater *interest in* and *openness to* spirituality or religion than their parents. A kind of post- or pre-Christian state, depending on your disposition]).
All that’s to say is that to me (and I’m not trying to appear arrogant here) your intimation that education results necessarily in secularization/decline in religious belief and the spiritual, and comments implying theists are essentially self-deceiving and a bit foolish with their “make believe friend”, seem pretty anachronistic and out of date. The kind of scientism which says we have no empirically verifiable evidence for miracles, therefore they don’t exist, is unconvincing to me and itself smacks of self-deception. Science and religion are not opposed to my mind, and science does not and cannot disprove religion, the spiritual or the supernatural; science has limitations, it is concerned with the material and the natural, but I don’t think that accounts for all of reality. Anyone who regards science as the final authority in all matters of life and reality (you may not, I don’t know – Dawkins et al do) can be critiqued in much the same way as a religious person, as Nietzsche saw. For me, the only alternative to religious belief, again following Nietzsche, is a kind of nihilism and certainly not an optimistic modernist humanism or scientism. This may be a hopeful nihilism, and all the better for it, but it remains nihilism nonetheless. Either all ends in something, or all ends in nothing. The person who believes the latter is no better off than someone who believes the former, nor should they be better respected, because neither claim can ever be properly verified. People of both views are worthy of intellectual respect, or disrespect, depending on the nature, not merely the content, of their beliefs.
[Sorry this is so long, it's late here and I tend to ramble when someone asks me a direct question. You may consider that a warning I suppose. That said, you also seem to be worth talking to, going by some of your blog stuff, not so much your comments here.]
Sabio
“I wonder if what you consider my tone problem comes partially from the way I phrase things.”
No, this is not problematic whatsoever =). I’m even happy to refer to God as “she,” if that suits your fancy. God doesn’t have a penis or vagina, and both sexes are made in the image of God. Scripture just calls him “he”
.
As Simon put it, “a complete lack of substantive argument (or, this time, coherency) hidden under a light mist of ridicule and condescension.”
Go back and reread your posts, if you are unconvinced. Any reasonable person will find it self-evident
.
@ Simon
“The kind of scientism which says we have no empirically verifiable evidence for miracles, therefore they don’t exist, is unconvincing to me and itself smacks of self-deception.”
I must say, I don’t understand this one.
Do you feel miracles, like those listed in your holy books, still happen?
Do you feel they have been documented in the last 50 years?
I was surprised by that one.
I feel many Christians often make empirical claims but scream “faith” when we ask how to test the claim.
Do you see that happen with some Christians?
@ Simon & Aaron
Don’t you guys ever wonder that if God is real, why does theology have to be so hard? Do you get my meaning?
I imagine you think your god is trying to reach the average person, but we know that average person has no clue about all these subtleties that theologians have worried about for centuries.
BTW, I don’t think my summary of your three defenses of why your god’s revelations are so subtle were exaggerations. I simplified them to take off all the word-spin, but I truly felt I was staying true to what you said.
BTW, I think your repeated accusations of “non-substantive” have a large “non-substantive” ring — many years ago I did my time in philosophy and I am familiar with name calling in philosophy terms.
Simon, can you hear your own condescension:
“your blog … seems reasonably intelligent”
“that anyone with half a brain could easily dismiss”
You said, “science does not and cannot disprove religion, the spiritual or the supernatural;”
You are wrong, but I truly feel you believe this. If religion makes an empirical claim (and it often does), then science can often test and prove wrong. Yes, some claims can’t be tested, but religion has made testable claims that have been disproved for centuries. You really need to look at that sentence again.
@ Aaron you said:
“If God is the one in charge, then why do we dictate the expectations God must jump through in order to communicate to us?”
You seemed to misunderstand. Theology is all about understanding the nature of a god. If you tell me the nature of a god, then we can have a better idea of what to expect of it. That is the whole point — to know the god. I am not declaring what a god must do, I am only predicting what we should expect after you tell the characteristics of your god.
May I humbly request more substantive responses than just “non-substantive” and “half-brained”?
Also: Jesus is now invisible to you. He is your friend. So he is your invisible friend. OK, you may say he is not my friend, but my lord. But you know what I mean. He is an invisible entity you talk to and ask favors of. My question, if my Indian friend talks to Krishna, my Buddhist friend talks to Amidha Buddha, my Catholic friend talks to Mary and my kid talks to an invisible Rabbit, how am I suppose to test the validity of any of those. I would imagine there is not test. Correct?
Wow, sorry too much in one post, eh?
@ Simon, you said:
“Answered prayers and miracles are simply not God’s communication. ”
Boy, I think that for a lot of Christians, answered prayers and miracles is a big part of their faith.
See this Christian blog from yesterday — they prayed for a Church and got one ! Wow ! I think you guys share blogging buddies.
I think you will see that in my “Monkey Religion” post I talk about a mystical, communal view of the divine that perhaps matches what you are hinting at. But you do pray for things don’t you? Don’t your Christian friends? I am very curious why you made this statement.
Hi Sabio,
Theology is all about understanding the nature of a god. [...] I am not declaring what a god must do, I am only predicting what we should expect after you tell the characteristics of your god.”
You’re exactly right, that is exactly what you are doing: predicting.
And that is the problem.
The problem is that you are making a priori assumptions that a god “should” or “would” do. But this is obviously silly, putting parameters on a god into ways it “should” work.
Apparently, you still didn’t get the memo about the condescending attitude. How are you demonstrating any capacity to even *think* when you are shouting such drivel?
Sabio -
I have appreciated your willingness to dialogue. It is hard to ‘read’ one another through typed medium. But I sense you are willing to talk this through.
“If God is the one in charge, then why do we dictate the expectations God must jump through in order to communicate to us?”
You seemed to misunderstand. Theology is all about understanding the nature of a god. If you tell me the nature of a god, then we can have a better idea of what to expect of it. That is the whole point — to know the god. I am not declaring what a god must do, I am only predicting what we should expect after you tell the characteristics of your god.
Sorry to harp on this, as Aaron has already tried to address this point, but I just wanted to share a thought or two on your statement above.
You are correct in that theology is simply ‘the study of God’, i.e., looking to understand his nature, who he is, how he acts, etc. So, in theology (from a Christian standpoint), theology is mainly substantiated through the Scripture text, though we would not rule out God’s revelation/communication through such general/natural means as creation, culture, etc. If he is actually ‘omnipresent’, then he is probably ok to communicate through any means necessary, which even Scripture testifies to.
But as we substantiate a specific characteristic of God, we have to be careful that we don’t read our expectations and personal understandings into that characteristic. Now, I am very aware that this is difficult to steer clear of – for me, for Simon, for Aaron, for you, for all of us. Yet we do need to guard against simply stating, ‘Ok God, if you are __________, then you must do it this way.’ Now, he might do so, but if he doesn’t, it does not substantiate him as a failure to live up to who he is. He just didn’t line up with our expectations.
As an example, we (at least Simon, Aaron and I) would say that one characteristic of God is that he is a communicating God. That is a bare essential for Christians if we simply just take the Scripture text as the base of that communication. But when I read the text, I see that God actually communicated at one point through a donkey (Num 22:22-35). Now, I could read such a story and demand that God must also communicate to me through a donkey or I shall not believe. Of course this example is absurd, but the point is that I have to guard against projecting onto God the expectation that he must communicate via donkey (or any animal) to me, though he might and could choose to do so.
So, the characteristic that God is a communicative God is by all means true if we take the Scripture text to be a reliable account of God’s revelation. But the expectation of speaking through a donkey is rather forced for every situation, though again, he can and may do so.
The same stands true in regards to mountains. The theme of mountains shows up some 300 times in the Bible. And, especially in the OT, God did a lot of communicating at, or through, mountains. The law was given at a mountain (Ex 19-20). Again, I can establish that God is a communicating God. But it would be silly to say that God must communicate in this one way for me to listen, mainly through mountains. If so, I could miss his communication through my own mother offering wise counsel into life.
So, I think it fair to establish that God wants to communicate with us, but that communication is somewhat varied, somewhat differing in regards to differing people within differing circumstances. I’m glad I don’t have to read the Scripture in Hebrew or Greek to really know God’s communication. I am glad I have a decent English copy to help understand his communication. We just have to guard against dictating the exact communicative rules and process of the one who does communicate.
As for substantiating miracles, I guess I could share a few real stories I’ve known in my own life (I mean what we would really call miracles). But who am I, right? You don’t know me. So, as for a record, if you ever wanted to check out this book – Megashift by James Rutz – he spends the first chapter chronicling and documenting some 40-50 major miracles, with footnotes to another 150-200.
Thanks again for the dialogue.
@Aaron
First, I am wondering if to you “condescending” mean, “he does not take my beliefs seriously”. Of course I strongly disagree with your beliefs — and you with mine. But I am trying to keep my argument style upright. I am trying not to call names. But as I wrote earlier, you are name calling. Name calling is not productive.
Please point out my “condescending” so I know how you use the word.
Here are examples of your name calling.
“any reasonable person” [read: you are unreasonable]
“shout such drivel” [dude, who is shouting ? ]
“any capacity to even *think*”
You might as well have screamed “aho, baka !” [smile, I take it you speak Japanese since you claimed to be Japanese]
Meanwhile, your Simon is doing the same as I wrote about.
Now, on to your question. Why do you study the nature of God? Why do you study the nature of anything? I thought prediction was part of the reason.
Hello Scott,
First, dude, a big, big congrats on the baby boy — good looking lad at that !
Now, thank you for your patient explanation. Here is my reply.
I absolutely agree that it is tough to not read in one’s expectations while exploring claims. Very tough. But it is a good exercise. And you boys are much much more invested in the particulars of your beliefs than I am. If I became a Christian (again) today, it would only improve my life — more friends, more community status, lots more books to enjoy and a way to hush the dualistic part of my brain ! But if you all rejected Christianity, it would turn your life upside down — I did it once, I remember. So I understand the problem of bias.
The ability to predict is a natural goal of trying to understand the nature of some phenomena or person. Theologians, pastors and such all try to understand the nature of their god. Now, if they find a Bible passage that illustrates a behavior that apparently contradicts the nature of their god that they had to-date understood, they have two choice:
1) Question the accuracy of the data (the scripture)
2) Question the accuracy of the theory (the nature of their god)
Much of the history of theology is born from such a struggle — in Hinduism, Judaism and Christianity.
When you told me that one of the traits of your god is that he is a communicative god, I now have to understand what you mean by “communicative”. Since you are making an empirical claim, I am looking for ways to test your statement. We know how we use that word in normal conversations about people — and it does not seem to apply. So now I have to understand your qualified use of the word “communicative”.
If you accept your scripture as literal, then everything said in there must be true and your theory of God’s communicativeness must catch all the stuff — donkeys talking, burning bushes, and the like. But I thought you guys were errant theologians. In which case, you can actually doubt the nature of the scripture much more easily. And I think it would be easier to do that than constantly have to redefine “communicative” or pad-up the nature of your god to take in all sorts of behaviors that seem to make the god appear just like an imaginary phenomena.
Humor me and take a look at it from my perspective for a second. How would made up stories about gods talking appear? Well, it should be easy for you to do. Since Christians only believe in one god, then they don’t believe in Krishna, Allah, Thor, and the like. Now, imagine how people who believe in these gods claim to hear their communicative god — you got it, they claim the same as you (surprise !). So how am I to separate these claims?
I agree with you. The theme of gods and spirits talking from mountains shows up not only your stories but in the stories of many, many religions. But remember, they have false gods by your account, thus the stories must be false. And I am sure Christian theologians could give in-depth stories about why they are false. And sure, they are false, of course they are false, their is no Krishna or Thor. The mountain phenomena tells me something about humans — they make the stories.
Now, if they aren’t meant to be claims but just emotive self-congratulations between believers and I should not subject them to rational thinking — that would be fine. But I don’t think that is what you feel you are doing.
You said,
“So, the characteristic that God is a communicative God is by all means true if we take the Scripture text to be a reliable account of God’s revelation.”
Why do you believe that?
You said, “I think it fair to establish that God wants to communicate with us,”
Again, you seem to be “declaring”, not “establishing”. “Establishing” has logical or empirical connotations to me.
Thanks for the reference to Megashift by james Rutz. I’ll see if I can read versions on-line.
I take it that you disagree with Simon (above) who said, ““Answered prayers and miracles are simply not God’s communication. ”
There are lots of folks out there debunking “miracles” too. Have you ever read or listened to them?
Enjoy Fatherhood — you sound like you will be a superb father — what a luck son !
Sabio, I apologise if I sounded condescending. Tone is difficult.
Re. this sentence: “science does not and cannot disprove religion, the spiritual or the supernatural;”
That you have a problem with this statement illustrates our disagreement, which is basically ontological and epistemological. I agree with the former head of the human genome project, a Christian, who ‘believes’ in science (obviously) but states that it is limited because only concerned with measuring and documenting material happenings. For modernist materialists this is no limitation, and science is therefore exhaustive (though for more postmodern materialists it is not). For anyone who affirms any kind of spiritual realm or force or whatever science is limited, however, because it can only measure and test certain things. The very premise from which scientific enquiry proceeds immediately brackets out the possibility of teleology, being only concerned with efficient causation; immediately brackets out the spiritual, being only concerned with the material. This makes it blind to the possibility of a spiritual dimension to life, which would obviously be non-material, cannot be reduced to ‘laws of nature’, is possibly teleological, and therefore cannot be ‘scientifically’ tested. Science not only brackets out claims to transcendence in its mode of enquiry (therefore bracketing out the axial religions), but also brackets out claims to immanent forms of spirituality (such as belief in some kind of life-force in nature e.g. paganism) because it denies any form of teleology. These are the presuppositions from which scientific enquiry proceeds which to me make it limited. I’d dispute that scientific enquiry is in any way ‘neutral’. It has intrinsic a-theological, a-spiritual, a-teleological presuppositions, which simply limit its claims on all reality. This does not, for me, endanger the whole scientific enterprise, it just recognises that it is limited in scope. This is not a particularly radical thought these days, either.
The whole point of my large comment above was to say that in educated Europe many are realising this limitation to science (both academics and normal people) and are therefore returning to spirituality in some sense or another. Many affirm science, but disagree that it can lay claim on all of reality. It is not considered intellectually naive to believe there is something more beyond the purely material, which scientific enquiry, by its nature, cannot touch. Well, it is, by some, but certainly not all.
Re. my comment:
“Answered prayers and miracles are simply not God’s communication.”
My point was simply that God has communicated prior to these things. Answered prayers and miracles are part of God’s work in the world to redeem creation, not his communication. My capitalist comment which you seemed to jump on was simply meant to show that Christians who feel they should always have prayers answered, or if they are unwell or sick they should always be healed (for instance), are missing the deeper reality that God is not there for our benefit, but we for his. And ultimately, following Augustine, we will be satisfied or fulfilled or whatever when “our hearts rest *in* him”, not when we have answered prayers or miracles *from* him. Also science could never account for miracles because they don’t function on a cause and effect logic (pray this: get this – rub the lamp: out comes the genie), but on a teleological basis concerning a deeper and more profound (for me, divine) purpose.
OK, finally, re. your point that theology is hard. Yes it is hard, and that’s OK. I think you and I would both agree that the pursuit of truth is hard. I do not disrespect your view or think you naive for holding it (though I disagree obviously, and having read your bio, think if you were at Wheaton today you might have simply ended up in the emerging church, though I don’t mean to undermine the integrity of your atheism by saying that. I just identified a lot with what you said about your Christian experience, but haven’t myself seen it necessary to give up my faith). I just feel you should not so easily dismiss what we’re saying, and should maybe stop looking for proofs for God. For me the Christian worldview accounts for what I see around me better than anything else; I think Christianity gives an accurate account of human nature and of why the world is as it is, and why I am as I am (And I don’t think you have to be a theologian to grasp that, though it has always been the task of theology to provide a rational defence for it). Of course, many aspects of this are provisional for me because I’m aware we only have small brains and very subjective perspectives and because reality is complex. There are a few things I’m settled on, the others I try and hold lightly and with humility, knowing I will never know them with absolute certainty (I’m not a Cartesian) in this life. I just think there’s a spiritual reality you’re discounting.
My point about “your blog … seems reasonably intelligent” (which was condescending I can now see), was regarding the intellectual humility you seem to show on your blog, which has been less in evidence in your comments here, that’s all.
Re. your question to Scott about miracles / communication, I’ll just retype this:
Re. my comment:
“Answered prayers and miracles are simply not God’s communication.”
My point was simply that God has communicated prior to these things. Answered prayers and miracles are part of God’s work in the world to redeem creation, not his communication.
Sabio -
Thanks for the congrats! It is amazing.
You stated:
Now, if they find a Bible passage that illustrates a behavior that apparently contradicts the nature of their god that they had to-date understood, they have two choice:
1) Question the accuracy of the data (the scripture)
2) Question the accuracy of the theory (the nature of their god)
At least from my standpoint, I am not sure I would claim that a Bible passage would contradict the nature of my God, since I believe it is His main source of revelation-communication.
Still, I always crack up at passages like 1 Kings 22:21-23 where God actually says he is going to put a lying spirit in the mouths of the prophets. But God is not a liar, right? That seems like Basic Christianity 101. But here is God doing the unthinkable to his enemies. Eesh! That hurts! (I might try and explain this by what theologians have called intrusion ethics, but that is a whole nother discussion.)
But I am not afraid of such a passage above from the OT. I think it was the Puritans that might have referred to God as the ‘Wild Goose’. He is a very, very scandalous God, quite unpredictable. Interestingly enough, I wrote 3 articles on this topic – The Scandalous God. This kind of stuff will mainly ruffle the feathers of Christians, not atheists and agnostics.
In regards to Genesis 1: If is not literal, my faith does not crash. Or, if God judges his enemies in a way that seems contrary to the nice-boy version of God, my faith is not questioned. He is so scandalous and unpredictable. Sure, that brings many questions with it as wel, but I am ok with the questions. And I think God is not afraid of questioning him. It is right throughout the Bible, especially in the poetic sections. But I also know I don’t know it all, and when I get a little agitated with God and mouth-off to him, I always remember Job’s words:
Behold, I am of small account; what shall I answer you?
I lay my hand on my mouth.
I have spoken once, and I will not answer;
twice, but I will proceed no further. (Job 40:4-5)
And this is from a book with a whole lot of questions, two main ones coming to mind: 1) Who had privy knowledge about that heavenly conversation between God and Satan that Job never even knew about himself? 2) Why is God talking with Satan at the throne?
Those questions are never ending.
In the end, we will not always be able to give hard-core empirical evidence for our faith, as any faith cannot do so, even faith in the empirical sciences. I think things can be studied and compared and considered reasonably. But it cannot all be put down to empirical evidence.
I think the foolishness of God’s Son becoming a man and dying for humanity is so outrageous, yet leaves me in awe and wonder. How does one empirically substantiate such a claim, one that even Paul would call heinous and foolish (1 Cor 1:18f). Most don’t like the implications of such, and I even don’t at times. It hurts like hell as they say. That means I gotta die as well and walk out this thing I see ultimately summed up in Jesus. Ouch!
In the end, I am all for comparing these things, trying to consider evidence (although it all won’t be so nicely labeled as empirical). The Scripture’s claim that it is God’s main communication tool cannot be solidified outside of the claim that it makes itself. You can’t substantiate this fully outside of its own claim. That can sound foolish in a post-Enlightenment world, but we cannot ultimately substantiate this claim through the sciences. I can show you that there were over 300 prophecies about Jesus that were fulfilled in his life, and that the probability of this is something like 1 X 10 to the 27th power, and this might peak someone’s interest. I could say let’s compare the Koran, Book of Mormon, Bible, etc, and see what seems most reasonable, for I think Christianity is reasonable, though not mainly empirically evidenced through the sciences, at least the science we understand now. But, in the end, even if I could show one video footage of Christ rising from the dead, one still has to come to a place of believing such. Empirical evidence does not make certain that we will change our beliefs.
Anyways, I go on and on. I hope this has helped understand my heart.
Finally, I would agree with Simon’s restatement: My point was simply that God has communicated prior to these things. Answered prayers and miracles are part of God’s work in the world, not his communication.
But I would add that God’s deeds are communicative. What we do is not completely inseparable from our words. And I think Simon would agree. So I understand Simon’s claim.
@ Simon
Dude, you can type !
I agree that science can not test everything.
I agree that psychological states are very hard to test. (you sometimes seem to include this in your notion of “spiritual”)
I agree that all scientists (Christian or Atheist …) are not neutral.
I DO feel the scientific method (which itself has evolved as we learn more and more about how humans sneak their bias into their “research”), AIMS at being objective.
So, I think we are close to agreement on your first paragraph !
I would agree also (2nd paragraph) that many intellectually sophisticated people (apparently more Europeans that Americans — you reports on this have been very interesting for me.) do have some sense of “spirituality”. In fact, many atheists would think that of me. Click here to seem my post called “Mystical Defects”, IF you are curious. I don’t know if you have read about my Buddhist notions of self and such (not that you should).
Gee, I would think some of your Christian colleagues would think that “answered prayer” is part of communication. Jesus (your god) tells his creation (well, John said he was a creator god) to pray.
“If you believe, you will receive whatever you ask for in prayer.” Matt 21:22
Of course I know you know this, but I would contend that most Christians look at prayer as communication. When my kids ask me for stuff and I give it or I don’t, we are communicating. But we need not belabor this because it is simply a word definition issue and words just agreed upon ways to communicate — so you can define “communicate” as you like. But, maybe you indeed have a unique theology of communication that I am not aware of.
Simon, it does not appear you read my “Monkey Religion” post I linked above. It may help us communicate on the notion of the need for answered prayer. My mystical side does not see the divine as a prayer grantor either and that attachment to such a view is mostly counterproductive. So we may agree in very odd ways. And maybe I am addressing a type of Christianity which you actually do not embrace. Maybe you are more of a Thomas-Merton-Christian or a Bede-Griffiths-Christian — both old mystical favorites of mine. We would agree (albeit with caveats) about your Augustine quote.
We agree that testing truth is hard , though you phrased it “pursuit of truth is hard” and I would not make the abstraction (this is a small point).
Indeed, I might have gone into the Emerging Church, you are right — I might of gone off in lots of things if not for evangelical & pentecostal Christianity. But remember, in my present view, that would not be upsetting — for the long-term consequence might have actually been the same. Smile. I respect much of the work of many faiths and think them very useful (even if not accurate — heck, I am absolutely sure I am not accurate — you and I both admit that our limited human knowledge is rather pathetic, I think (agreed, winking smile)).
I am not looking for proofs of your god, nor of Krishna, nor of Zeus, nor of ….. But I do entertain the claims of others, especially when they have an empirical quality. If you get a chance, read the posts I linked above to get a fuller picture of me — you might find it not like what you imagine conventional atheist to be.
I agree that “Christianity [often] gives an accurate account of human nature” and that is part of the baby which I did not throw out with the wash (smile). But I think Christianity is wrong about the why and other aspects of reality. That is why I am glad not all Christians totally believe and act on what they confess.
Hopefully, these new words illustrate a little more “intellectual humility” to match what you see on my blog. Words are tough (no voice, no expressions). But I think we both make unusual efforts toward systematic thinking and this can come across more arrogant than a speaker may intend.
Peace !
Sabio, thanks for that. I have appreciated our conversation and will look at the links you posted. I actually read a small book on atheist spirituality a little while back and it opened my mind to a few things. You seem to face in that kind of direction, which is interesting to me.
The Thomas Merton and Bede Griffiths kind of thing is attractive to me; I’ve been looking at some of Merton’s stuff recently actually. Going further back Meister Eckhart and Hugh of St. Victor have been brought to my attention of late. That kind of contemplative catholic / Christian mystic thing has a certain richness to it, I think, not often found in typical evangelicalism. Certain postmodern types seem to be heading back that way, however.
All the best.
Wow, that was communication progress — congrats to both of us. Please take care not to slip into heresy ! (smile — peace dude)
Sabio:
“First, I am wondering if to you “condescending” mean, “he does not take my beliefs seriously”.”
Once again, no. I only mean exactly what I mean, lol
. And yes, other people here are also getting annoyed—but it’s because people are reacting to your instigation. That doesn’t necessarily make it right on our part, but I’m only pointing out that it’s a cyclical pattern, so I’m pointing out the source. I say you are “shouting” due to your use of exclamation points, which generally is exclamatory. 
You said: “Why do you study the nature of God? Why do you study the nature of anything? I thought prediction was part of the reason.”
I am only pointing out that you should let the data speak for itself, rather than imposing an agenda from the outset. Rather than saying, “I am going to prove that the data shows such-and-such,” we should just plain look at the data.
Similarly, rather than saying, “Surely a god SHOULD speak in a manner such-and-such,” we should simply look at the data and let it speak for itself.
I don’t “claim” to be Japanese, I just “am”
.
I just now read through all your guys’ posts. Whew, what a mouthful!
Everyone has already toned down all the “annoyed-ness,” so disregard “Part A” of my previous post on everyone being annoyed, lol.
Scott wrote:
“…in the end, even if I could show one video footage of Christ rising from the dead, one still has to come to a place of believing such. Empirical evidence does not make certain that we will change our beliefs.”
This is crucial. This is why many debates often are simply epistemological in nature. Even with footage of Jesus being resurrected, anyone can say, “Well, obviously it’s special effects.”
At the basis of every single worldview—whether Christian, materialist, or otherwise—is a fundamental faith commitment. Faith in logic, faith in scripture, faith in reason, faith in xyz.
Sabio wrote:
“I am not looking for proofs of your god, nor of Krishna, nor of Zeus, nor of ….. But I do entertain the claims of others, especially when they have an empirical quality.”
You should check out the gospel studies by N.T. Wright and Richard Bauckham. These are very non-fundamentalist guys and very smart, demonstrating empirically the historical veracity of the roots of Christianity. Wright is presently becoming something of the next “Martin Luther,” turning a lot of previous traditional theology downside up.
Simon wrote:
“That kind of contemplative catholic / Christian mystic thing has a certain richness to it, I think, not often found in typical evangelicalism.”
That’s why I’m converting to the Orthodox Church
.
@ Aaron
Well, seems like Simon & I reached a certain understand. You and I may not.
I find it fitting that on the bottom of your “authors” page, there is written:
Haha! That is awesome
. But we may come to an understanding just yet 
.
I await your response to what I wrote here:
You would certainly agree with that, right?
@ Aaron
OK, I will try again, though I thought I said it clearly. (We always think our own writing is crystal clear, don’t we ! [ooops, exclamation point, hope you don't mind.
]
We are calling the “Data” all the stories in your canon, right? I am not at all clear to what extent you hold this data as perfect data. In research, we have all sorts of ways to test the data. You and I have not explicitly decided on methodology. I confess, I am using scientific method. So it will inform my conversation. But how are we to dialogue about “data” we don’t agree on?
Below I briefly sketch what I see as the options. If you hold a liberal view of scripture (#1) the conversation can perhaps proceed. If you hold a conservation view of scripture (#2) the conversation is probably pointless.
1) Either the data is imperfect and can be screened. Then please point me to a clean published data set so we can have a good conversation. Or how about pointing me to an annotated bible with different colors non-literal stories telling us if they are poetic, themes or whatever. Then, I could tell if talking donkeys and bushes are serious passages or just trying to impress readers at that time in history so they could tell their ideas.
But you need to tell us your screening method.
I think some liberal theologians piece together the nature of their god and use that as a screen — even if subconsciously. I may be wrong. I assumed, possibly falsely, that you have a non-literal view of the canon (the collection of writers deemed as “holy” back in the 300′s). And I realize that liberal Christian theologians and scholars are still debating among themselves both the methodology and application therein to screen their holy canon.
But without a declared methodology and/or weighted data set, the conversation may be endless.
2) Declare the data perfect and then the conclusion is simple: If a theory does not match the data, the theory needs to be revised. It seems you are saying this (but I didn’t think you a conservative). If this is your stance, the conversation is finished. IMHO, the data is not perfect and if you believe it is, then you can actually dialogue with other believers who disagree with you on this more fruitfully. No need to waste your time talking with this damned soul who is probably nothing more than a tool of Satan. [had to say it, because there are so many Christians who believe this].
Aaron, if any of that came across as condescending, thoughtlessly shouting or insensitively instigating, then we probably should stop chatting. For we are talking about stuff very dear to you and much of these feelings will be hard to avoid given the nature of the conversation and the sterile nature of black letters of type without expression, tone and quick give-and-take. You seem like an extremely fun, albeit cocky guy, for a Japanese lad
, so I want to keep it peaceful — but I shall be honest.
Sabio -
I won’t be able to answer for Aaron, but my answers will probably somewhat connect to his. (Or maybe not!)
You stated: We are calling the “Data” all the stories in your canon, right? I am not at all clear to what extent you hold this data as perfect data. In research, we have all sorts of ways to test the data. You and I have not explicitly decided on methodology. I confess, I am using scientific method. So it will inform my conversation. But how are we to dialogue about “data” we don’t agree on?
The word ‘perfect’ is somewhat of an enigmatic word to define, at least if we are trying to consider this from a level-headed point of view. In one sense, the Bible teaches that God’s words are perfect and pure:
The law of the LORD is perfect, reviving the soul (Ps 19:7)
The words of the LORD are pure words (Ps 12:6)
And the Bible teaches that His words (as summarised in Scripture) are ‘breathed out by God’, or as the older translations say, it is ‘inspired’:
All Scripture is breathed out by God (2 Tim 3:16)
Of course, if God is perfect, all-knowing, holy, etc, then we would expect such from His words. A perfect one communicates perfectly. Seems simple. But, at the same time, God is trying to communicate with human beings that are not perfect, not all-knowing, etc (you don’t even have to be a Christian to come to this conclusion, we just look around and watch ourselves).
And, since God desired to communicate with humanity (not just through Scripture, but through creation, visions, prophecies not in Scripture, prophecy today, appearances though somewhat cloaked, etc). So, the data seems to purport that this God who is perfect would be willing to use his imperfect creation to communicate. I’m already humbled at this. This is a hard thing to do, or at least I suppose from my standpoint, but probably not from God’s standpoint since he is God. Anways…
But it seems God had a pretty clever way to do this communication process. And this is why I used (which Calvin used) the phrase ‘baby-talk’. God communicated to those who recorded Scripture in their language, their culture, their historical point, etc. I think that is awesome! (As a side note, that is what I’m trying to do with my son each day, though he still doesn’t get it.)
Muslims say that you can only truly understand Allah’s Word in Arabic. But I have come to the conclusion that God also speaks English, Japanese, Dutch, French, and even Hebrew and Greek. And these aren’t even his first languages.
So, I think us 3 (myself, Aaron and Simon) would hold to a more incarnational view of Scripture. Just as the divine Son incarnated as a human being, so was God’s revelation (Scripture and other things listed above) come to us incarnationally. And it seems to work best that way (at least it worked for me, and for us 3). I would not understand God if he communicated in a God-like way. So he baby-talks with us and communicates in a sufficient enough way for humanity to understand, though I would say we still even need his help in understanding.
And, though this is up for debate, I would say that God was not most interested in making sure the Bible was ‘perfect’ in every little nuance outside of its main goal of communicating the redemption story as summed up in Jesus Christ. God was not trying to first and foremost communicate math or science or archeology or history, though some of that comes through the text. He seems to have been mostly keen on communicating his heart to redeem people back to himself.
So, while I don’t think there really are any warranted problems with the text (though I note scribal errors in transferring the text from scroll to scroll, probable scribal updates in helping each new generation understand the application, etc) there might be a wrong calculation here, phenomenological language used there, wrong geological framework here, and so on. But still, I think these are reasonably explained. I don’t want to dance around the questions and texts up for question, but I don’t want to get hung up on these things when I realise God is communicating his God-ness to us in an incarnational way.
But, unfortunately, it seems that not only studied atheists and agnostics, but also Christians, have tried to read a very post-Enlightenment understanding into the word ‘perfect’. God’s Word must be perfect and that word perfect must line up with post-Enlightenment empirical scientific evidence. Well, since the writers lived before the Enlightenment, I don’t suppose they had such a definition of perfection in regards to every minute detail. They probably understand faithful and reliable communication. So we have to be careful throwing around the word ‘perfect’. Yes, it’s perfect, but at the same time, I would qualify it from the human writer’s standpoint.
Now, more conservatives will say it all has to be perfect to the T. And, on a scale of 1 to 10 (major conservatives being a 10), I would be a 9 in understanding the Scripture to being perfect, even in its nuances. But I don’t believe God dictated things as the authors’ eyes rolled back in their heads and they foamed at the mouths. He didn’t take over their bodies in an ecstatic experience. He was using real humans who sinned and were not perfect. But for me, that captures my heart. Why would he do something so poetic and beautiful?
I explained it this way once: Jesus is the perfect Son of God, but he also had morning breath, body odor, flatulation, skinned knees if he tripped over a rock, etc. But that doesn’t take away from his sinless perfection. The Scripture might have its morning breath, body odor and skinned knees here and there, but this, for me, does not detract from its perfection as God’s pure communication his heart for humanity.
Of course things can be reasonably tested, though not always concluding with empirically based scientific data. But, in the end, we could pull out all the stops, prove every point and answer every question. But I suppose another 10 questions will arise. And that happens when we are imperfect humans trying to understand a perfect God who decided to perfectly communicate through imperfect humans. It’s absolutely ridiculous and scandalous. But, for me, I love it.
So, I think you would find us 3 not as fundamentalist conservatives, but we are not full liberals either. We try and consider these things with somewhat level-heads and with humility.
Sabio:
”
“You seem like an extremely fun, albeit cocky guy, for a Japanese lad
This is probably a fair assessment
.
Scott,
Sorry for the delayed reply:
So, let me see if I get you:
1) God could have given us perfect revelation, but he wanted to honor us by letting us write stuff for him even if he knew it would be imperfect.
2) God spoke baby talk, but he could have done otherwise.
3) God is incarnational in nature and thus his scriptures are written by men.
Imagine that a god did not help people write your scriptures, but instead, the authors just wrote it by themselves themselves. Then wouldn’t these sort of rationalization be just what we would expect?
Isn’t it interesting that scriptures came out all over the planet at times when humans had very unsophisticated understanding. And we basically don’t have any more revelations now — or those new ones cropping up only limited followings. They cropped up back then because it was accepted to allow that sort of thing. We wouldn’t allow it now. We have new standards of what qualifies as truth. You may see this as a big shame. But since Christians apparently are still open to revelation — isn’t it odd that your god is not writing through them. He stopped. Isn’t that odd. No, of course the explanation is that we don’t need it after Jesus and the Bible. Boy, looking around the world, if your god was communicative, it is odd that he keeps silent now. I know, you don’t think he is silent.
We’ll just have to disagree. Sorry, can’t buy your rationalizations — but I can understand why you do. It is obvious, in a cute way, how happy your stories make you.
Sabio -
Careful that your comments don’t come across too patronising, i.e., your last sentence.
1) God could have given us perfect revelation, but he wanted to honor us by letting us write stuff for him even if he knew it would be imperfect.
Again, it is perfect, as the Scriptures attest to such. But I am not sure it has to be perfect according to post-Enlightenment standards. We have to consider the purpose of it when it was being recorded, not according to some standard thousands of years later.
Oddly enough, even accounts of the 21st century don’t really ever stand up to our own modern idea of perfection in regards to fully tested scientific data. We read the newspapers, magazines, and books today, even quoting them as reliable sources in studies, but they too might also miss a detail here or there. Or, a story in USA Today might be slightly different from that in the Washington Post, reporting a few different minor details. But both accounts are still considered reliable. It’s simply reasonable.
Still, please note that I am not going around claiming that the Scripture is fallible (from a post-Enlightenment standard). But, if it did not line up to post-Enlightenment scientific and empirical evidence in all its peripheral nuances, then my faith is not destroyed. I know this is the unreasonable point for you, but God has testified that it is His Word. I cannot deny such. It is ‘foolishness’ as even Paul says in one of his writings, but I am ok to be a fool with this. It has radically changed my life. I’m dumbstruck at how foolishness can powerfully change a person.
2) God spoke baby talk, but he could have done otherwise.
It’s an illustration. I just can’t imagine God speaking omnisciently with us. Eeeessh!! I don’t know about you, but I would probably fall over dead. I can humbly admit that I am not as intelligible as He.
3) God is incarnational in nature and thus his scriptures are written by men.
For many, this is somewhat non-sense. Maybe even you see it as a way for us to get out of things and dodge the questions. But if our faith is summed up in God becoming a man in Jesus Christ, then you could understand that every subsequent thing would follow after the pattern of THE great event – incarnational.
As you rightly state, I don’t believe God’s revelation has stopped. But I do believe there is no need to add to the ‘canon’ of Scripture. Canon simply means ‘measuring stick’, or ‘rule of thumb’. I think it was right that our father’s of the faith decided (of course I believe they did under God’s providence and direction) to finalise a completed canon. It makes logical sense with the Israelites doing such with the old covenant. And so our father’s did such with the new covenant.
Therefore, any revelation that comes forth today must be in line with the revelation attested to and summed up in Christ and the Scriptures. I’m sure you see it’s helpfulness from our faith perspective at least. I don’t want this to seem like a control issue in that no one else can hear from God, for I think they can. But it is a beautiful thing to have the attested revelation of Scripture to help guide us as we hear God today. Consistency would seem to say that God would not contradict Himself. So, any revelation to subsequently come would be considered by the standards of the measuring stick of our canon.
Again, I know none of this is going to wow you or draw you in. I simply share these things to show that I, or we, are not trying to be unreasonable here. None of this will ever pass all the scientific tests, but it is not unreasonable to consider these things, though I imagine you will still not accept them.
Scott
1) Funny thing about “patronizing” — hard to be frank and not show how strongly we disagree. But when I said, “It is obvious, in a cute way, how happy your stories make you.” I was being honest and my intent was not to belittle. But rereading it, I can sort of see how it could have that flavor. Oh well. But, it is clear that you are happy in your faith — and it is kind of charming. There, that sounds better. But you see, all I did was be dishonest. Because I consider your “faith” as stories. But look, it sounds less patronizing when I am disingenious. I am sure you get my point. But seriously, I was being somewhat complimentary. I think some believers are incredibly angry and twisted. I wouldn’t put you there at all. You seem like those Christian types we would love to have as neighbors though you might not want your kids playing with mine. (smile)
I disagree with many of your beliefs, of course, but I don’t think the religion you practice is bad unless it slows science, creates wars, turns communities against communities, turns on women, gays, blacks, or atheists (to name a few). OK, OR I do think it is bad if it is silent against those in your own community who use your very tools to do the same. That is the worst sort of complicity — for the sake of preserving the sanctity of the faith, believers who don’t speak out against the atrocities of their fellow believers who practice using the same myths, doctrines and revelations as support for their actions. I realize many Christians do well by their faiths, and I am not speaking of these. Sorry, I am off track. On to your points.
2) So, you feel that scripture is perfect because the scripture tells you it is perfect? Correct. That is what I heard you say, right?
3) You believe
Why do you believe that? Do you believe your god still puts some people under his “Providence and Direction” [ P&D -are those two thing?]? If so, that means some aren’t. Are all Christians under his P&D or just some? When do you know if they are under P&D? Was George Bush? Was Mother Teresa? Is the Dalai Lama under P&D? How does Scott know these things?
I get how you have some “nuanced” notion of the truth of scripture to guide you. Well at least I see you make that your basis without question. But I don’t get how you know other stuff? Do you accept that without question too?
Generic questions, I guess, but thought I’d ask.
Sabio -
In regards to #1, I understand. Thanks.
Yes, on #2, though I sense you are going somewhere with this to try and prove me wrong.
In regards to #3: Why do I believe it?
I suppose this isn’t the answer you are looking for, but I believe it because it really happened in history. Our fathers sat down and confirmed a NT canon, but it wasn’t arbitrarily. They saw what the other fathers referred to as true writings attesting to Christ. There were a few questions about 2 Peter, Jude, James, and such, as they wanted to make sure they were reliable. But, in the end, there was an attestation and testimony that these writings faithfully taught of Christ and his message. In th end, all 27 writings of the NT were faithfully reliable in regards to the kerygma (Greek for preaching) and teaching of Christ and the first apostles. Anyways, it’s a long story.
And, yes, all Christians (and even all humanity) are under the providence of God. Part of the brilliance and blessing of being created by one who is all-knowing and all-sovereign.
My ‘knowing’ of these things is not going to be backed up scientifically and empirically, though I can attest to things. But again, I can’t put an equation to these things in summarising my belief that God holds providential care over all things.
Interestingly enough, the Hebrew word for know (yada) is used in reference to how a man and woman know one another intimately. So, my knowledge of God is not solely, or maybe even primarily, founded in the collection of data. Know, from a Biblical perspective, is a relational term. As with my wife, I don’t scientifically list all the data that proves we know one another. Our relationship, in all its various aspects, proves our knowledge of one another.
Thanx Scott
Here are my thoughts on what your wrote:
98 – 99% of all Humans who believe in a religion, believe in the religion of their parents. They believe it because they trust their parents and their community.
The don’t believe it because they can “be backed up scientifically and empirically” and they “can’t put an equation to these things”. I have debated religion with Hindus, Muslims, Shinto, Taoist, Jews, and Christians who have claimed to study the other major faiths and come to their ‘own’ conclusion that the faith of their childhood is indeed correct.
They all argue from analogy which considered one of the lowest level of reasoning but the highest levels of persuasion. And like you, they believed their scriptures well before they began trying to “study” them to show why they are trustworthy.
You believe your scriptures, which inform the most of your faith, because your culture told you too. And surprise, your scriptures themselves have told you that they are perfect and worthy of respect and that is why you believe they are perfect.
You call the people who decided on your scriptures (and rejected those of other Christians) your “Fathers” even though you are not in their lineage at all. (I am guessing here – smile). Because the word “Father” implies trust and care (for most) and gratitude.
98 – 99% of the planet believes because they trust their family, friends and community the most. It is only human, but it is not the truth.
Finally: Since you feel “God holds providential care over all things” and thus trust your “fathers” who choose your scriptures, every other believer in the world can claim that for the truth of their faith. So, for the reason you tell me you belief full-heartedly, every other religion can claim the same with deep conviction. And all of you study your faith after you already have that deep conviction — and all of you think you are objective and in control of your choice.
You sometimes hear people say, “One of them [religions] has to be right.” But they forget, it is more probable that they are all mistaken — and I have just illustrated why — they epistemology is not committed to truth but to trust.
Sabio -
Unfortunately I didn’t follow the religion of my parents. I only became a Christian at age 17, quite a radical and life-changing story. After following Nirvana, Cobain, and dabbling into the life of drugs, my ears were finally opened when I heard the message. So, it was my conversion that has influenced my family.
We speak of the ‘fathers’ of our nation, which is simply a phrase that speaks of those who were founders and initial leaders. So I use the term ‘fathers’ in that way of the faith. It’s obviously reasonable.
I am committed to truth, especially since God and Jesus seemed to be committed to it. Sure, I trust. But, again, I suppose I don’t trust in something completely unreasonable. But maybe I am simply foolish.
Scott -
But you converted to the faith of your culture. You didn’t become a Hindu, nor a Buddhist, nor a Taoist — In fact, when you became a Christian, you probably knew nothing substantial about them.
Tell me that none of what I wrote, nor these facts make you question for a second about the objectivity of all those Hindus in India, all those Shintos and Buddhists in Japan?
Scott -
BTW, life-altering conversion experiences are a dime-a-dozen. I had mine too. And I have met many Mormons (apostates, in your world), Buddhists, Yoga-practitioners and others who had life-altering experiences confirming the “truth” of their faiths also.
I don’t doubt the importance of the life-altering salvation, but it doesn’t show the religion to be true, it just shows it to be useful. There is a big difference. But true believers rarely get that.
Sabio -
I didn’t realise America is a Christian nation. Is that right? It’s the biggest melting pot in the world, right?
Did you adapt to your culture and ‘de-convert’?
You are right, I did not know a lot about other religions when I came to Christ. But since, I have read things about them. And my reasonable conclusion is that, though there are seeds of the truth in them, they are not the truth as summed up in Jesus Christ.
Again, with the life-altering experiences, I know other religions have the same. So, in the midst of our life-altering conversions, we have to consider other things. I am willing. And, though a conversion experience will not prove anything to those who have no such experience, it definitely solidifies it in the one converted. Sounds silly, but of course it is true.
Doesn’t sound ‘silly’, that is exactly my point.
Peace out dude
Of course, the Christian does not have to disbelieve in Thor Allah etc. like the early Jews the Christian can simply be monolatrous worshipping one God above all others. The Bible does speak of spiritual entities other than Yahweh, and even acknowledges that these entities seek worship. It is quite possible for the Christian to accept that supernatural entities engage in recorded events and still not offer them allegiance.
However Yahweh went down to Egypt to demonstrate his superiority to the gods of the Egyptians and did so.
In the time of Saul, God showed his superiority to the gods of the Philistines.
Which god has performed an action like the resurrection and provided the same level of historical evidence for it?
I don’t expect God to intervene in every situation on my behalf, although I don’t rule out the possibility thereof.
For the rest:
Historically belief in evolution stopped research into the function of pseudo-genes for about thirty years (because they’re useless evolutionary leftovers dontchaknow) whilst Christian thought undergirded scientific development in the West for about 800 years (the “enlightenment” scholars who set religion against science were deists/atheists not scientists). Religion was responsible for 7% of wars over the last 2000 years, the vast majority being fought for far more prosaic reasons (land, honour, that sort of thing).
Women received far more liberty in the early Christian community than in mainstream Greek or Roman culture. They could even choose who to marry, and didn’t have to marry as early. That was one of the reasons that females were disproportionately represented in the early Church. If you’re talking about the witch trials, they were bad, but they were stopped by the Church too. In fact Inquisitors were willing to try, and hang, instigators of trials.
Complaining about slavery, if that is where your “blacks” comment is irrelevant. Slavery has existed in one form or another in every civilization. The Christian West was about the only one to abolish it (using British warships to enforce their “private” morality on slave ships). If you’re complaining about groups like the KKK they use the same evolutionary justifications as the American eugenics movement to explain their contempt for blacks.
I’ve always laughed at the way atheists pop up to defend homosexuals… it’s almost as if they want to join them… however various atheists in the past have acknowledged that their main justification for their rebellion was the desire to exceed the bounds of Christian morality. If I recall correctly Aldous Huxley was one of them.
Of course I could point out that regimes run by atheists along strictly atheistic lines have killed more of their own people in one century than theistic regimes managed in two thousand years. Bertrand Russell even saw the savagery of the Bolsheviks as a necessary process for the freeing of the West from religion.
Simon (I don’t know if you are still monitoring these comments).
In the beginning of our conversation you wrote:
I read this recent article which confirms some of your chastisement for me. I think you will enjoy sociology and research approaches in the article.
Thanks Sabio, just read it. Interesting indeed, does seem to undermine the education = less religion thesis, at least a little bit. Maybe ties in to why people turn to religion at times of national disaster like 9/11, or more individually at times of grief or suffering. I suppose when people are confident in their own self-sufficiency, they have less ‘need’ for God or religious belief.
From a strictly Christian perspective, perhaps C.S. Lewis’s (easily misunderstood – it can sound quite perverse out of context) statement that ‘pain is God’s megaphone’ would relate.
[Also, I was surprised at the ferocity of the comment of mine you quoted, "incredible naïveté" may have been a slight exaggeration
]
Yeah, don’t worry about the “incredible naivete” comment. It was just one of your many selves speaking — the one that surfaces when you haven’t yet made a personal connection to your dialogue partner and are only thinking about the idea and not the person — as is usual on the internet.
(See my notion of self to see why this is not surprising or distressing to me. I admired your turn-about ["repentance"] later in the post — a mark of the Holy Spirit working in your heart, perhaps.
Yes, it seems Lewis is correct. The question is which came first — The God or The Suffering. I contend it is the later, of course. And Lewis converted after much personal suffering. And it seems suffering brings much religious thinking. For me too, my conversion was due to a deep loss. I think I was only able to de-convert when time had healed the loss. I don’t think it is “self-sufficiency”, it is feeling safe while that “safe” may include a net-work of community, a strong family, good economics and a safe living space. Christians go too far to declaring arrogant “self-sufficiency” as a reason for not needing God, while I think it may be more rounded, interpersonal and wholesome.
Buddhists capture this with the notion of “Interdependence” — a rich concept.
Peace dude.
Yes, point taken on the self-sufficiency, though I didn’t just mean it in an individualist sense, but in terms of ‘human self-sufficiency’ (including human community etc.), as against the ‘need’ for something transcendent or supra-human. But we essentially agree, and human interdependence is indeed probably a more useful term.
[...] When we read the Bible in the 21st-century, we are bringing all of our presuppositions to the table. We assume that the Bible is a “book,” or at least that each of the “books” contained within are “books”—when in fact they are often texts that had been composed and redacted over a long tradition. (Not to mention that different groups of Christians define the “Bible” with different groups of authoritative “books”!) We assume that a “history” text is the “naked events” as they happened, rather than an interpretive narrative. All of these assumptions and a host more lie at hand as we approach the Bible. In order to do the Bible justice for what it is trying to communicate, we must be aware of these presuppositions and let the Bible operate on its own terms, and not impose our own ideas onto the text. [...]
IF EVERYTHING IN THE BIBLE THAT DISAGREES WITH MODERN SCIENCE AND MODERN HISTORIOGRAPHY EQUALS “GOD CONDESCENDING TO OUR IGNORANCE,” THEN I GUESS A WHOLE LOT OF CONDESCENDING WAS GOING ON IN THE ANCIENT NEAR EAST, IN EGYPT AND MESOPOTAMIA TOO, SINCE THE SAME CONCEPTS ARE EMPLOYED, A FLAT EARTH BEING CREATED BY DIVINE COMMAND, EXAGERRATED IMAGES OF THEIR GODS AND THEIR BATTLES, TEMPLES FACING EAST, ANIMAL SACRIFICES, ETC.
WHAT IF THE NOTIONS OF A GOD-MAN, A TRINITY, ETERNAL PUNISHMENT, END TIMES, OR THE EVEN THE IDEA OF RESURRECTION, ARE ADDITIONAL EXAMPLES OF “GOD CONDESCENDING TO OUR IGNORANCE?”
WHAT THEN?
WHO REALLY KNOWS?
http://sites.google.com/site/thechristiandelusion/Home/table-of-contents
Did you leave your caps lock on Edward? Whoopsy.
[...] that the Bible was indeed factually inerrant insofar as its own contextual scientific paradigm and ancient Near Eastern “language-game” (Wittgenstein) is concerned. So, the infalliblists don’t get what they want (to deny [...]