How can people still take the Bible or other the religious texts literally?

[Wahoo Redux]

I'm sorta amazed at how everybody is throwing these arguments forth as if none of this has ever been discussed before. It's like a bunch of five-year-olds opining on why the sky is blue. Every single one of these ideas, even the terrible ones, has a mountain of learned literature behind them. There's really no need to reinvent the wheel, and badly to boot. Except that I do believe that many people actively relish issuing statements with as much power to offend as possible, and getting into big arguments where each person shouts past the others.

I suppose most of us know this but not many of us are well read on these topics.

And there is a lot of shouting on the Fora but I don't see that here.

What I think this thread is about is the vernacular, everyday Christianity, not the scholarly, philosophical, apologist Christian literature which, frankly, has very little to do with most people's beliefs----the Christianity, in other words, that got Treehugger suspended.

[marshwiggle]

So, what was the point of this thread?  Was it just so you could announce :"God doesn't exist. Discuss among yourselves. Go!"  and then watch to see what happens?   I don't get it, but I'm 55 and kind of sick of  arguing well worn topics on which folks have very fixed opinions, and justified ones (even if everyone doesn't see it that way). Then again, for those who really really want to know
why a very intelligent person can believe in God, follow a religion, and also, say, believe in  both miracles and science at the same time, well, at least one person explained that pretty well (from their own perspective, not that of a sociologist or psychologist), so perhaps  that was beneficial.

If I am not mistaken, the thread evolved away from that precise topic. I think I explained what really interested me and it wasn't miracles.

So I am curious. Has this thread given you any insight into why rational people might believe in things like the resurrection, or has the discussion gone far enough off topic to miss that? (Or, I suppose, have all of the comments been simple repititions of *unconvincing arguments you've already heard?)

*"unconvincing" that they are rational, as opposed to "unconvincing" for you specifically. Obviously people can have different positions on something, and all of them may be rational. In this case, I don't think atheists are irrational; I think the issue of what counts as "evidence" differs between different positions in this discussion.

[Treehugger]

So, what was the point of this thread?  Was it just so you could announce :"God doesn't exist. Discuss among yourselves. Go!"  and then watch to see what happens?   I don't get it, but I'm 55 and kind of sick of  arguing well worn topics on which folks have very fixed opinions, and justified ones (even if everyone doesn't see it that way). Then again, for those who really really want to know
why a very intelligent person can believe in God, follow a religion, and also, say, believe in  both miracles and science at the same time, well, at least one person explained that pretty well (from their own perspective, not that of a sociologist or psychologist), so perhaps  that was beneficial.

If I am not mistaken, the thread evolved away from that precise topic. I think I explained what really interested me and it wasn't miracles.

So I am curious. Has this thread given you any insight into why rational people might believe in things like the resurrection, or has the discussion gone far enough off topic to miss that? (Or, I suppose, have all of the comments been simple repititions of *unconvincing arguments you've already heard?)

*"unconvincing" that they are rational, as opposed to "unconvincing" for you specifically. Obviously people can have different positions on something, and all of them may be rational. In this case, I don't think atheists are irrational; I think the issue of what counts as "evidence" differs between different positions in this discussion.

Well, to be honest, as someone who once believed in the resurrection herself (I took my Christianity seriously or at least tried very hard to do so until I experienced a rapid deconversion when I was about 26), I can understand perfectly well how smart people :) can believe it. I guess my question is why do people persist in believing it and not all deconvert eventually. For me, the problems weren't actually the resurrection, but the afterlife and the discernment of God's will. What finally freed me was realizing how incredibly political the selection of the Biblical canon was and also how certain (maybe many) books of the Bible far from being divinely inspired were actually cobbled together out of various scroll fragments. There's a lot more I can say about this. Hopefully, I'll have more time later today or tomorrow. (I've let this thread become a little too distracting...).

[marshwiggle]

So I am curious. Has this thread given you any insight into why rational people might believe in things like the resurrection, or has the discussion gone far enough off topic to miss that? (Or, I suppose, have all of the comments been simple repititions of *unconvincing arguments you've already heard?)

*"unconvincing" that they are rational, as opposed to "unconvincing" for you specifically. Obviously people can have different positions on something, and all of them may be rational. In this case, I don't think atheists are irrational; I think the issue of what counts as "evidence" differs between different positions in this discussion.

Well, to be honest, as someone who once believed in the resurrection herself (I took my Christianity seriously or at least tried very hard to do so until I experienced a rapid deconversion when I was about 26), I can understand perfectly well how smart people :) can believe it.

Oh yeah. I'd forgotten that :)

I guess my question is why do people persist in believing it and not all deconvert eventually. For me, the problems weren't actually the resurrection, but the afterlife and the discernment of God's will. What finally freed me was realizing how incredibly political the selection of the Biblical canon was and also how certain (maybe many) books of the Bible far from being divinely inspired were actually cobbled together out of various scroll fragments. There's a lot more I can say about this. Hopefully, I'll have more time later today or tomorrow. (I've let this thread become a little too distracting...).

Certainly churches often vastly oversimplify all kinds of things, like how the canon developed. (One of my favourites is how a lot of very conservative Protestant churches overlook the fact that for centuries the Catholic church was more or less the only game in town.)  From a theological perspective, if faith is something that is intended to be graspable at some level by children, then it follows that the core principles need to be presentable in some simplified version. (And along those lines, if the point is about how to live, rather than intellectual abstraction, that becomes much more feasible.)

And as far as "inspired" versus "cobbled together", the traditional answer is that the cobbling was inspired.  (The fact that the first parts of the New Testament weren't written until 2 or 3 decades after Jesus is itself fascinating from that standpoint.) In summary, all of those to me are intriguing because they challenge my previously-held simple ideas.

[apl68]

But that doesn't answer the problem of why we believe.  I don't want to come off as someone out to tear down someone else's beliefs (which one really can't do discursively) but you seem very convinced of the presence of a divine power based on some pretty subjective evidence that is repeated by a great many other things that are not Christianity.

How do you know you haven't just convinced yourself of what you want to believe?

So, I was feeling stumped as to how to articulate a reply to this.  I took a break to step outside and ponder it (I mostly spend my breaks at the library in the periodical room reading the news).  We have a picnic table in back of the library, under some shade trees.  It's a pleasant spot, although the parking lot beside it, the HVAC unit buzzing away nearby, and the highway on the other side of the building detract from its idyllic qualities.

I sat there for a couple of minutes thinking about the question.  How do I explain the presence of the divine?  And then came an overwhelming sense of the thing itself.  God/Jesus/the Holy Spirit was right there with me.  Among the trees.  Among the sunlight, and the comings and goings of the vehicles on the parking lot and highway, and the humming of the HVAC.  Just as present with me as any of my closest friends or loved ones when I'm with them.  An overwhelming and joyful sense of God's presence.  It's something I experience fairly often, but this was to a degree that I have generally experienced only two or three times a year.

I didn't induce an altered state of consciousness by performing some ritual, or engaging in meditation, or chewing peyote and smoking wacky tobacco.  I've never to my knowledge shown any symptoms of brain tumors, epilepsy, or schizophrenia, and have no family history of such.  All I did was get by myself, get quiet, and ask God a question.  And this was the reply I received.  The best I can translate it into words is this:  I know when the divine is present because he is.  Just as surely as I know when my mother or father is present.

In answer to the objection that it's a subjective experience--well yeah, it is.  How could I empirically prove it?  I don't have audio or video of God standing there talking to me.  If I did it would be easy enough to dismiss it as a hoax.  If empirical proof is what's needed here, I'm afraid I can't offer it, much as I'd like to oblige.

Faith's not about empirical proof.  That's why it's called faith.  The Christian life and experience in its fullest sense can only be accessed by faith.  Which requires admitting to God that he is in charge and I am not, and then putting myself at his disposal.  It's not an intellectually easy thing to do.  But anybody can do it, given the willingness to do so.  I'm reminded of Shaw's Saint Joan:

"Oh your voices, your voices!  Why don't the voices come to me?"
"They do come to you, but you do not hear them."

But you can change that, if and when you should become ready to.

[apl68]

And, as always, apologies for asking this.

Please don't apologize!  As explained (as best I could) above, pondering your question led me to the most joyful experience of God's presence I've had in at least a couple of months.  It made my day!

I feel like I should apologize to you, for being unable to explain it any better.  I wish I could.  I wish I could give it to you.  But I can't do it for somebody else.

[Wahoo Redux]

And, as always, apologies for asking this.

Please don't apologize!  As explained (as best I could) above, pondering your question led me to the most joyful experience of God's presence I've had in at least a couple of months.  It made my day!

I feel like I should apologize to you, for being unable to explain it any better.  I wish I could.  I wish I could give it to you.  But I can't do it for somebody else.

Thank you, apl68. I was worried that I came off as an assailant and not someone asking an honest question.  You have explained it very well, I understand your wonderful concept, and I believe you.  There is absolutely no reason that God wouldn't share Himself with you personally and privately.

If it makes any difference, I was raised in an Episcopalian household with parents who dutifully took us to church every Sunday and said grace before every dinner.  I was an acolyte for my entire adolescence and even considered joining the Episcopalian priesthood...and then I went to college, and any feelings of piety or communion with the church evaporated in the wake of beer, marijuana, LSD, and various other experiments (in that order), a pretty wild social life, and then a battle into sobriety and various work-a-day concerns.  In other words, I guess I didn't  really feel what I thought I felt, at least not to any depth.  Any faith I thought I had wilted at the first big challenge to my spirit.  Once my parents moved out of my hometown they attended a much larger Episcopalian church in a much larger city, and they failed to establish any deep ties to their new church.  After a couple of years, they simply ceased attending.  I guess their devotion was not particularly deep either.  I think they were just following the "proper" rout of a good Eisenhower Era couple.

Nevertheless, I truly believe in a creator or a self-aware creative force in the universe.  I think there is something which made the world and which gives us consciousness to experience it.

The nature and motives of this creative force elude me, however.  And this is what troubles me about faith.

I know, as Hegemony rather stridently pointed out, that there is a ton of theodicy and apologetic philosophy, even some neurology, out there explaining the nature and purpose of God.  And, thank you all  , I know the basics of Buddhism (although while there is not the focus on a creator god as in Christianity, it is incorrect to say that there is no cosmology or Brahma) but I am actually uninterested in all of that.  I cannot see how any of this answers the unanswerable.   I've been told I am something called "a deist"----which I don't think I am. 

I guess I was just interested in how someone approached the miraculous and you've answered very well.

Thanks for your calm and intelligent responses, apl68.  God bless.

[kaysixteen]

That sorrta sounds like deism, Wahoo.

Deism has a fairly compressed, short-lived history as a prominent religious approach in this country, but that era was largely coincident with the revolutionary era.   It is hard for me, off hand, to name a nationally prominent deist today, at least in terms of someone who either publicly asserts his deism, or if not, publicly asserts a belief structure that is pretty consonant with historical deism.

apl gives an excellent testimony of her faith, in the finest tradition thereof.   She and I differ probably on a few nuances, some of which I can see from what she said, though we are both baptists (I can explain if anyone wants to hear, either publicly or via PM).    I confess to having experienced substantially more religious doubts than she seems to have, but that is probably largely due to what I think are likely very different personal backgrounds.

BTW, I have to rephrase whilst reiterating my claim about what evidence the atheist, agnostic, or general skeptic would need to see, in order to embrace belief in Christianity... or Islam, or any other theistic religious position.  Often times such folks consistently move the goalposts when asked this question, and probably they should, instead, acknowledge that there really would be no evidence that would convince them of theism, or at least none that they can think of now.  But let's take the Resurrection of Christ, as a concept.  In one sense, it is obviously a miracle, but certain salient facts remain 1) if this were done by God (whether or not Christ himself is God), and God is as Christianity teaches the sovereign creator of all things, and of the universal truths of science, etc., then He as said creator gets to stand above His creation and, well, bend the rules.  One-off miracles do not contradict His power, in the same way they would if there were no god and everything really were a mere function of mechanized and unchanging physical laws (not that there is any necessary law that says that a human being, once his body is dead, can never become un-dead).   And, perhaps more cogently, 2) if one believes in the Big Bang, the bang itself was a one-off event, whatever caused it.  One-off events can exist.

[marshwiggle]

BTW, I have to rephrase whilst reiterating my claim about what evidence the atheist, agnostic, or general skeptic would need to see, in order to embrace belief in Christianity... or Islam, or any other theistic religious position.  Often times such folks consistently move the goalposts when asked this question, and probably they should, instead, acknowledge that there really would be no evidence that would convince them of theism, or at least none that they can think of now.  But let's take the Resurrection of Christ, as a concept.  In one sense, it is obviously a miracle, but certain salient facts remain 1) if this were done by God (whether or not Christ himself is God), and God is as Christianity teaches the sovereign creator of all things, and of the universal truths of science, etc., then He as said creator gets to stand above His creation and, well, bend the rules.  One-off miracles do not contradict His power, in the same way they would if there were no god and everything really were a mere function of mechanized and unchanging physical laws (not that there is any necessary law that says that a human being, once his body is dead, can never become un-dead).   And, perhaps more cogently, 2) if one believes in the Big Bang, the bang itself was a one-off event, whatever caused it.  One-off events can exist.

(Not specifically directed at Kay, but this raises a common issue.)

The discussion of miracles is based on the idea of, as suggested above, God "bending the rules". However, this implies that "the rules" were somehow set out by God in the first place.  But "the rules", i.e. physical "laws", are actually empirically-derived from observation of patterns. If I usually take the bus to work on Tuesdays, and people note that, am I "breaking the rules" if I take my car one Tuesday? Does it matter if I've taken the bus for a year? 10 years? 20 years?

To accuse God of bending or breaking the rules implies that if we observe a consistent pattern, we are entitled to expect it to be always maintained. God is in kind of a Catch-22; if there were no "miracles", and everything always followed consistent patterns, then God would be irrelevant; the universe could be described in purely atheistic terms. On the other hand, if there are "miracles", then God has "cheated" by not "following his own rules".

So God is either uneccessary or a cheater.

[apl68]

BTW, I have to rephrase whilst reiterating my claim about what evidence the atheist, agnostic, or general skeptic would need to see, in order to embrace belief in Christianity... or Islam, or any other theistic religious position.  Often times such folks consistently move the goalposts when asked this question, and probably they should, instead, acknowledge that there really would be no evidence that would convince them of theism, or at least none that they can think of now.  But let's take the Resurrection of Christ, as a concept.  In one sense, it is obviously a miracle, but certain salient facts remain 1) if this were done by God (whether or not Christ himself is God), and God is as Christianity teaches the sovereign creator of all things, and of the universal truths of science, etc., then He as said creator gets to stand above His creation and, well, bend the rules.  One-off miracles do not contradict His power, in the same way they would if there were no god and everything really were a mere function of mechanized and unchanging physical laws (not that there is any necessary law that says that a human being, once his body is dead, can never become un-dead).   And, perhaps more cogently, 2) if one believes in the Big Bang, the bang itself was a one-off event, whatever caused it.  One-off events can exist.

(Not specifically directed at Kay, but this raises a common issue.)

The discussion of miracles is based on the idea of, as suggested above, God "bending the rules". However, this implies that "the rules" were somehow set out by God in the first place.  But "the rules", i.e. physical "laws", are actually empirically-derived from observation of patterns. If I usually take the bus to work on Tuesdays, and people note that, am I "breaking the rules" if I take my car one Tuesday? Does it matter if I've taken the bus for a year? 10 years? 20 years?

To accuse God of bending or breaking the rules implies that if we observe a consistent pattern, we are entitled to expect it to be always maintained. God is in kind of a Catch-22; if there were no "miracles", and everything always followed consistent patterns, then God would be irrelevant; the universe could be described in purely atheistic terms. On the other hand, if there are "miracles", then God has "cheated" by not "following his own rules".

So God is either uneccessary or a cheater.

Though I am not a deist, I don't really see a distinction between the function of natural forces and the work of God.  If we understand that God is omnipresent--present through all of space and time--then it makes sense that he is continually at work through the natural forces that he created.  "Miracles" serve as an occasional way of reminding us that God is not limited by these forces.  This is why I've learned to have no problem with the scientific understanding that species evolved over vast stretches of time (Actually, I've come to find paleontology a rather fascinating subject.  God made some pretty weird, wild stuff in earlier eras!). 

I'm a "Creationist," but not a "young-Earth" Creationist.  Though a lot of fellow Christians get upset about young-Earth views, the idea that the "days" of Creation were eras and not 24-hour days is an old one, and hardly heretical.  C.I. Scofield, one of the codifiers of modern millenarianism, endorsed it.

[Wahoo Redux]

That sorrta sounds like deism, Wahoo.

Yeah, I guess so. 

My understanding of "deism" (and you can correct me if I'm wrong) is that God created the universe and turned it on, kind of like clockwork, and then stepped back without any intervention----which I certainly could believe in.

I, on the other hand, do believe that there is some sort of interchange between the universal creative force and our existence. What the interchange or exchange is, however, seems very mysterious to me.  It seems that God (for lack of a better term) favors some beings----apl68 and myself, for instance----while tormenting others (and yes, thank you, I know this has been argued ad nauseam throughout the ages).  So the nature and purpose of God simply cannot be fairness in the manner we conceive of it----the concept of "free will" notwithstanding.

Anybody seen this photograph?  This is the terrible last moment of a creature which I doubt had any concept of God, at least that we would recognize (but who knows, maybe the poor beast did?). This is not the work of a benevolent creator.  Just not.  No way.

There are many more images and stories on the Web, of course, that mitigate the concept of a warm and loving deity. 

So sure, Billy Graham may argue that suffering makes us better Christians, or C.S. Lewis may argue that suffering is a way for us to invest spiritually in each other, or maybe we should be like Job and just wait for our reward for enduring, or we suffer because of The Fall, or we actually live in Satan's world beneath God's world in Heaven, or somehow (even though God can apparently pop down to Earth and perform any miracles He likes at any time) He wants us to come to Him because we are in pain...but none of that means anything to that poor snake trying to fight the only way it could against a forest fire caused in one way, shape, or form by humans._

I think there is form and reason there on the part of the creative force, but it is not benevolent or justifiable.  God simply seems to be much different from us and incomprehensible.  And thus theodicy and apologetics are worthless.

[marshwiggle]

That sorrta sounds like deism, Wahoo.

Yeah, I guess so. 

My understanding of "deism" (and you can correct me if I'm wrong) is that God created the universe and turned it on, kind of like clockwork, and then stepped back without any intervention----which I certainly could believe in.

I, on the other hand, do believe that there is some sort of interchange between the universal creative force and our existence. What the interchange or exchange is, however, seems very mysterious to me.  It seems that God (for lack of a better term) favors some beings----apl68 and myself, for instance----while tormenting others (and yes, thank you, I know this has been argued ad nauseam throughout the ages).  So the nature and purpose of God simply cannot be fairness in the manner we conceive of it----the concept of "free will" notwithstanding.

If we restrict ourselves to "fairness" within the scope of our knowledge, experience, etc. A surgeon operating on an infant may inflict great pain to save the infant's life, but the infant is incapable of comprehending the situation. So, to the infant, the pain is just cruelty.

[Wahoo Redux]

Uh yeah...Marshy...so in your analogy God correlates to the surgeon (who presumably used anesthesia on the infant unless hu was working in the early 19th century?) and the infant correlates to the snake flash-burning to death for its own good? 

God turned the rattler into charbroil because of some plan that benefits the snake? 

We don't perceive the good that comes from an agonized animal with an IQ of around, what? 2 points or something?

I didn't come up with this basic scenario anyway.  Rowe first proposed the problem of the fawn in the forest fire (I couldn't remember the name so I had to Google it). 

You might want to try that one again, or not at all.

[marshwiggle]

Uh yeah...Marshy...so in your analogy God correlates to the surgeon (who presumably used anesthesia on the infant unless hu was working in the early 19th century?) and the infant correlates to the snake flash-burning to death for its own good? 

God turned the rattler into charbroil because of some plan that benefits the snake? 

We don't perceive the good that comes from an agonized animal with an IQ of around, what? 2 points or something?

I didn't come up with this basic scenario anyway.  Rowe first proposed the problem of the fawn in the forest fire (I couldn't remember the name so I had to Google it). 

You might want to try that one again, or not at all.

So how bubble-wrapped should life be? Whether it's natural disasters or actions of people, to what degree should we be kept safe from any harm? Is "Brave New World" the ideal?

[Wahoo Redux]

Uh yeah...Marshy...so in your analogy God correlates to the surgeon (who presumably used anesthesia on the infant unless hu was working in the early 19th century?) and the infant correlates to the snake flash-burning to death for its own good? 

God turned the rattler into charbroil because of some plan that benefits the snake? 

We don't perceive the good that comes from an agonized animal with an IQ of around, what? 2 points or something?

I didn't come up with this basic scenario anyway.  Rowe first proposed the problem of the fawn in the forest fire (I couldn't remember the name so I had to Google it). 

You might want to try that one again, or not at all.

So how bubble-wrapped should life be? Whether it's natural disasters or actions of people, to what degree should we be kept safe from any harm? Is "Brave New World" the ideal?

I have no idea what you are on about.  Are you suggesting that I am somehow being a wimp for wondering why there is needless suffering and harm?  I'm being ridiculous because I question the validity of a simple animal's torment?

Dumb.  Dumb.  Dumb.

If there is a benevolent omnipotent god it should keep us from harm.  I would never let anything I love suffer if I could help it.  For that matter, I would never let anything I don't love suffer if I could help it. A benevolent omnipotent god should certainly keep its creation from needless agony if it could.  If I were god I would pop down to the planet in all my magnificence and tell all of humanity to stop the crap; provide a miraculous rain of meat to every predator everywhere so they would not rend and tear any other creatures; cure all the birth-defects, diseases, and accidents and make sure no other accidents ever happen.  I would be a god of utopias because I am kindly and I really don't want to hurt or see others hurt.  I went vegetarian a decade ago because I could not abide the cruelty of factory farming, and so if I were god there is no question that every creature would prosper; all pollution, and natural disaster would vanish in the blink of a cosmic eyelid. Being omnipotent I would simply make humanity love me in the deep, profound, fulfilling way they are supposed to.  And this is what we should expect from an omnipotent, benevolent, all-loving father.  If God's idea of bringing us to Him is to hurt us, this is not a nice god.  It is getting harder and harder to support the idea of a wise joyful god who tortures us.  Seen what is happening to Christian church attendance in the last couple decades?

Brave New World is a scientific dystopia.

Facile explanations, Marshy----avoid them and don't be obnoxious.