Ask a Christian philosopher a question

[anonymous person]

Because Peter would know? He's studied history, right?

Peter confirmed what I had already concluded i.e. that it was an historical event.

I concluded it was a historical event after having studied the passage, its context, and subjected it to a thorough exegetical examination. Peter had nothing to do with me coming to this conclusion.

 

[Ana the Ist]

I agree with what you said. The church has pushed for me to buy into or accept a particular narrative or view of reality.

I agree with that statement.

Fair enough, maybe I was wrong in my assessment of your understanding of the church's affect on you.

Did you ever manage to think of something you'd consider to be "good evidence" for my story (the passion of the Banjo) in determining it's validity?

 

[anonymous person]

Let's go with the story I gave you that you made the claim about evidence on. Pretend it's the summary of a larger story that surfaced.

The Banjo hypothetical?

 

[Ana the Ist]

The Banjo hypothetical?

That's the one.

 

[anonymous person]

That's the one.

So your question is:

What evidence would I consider to be good evidence for the divinity of Banjo?

 

[Aelred of Rievaulx]

Peter confirmed what I had already concluded i.e. that it was an historical event.

I concluded it was a historical event after having studied the passage, its context, and subjected it to a thorough exegetical examination. Peter had nothing to do with me coming to this conclusion.

What precisely about the passage makes you think it was historical? The author of the Pentateuch (I buy Wybray's notion that there was probably only one author) living in the fifth century BCE writing a saga of his people in the style of a Suzerain treaty wouldn't throw in a tidbit about a talking ass being wiser than a prophet?

 

[Davian]

That does not necessarily make it less true though.

Indeed, fallacious arguments can only get you so low. After that, you have to break out the shovels and start digging.

I am just here to watch you dig.

 

[Ana the Ist]

So your question is:

What evidence would I consider to be good evidence for the divinity of Banjo?

Yea, let's put it back into context though...

Antz had made some "walks like a duck" cliche about how he can tell if a written story is true or not. I gave him a story with some familiar elements to see if the duck he saw it as looked like a real story or myth...still waiting to hear back on that. However, you piped in...

"If there were good evidence that your account was true, then I would conclude it was true.

This stuff is not that difficult."

So it's whatever you have in mind as "good evidence" I'd like to hear about.

 

[Davian]

But according to him, I should approach your statement with a generous dose of skepticism and any belief for that matter.

I just don't see the justification for such a view.

Particularly with your own particular beliefs, it would seem.

Skeptics I have found, are in general, reluctant to approach with skepticism, the belief that beliefs should be approached with skepticism.

If skepticism is the process of applying reason and critical thinking to determine validity, what you are saying makes no sense. Scepticism applied to itself would not mean "less skeptical".

Now, if what you are trying to get to is "don't pull at the loose threads of my theology", then I would ask, why are you here in this philosophy forum?

 

[Davian]

God based religious claims are solely based on the belief that God created us personally and our observable reality.

It depends on the particular god concept, it would seem.

Claims that are not based on a belief in God, such as atheistic scientific claims, are completely based on observations of our observable reality and completely ignore the personal aspects of humanity. (to me personally, it seems odd to ignore a significant part of our reality(ourselves) in order to determine the truth about our reality)

If we take a step back and look at this, then we'd realize that if God created us and our observable reality and all we're considering is the observable reality itself and not considering ourselves or God at all, then it stands to reason that we'll miss God entirely because of our lack of open mindedness to the possibility that God created us and our observable reality for a reason. Does this seem like a reasonable observation about reality?

Thankfully, the fact of the matter is that one can't observe our reality without considering God at some point in one's personal life

I can. Religion never occurred to me until I was in my forties, and and had children. Gods have never been anything but characters in books to me.

(this includes all human scientists), but one can observe our reality and ignore the idea that God created everything we observe. Their justification for ignoring the idea that God created everything is that it seems like an extraordinary claim that should be backed by extraordinary evidence, while being fully willing to accept any other explanation about origins and give it the skepticism that it rightfully deserves. One cannot objectively consider the idea that God created everything, while not being openminded to this possibility.

What I think might be missing is the acknowledgement of the extraordinary evidence for the existence of God that is right in front of all us.

From what I gather, it only seems so be there for those that already believe it is there.

This extraordinary evidence is ourselves(Which as I noted above is completely removed by atheistic scientists who are only focused on observable reality). The fact that we exist in the way that we do, is extraordinary evidence for the existence of God.

Just not in any way that you have been able to demonstrate.

On the other hand, the extraordinary evidence of ourselves existing in the way that we do, is disregarded as soon as you take God out of the possibility. "Ourselves" mediately becomes a fluke of nature, as if we should never really exist in this way because it's too extraordinary. Well, what if there's a specific reason for why our existence is so extraordinary? Of course this points to God, which just isn't possible, right?

What is extraordinary about it?

One question I have is: At what point does a human being reject all evidence that points to God, no matter how extraordinary? Are some people at this point in their personal life? How sad for them, if God turns out to be true. The realization that one has been deceived for so long, must be devastating, or liberating depending how you look at it.

Disappointed by having been deceived into thinking your undefined, untestable, undetectable "god" that is, by every measure to date indistinguishable from nothing actually exists? I would not be too hard on myself.

I know all atheist look at everything I've said in a reverse way. They think that I am the one being deceived

That would be the most parsimonious explanation that fits the evidence at hand.

and when I finally come to realize God does not exist, I will be liberated from all religious deception. I will finally come to realize that the fact that I exist is not extraordinary at all, but rather just a fluke of nature that really never should have happened.

And those burning straw-men can keep you warm at night.

The extraordinariness of my existence is simply deceiving me into thinking it's extraordinary. All the sudden we have a new question: What purpose does my existence have in deceiving me into believing my existence isn't extraordinary?

And, why is it not my favourite shade of blue. Keep asking those hard questions.

Again, it all come back to truth and deception, which consequently is what Jesus is all about straightening out for us.

It's good that you have your interpretation of a mythical figure to help you figure out your interpretation of a mythical figure.

 

[anonymous person]

Particularly with your own particular beliefs, it would seem.

If skepticism is the process of applying reason and critical thinking to determine validity, what you are saying makes no sense. Scepticism applied to itself would not mean "less skeptical".

Now, if what you are trying to get to is "don't pull at the loose threads of my theology", then I would ask, why are you here in this philosophy forum?

If that is skepticism, then I am a skeptic.

 

[Davian]

You can't convince me about sound reason.

I am convinced of this truth.

 

[Davian]

The Bible is a collection of different types of literature. This is a fact.

Parables, allegory, didactic passages, prose, poetry, historical records, epistles, ancient biographies, apocalyptic literature, prophesies, and so on and so forth.

Whether or not we interpret something recorded in scripture as actually having happened depends on the context in which the author provides it. Obviously I do not think the events described in Jesus' parables took place, for they are parables, for example.

The event in question recorded in Numbers is not to be taken metaphorically or figuratively. It is recorded as an historical event which the author intends for his readers to view as something actually having taken place. I have good reasons to think it actually took place and therefore, I believe God actually caused a voice to come from the mouth of the donkey on which Balaam was riding. I believe God created the universe and all therein ex nihilo. Him causing a voice to come from a donkey would have been well within His power.

Once you have invoked magic, you are free to claim anything.

"God will create the universe next Thursday. As the universe hasn't been created yet, what we think is happening now is just false memories we'll have once it exists".

 

[Davian]

If that is skepticism, then I am a skeptic.

So, as a skeptic, how do you explain how a human can still be alive after 2000 years, and how voices can come out of donkeys?

 

[anonymous person]

Yea, let's put it back into context though...

Antz had made some "walks like a duck" cliche about how he can tell if a written story is true or not. I gave him a story with some familiar elements to see if the duck he saw it as looked like a real story or myth...still waiting to hear back on that. However, you piped in...

"If there were good evidence that your account was true, then I would conclude it was true.

This stuff is not that difficult."

So it's whatever you have in mind as "good evidence" I'd like to hear about.

If Banjo's virgin birth was prophesied about hundreds of years before he was born, then this would be a good starting point.

 

[anonymous person]

So, as a skeptic, how do you explain how a human can still be alive after 2000 years, and how voices can come out of donkeys?

What human are you referring to?

The voice coming from a donkey was something that happened because God caused it to happen. How exactly? I can happily say I do not know nor am I troubled by the fact that I don't know.

 

[Ana the Ist]

If Banjo's virgin birth was prophesied about hundreds of years before he was born, then this would be a good starting point.

No offense, but how would you know that?

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Yes I have.

When did this happen and why?

 

[Davian]

What human are you referring to?

The name alludes me. Perhaps you could make up a list of all those individuals that reportedly died about 2000 years ago, yet you yourself have claimed to still be alive.

The voice coming from a donkey was something that happened because God caused it to happen. How exactly? I can happily say I do not know nor am I troubled by the fact that I don't know.

So you are a "skeptic" in the same way that you are a "philosopher".

lol.

How's that new Dodge of yours?

 

[Archaeopteryx]

But according to him, I should approach your statement with a generous dose of skepticism and any belief for that matter.

To be more precise, he said that you should approach religious claims with a generous dose of skepticism, or at least that is the meaning I took from it. If you were "objective, honest, and open" in your approach to the scriptures of various world religions, then presumably you approached their claims skeptically, rather than credulously.

I just don't see the justification for such a view.

What is the track record of success for religious claims?

Skeptics I have found, are in general, reluctant to approach with skepticism, the belief that beliefs should be approached with skepticism.

Whereas the religious reserve skepticism only for the claims of other religions.