How did you arrive at Christianity?

Uber Genius · Sep 22, 2017

2PhiloVoid said:
...now I remember why I'm an epistemological relativist. Thanks, Uber.

Do you hold that view simpliciter? That is absolutely?

That epistemic framework seems to destroy all historical knowledge claims.

It also destroys cros-cultural tomes like the collection of books that compose the bible. It would no longer be possible on ER to say there were any cross-cultural truths.

Perhaps a priori analytic statements e.g. All bachelors are unmarried could be true on ER, and math statements but much of what we take for granted as knowledge would be eliminated canonically with ER it seems.

All have sinned and fall short...
There is only one name given under heaven by which you can be saved...
By the works of the law no flesh shall be justified..

The Bible is repleat with universal cross-cultural truth statements

bhsmte · Sep 22, 2017

anonymous person said:
I agree with this statement, if by religious beliefs, you are referring to beliefs like:

1. The sun revolves around the earth (this was held by the Roman Catholic Church during the time of Galileo). The knowledge gleaned from scientific observations during this time served as the kryptonite to this particular belief, which was not, by the way, held just by religious people.

2. The eternality of the universe. This is a belief held by some religious people like the Hindu Puranas. Knowledge gleaned from scientific observations serve as the kryptonite for this belief as well, for it suggests that the universe is not eternal, but had a definite beginning, some 15 billion years ago.

So yes, you are correct. There are religious beliefs that have been decimated and destroyed by discoveries made in science.

Don't forget, however, that some religious beliefs have been supported by science.

1. The belief that the universe is not eternal in the past, but had a definite beginning as Genesis claims is supported by science. The same science that destroyed the Hindu Purana belief.

2. The belief that the universe is the handiwork of a cosmic architect if you will, is supported by the recent findings of scientists when it comes to the fine tuning of the initial constants and quantities of the big bang. This was the very evidence that Antony Flew felt was compelling enough for him to abandon atheism for theism.

So while it is true that knowledge gleaned from the natural sciences can serve as defeaters for religious beliefs, it can also serve as support for religious beliefs.

No doubt. Most people in the academy are not religious. The statistics support this.

It would be interesting to hear what led up to your decision to identify as a Christian. It would be even more interesting to hear what led to the decision to dive into the scriptures to understand them better.

In regards to why i chose to dive into scriptures, the answer is simple, to learn the historicity behind them and their potential meaning. You see, i like to learn and am not afraid to acknowledge newly acquired information.

Folks who are frightened to acknowledge they may be wrong about something, typically steer clear of pulling back the layers, because of fear of what they may discover.

2PhiloVoid · Sep 22, 2017

Uber Genius said:
Do you hold that view simpliciter? That is absolutely?

That epistemic framework seems to destroy all historical knowledge claims.

It also destroys cros-cultural tomes like the collection of books that compose the bible. It would no longer be possible on ER to say there were any cross-cultural truths.

Perhaps a priori analytic statements e.g. All bachelors are unmarried could be true on ER, and math statements but much of what we take for granted as knowledge would be eliminated canonically with ER it seems.

All have sinned and fall short...
There is only one name given under heaven by which you can be saved...
By the works of the law no flesh shall be justified..

The Bible is repleat with universal cross-cultural truth statements

My reference hear involves the fact that epistemology involves MORE than just structures for justification of one's assumed truth(s). It's more EXPANSIVE than what many Christians (and Atheists), especially of the typically Foundationalist framework, will honestly acknowledge. It doesn't destroy much of anything, other than to displace our total assurances that we are right about certain things, and it gives us additional insights as to why different cultures perceive, conceive and evaluate aspects of the reality in which we all live in not completely identical ways. It also takes into account that God's presence in the midst of human cognition posits a relativizing influence, one that we cannot avoid being emerged in...if the bible is true.

Moreover, think "relativity" here rather than mere "relativism."

Uber Genius · Sep 22, 2017

2PhiloVoid said:
My reference hear involves the fact that epistemology involves MORE than just structures for justification of one's assumed truth(s). It's more EXPANSIVE than what many Christians (and Atheists), especially of the typically Foundationalist framework, will honestly acknowledge. It doesn't destroy much of anything, other than to displace our total assurances that we are right about certain things, and it gives us additional insights as to why different cultures perceive, conceive and evaluate aspects of the reality in which we all live in not completely identical ways. It also takes into account that God's presence in the midst of human cognition posits a relativizing influence, one that we cannot avoid being emerged in...if the bible is true.

Moreover, think "relativity" here rather than mere "relativism."

I was working off the philosophical epistemic inference.

Certainly the project of exegesis followed by hermeneutics is getting at the cultural/language/worldview differences you speak of if done properly.

Surely there are limits to knowledge and knowledge that becomes lost over time. But ER proper makes some very relativistic claims (Richard Rorty et. AL.)

I think it is a good subject for a thread. Perhaps I will post in the next few weeks a short synopsis of various epistemological and their paradigm carriers and recalcitrant facts and defeaters.

anonymous person · Sep 22, 2017

bhsmte said:
In regards to why i chose to dive into scriptures, the answer is simple, to learn the historicity behind them and their potential meaning. You see, i like to learn and am not afraid to acknowledge newly acquired information.

Folks who are frightened to acknowledge they may be wrong about something, typically steer clear of pulling back the layers, because of fear of what they may discover.

No doubt a commendable pursuit!

And I agree, fear often times plays a part in not looking into the things we hold to be true.

I am pursuing my undergrad in Christian Psychology and these things of course interest me.

What led up to you wanting to learn about the historicity of the scriptures and their meaning?

bhsmte · Sep 22, 2017

anonymous person said:
No doubt a commendable pursuit!

And I agree, fear often times plays a part in not looking into the things we hold to be true.

I am pursuing my undergrad in Christian Psychology and these things of course interest me.

What led up to you wanting to learn about the historicity of the scriptures and their meaning?

That is how i am wired. I like to understand the origins of claims.

anonymous person · Sep 22, 2017

bhsmte said:
That is how i am wired. I like to understand the origins of claims.

So what do you think happened to your wiring between the time you chose to identify as a Christian, and the moment you developed a desire to look into the historicity of the scriptures and their potential meaning?

How did what happened cause you to make such a drastic, life altering, worldview overturning decision to no longer identify as a Christian, and instead, an atheist?

Silmarien · Sep 22, 2017

anonymous person said:
In another thread, I asked ToddnotTodd, if he agreed with me that something cannot come from nothing, and he said that the proposition "something cannot come from nothing" was incoherent and nonsensical because the word "nothing" is not a possible state of affairs.

He essentially was arguing that my question was nonsensical and incoherent.

I was simply using the term the way professors in theology and philosophy departments like Dr. Siniscalchi over at Notre Dame use the term when he states: “Nothing is the complete absence of being” and therefore “has no causal power”.

What would you say to Todd to get him to understand that the proposition "something cannot come from nothing" is indeed coherent and meaningful?

Yes, that is a stance called logical positivism, a philosophical project aimed at redefining knowledge as that which could be verified through empirical observation at declaring everything else meaningless. Obviously the appropriateness of this approach is not something that can be verified empirically, so it fails to meet its own standard. It has an extremely bad reputation amongst professional philosophers, but it's disagreeable ghost is unfortunately still with us.

If his response is not a positivist refusal to engage, I would ask him why he believes that nothing is not a possible state of affairs. Assuming his reasoning has its roots in science, does he believe that it is incoherent to theorize an alternative universe in which gravity does not exist? If not, what makes "nothingness" a different type of concept? If so, why does he believe the rules of the universe are metaphysically necessary?

Of course given that theism also posits that nothingness is not a possible state of affairs, you could skip creation ex nihilo entirely and focus on the question of what it means for nothingness to be impossible. Assuming again that his challenge to nothingness comes from physics, are the existence of particles somehow metaphysically necessary, and if so, why? That quantum mechanics demonstrate that particles behave in a certain way is an observation; the laws of physics do not explain why the laws of physics exist. If he already accepts that there is a something for which existence is necessary, that is a stance that draws dangerously close to theism for somebody presumably arguing against it!

2PhiloVoid · Sep 22, 2017

Uber Genius said:
I was working off the philosophical epistemic inference.

Certainly the project of exegesis followed by hermeneutics is getting at the cultural/language/worldview differences you speak of if done properly.

Surely there are limits to knowledge and knowledge that becomes lost over time. But ER proper makes some very relativistic claims (Richard Rorty et. AL.)

I think it is a good subject for a thread. Perhaps I will post in the next few weeks a short synopsis of various epistemological and their paradigm carriers and recalcitrant facts and defeaters.

That would be an "Uber" good thread. In the meantime, maybe I'll consider modifying my term to "Epistemic Relativity" to make it clearer that I'm not ... exactly ... in the Richard Rorty Camp.

anonymous person · Sep 22, 2017

Silmarien said:
Yes, that is a stance called logical positivism, a philosophical project aimed at redefining knowledge as that which could be verified through empirical observation at declaring everything else meaningless. Obviously the appropriateness of this approach is not something that can be verified empirically, so it fails to meet its own standard. It has an extremely bad reputation amongst professional philosophers, but it's disagreeable ghost is unfortunately still with us.

If his response is not a positivist refusal to engage, I would ask him why he believes that nothing is not a possible state of affairs. Assuming his reasoning has its roots in science, does he believe that it is incoherent to theorize an alternative universe in which gravity does not exist? If not, what makes "nothingness" a different type of concept? If so, why does he believe the rules of the universe are metaphysically necessary?

Of course given that theism also posits that nothingness is not a possible state of affairs, you could skip creation ex nihilo entirely and focus on the question of what it means for nothingness to be impossible. Assuming again that his challenge to nothingness comes from physics, are the existence of particles somehow metaphysically necessary, and if so, why? That quantum mechanics demonstrate that particles behave in a certain way is an observation; the laws of physics do not explain why the laws of physics exist. If he already accepts that there is a something for which existence is necessary, that is a stance that draws dangerously close to theism for somebody presumably arguing against it!

Very excellent Silmarien!

I picked up on, but failed to make the connection between, the two points you highlighted regarding his position.

You said something that Dr. William Lane Craig has said several times, and that is that the ghost of logical positivism still haunts us, despite its corpse having been killed off some time ago!

I see the merit in your angle as well. I must confess, I told him that I thought that nothing was an impossible state of affairs. I think now however, I would amend that view. I see nothing logically impossible about there being a state of affairs wherein nothing existed. Of course as you mentioned, since I am a theist, Christian specifically, then I think that while such a state of affairs might be logically possible, nevertheless, such a state of affairs never has been or ever will be actual.

Very good Silmarien! I love your signature by the way.

Dirk1540 · Sep 22, 2017

Uber Genius said:
We may have to engage outside this thread as I expect we will end up traveling far-afield of the current discussion.

Firstly...Secondly...Thirdly...Fourthly...

I would very much like to see a thread opened up specifically for all of this stuff!!!!

Silmarien · Sep 22, 2017

bhsmte said:
I find the general trends interesting, because i believe you would agree, as time goes on, we learn more well evidenced realities about the universe and this knowledge, tends to be the kryptonite (sp) to religious beliefs. There is a clear correlation, between those exposed to higher levels of education and less religious beliefs. I realize correlation does not always mean causation, but i find the clear relationship telling.

I am not sure just how clear correlations actually are. I have seen everything posited, from agnostics being more highly educated that atheists, to lower levels of education leading to lower levels of religiosity, to correlations between education and lack of belief existing in former communist countries because of Soviet use of education to suppress religion, and the list goes on. I would assume that education tends to reduce belief in inerrancy and leads to more informed approaches to a religion, but I think the question is much too complicated, especially when factoring in all the various cultural factors, for anything to be telling at all.

Why am i not agnostic? Well, i was a christian for most of my life and what set the ball rolling towards me becoming an atheist (towards personal gods) was a decision i made, to dive into scripture to understand it better and i dived into reading the works of established NT scholars and historians. What i learned was eye opening and caused me to take a step back and overlay the basic claims of christian theology, with well evidenced reality. When i did so, i could not longer reconcile the christian story as something i could accept as legit in my own mind. We have a basic description of the christian god and i can reach a conclusion on the knowledge i have accumulated and conclude that i have no reason to believe this god exists (atheist). Now, when it comes to non personal gods, which do not interact with life, we dont have the same level of description of this potential god and i would call myself agnostic, towards non personal gods.

How are you defining personal and non-personal gods? And what is the basic description of the Christian God? You've got even orthodox believers who are so deeply involved on the theoretical and theological side of the religion that they seem to ignore the Bible entirely, so I really do not know what the basic description is at all! I'm an atheist about the God of literalist inerrancy and an agnostic towards orthodox Christianity, but I fall within the limits of liberal Christianity, so I am not sure just how broadly a brush you're painting with.

Dirk1540 · Sep 22, 2017

DOUBLE POST

Dirk1540 · Sep 22, 2017

Silmarien said:
Yes, that is a stance called logical positivism, a philosophical project aimed at redefining knowledge as that which could be verified through empirical observation at declaring everything else meaningless. Obviously the appropriateness of this approach is not something that can be verified empirically, so it fails to meet its own standard. It has an extremely bad reputation amongst professional philosophers, but it's disagreeable ghost is unfortunately still with us.

If his response is not a positivist refusal to engage, I would ask him why he believes that nothing is not a possible state of affairs. Assuming his reasoning has its roots in science, does he believe that it is incoherent to theorize an alternative universe in which gravity does not exist? If not, what makes "nothingness" a different type of concept? If so, why does he believe the rules of the universe are metaphysically necessary?

Of course given that theism also posits that nothingness is not a possible state of affairs, you could skip creation ex nihilo entirely and focus on the question of what it means for nothingness to be impossible. Assuming again that his challenge to nothingness comes from physics, are the existence of particles somehow metaphysically necessary, and if so, why? That quantum mechanics demonstrate that particles behave in a certain way is an observation; the laws of physics do not explain why the laws of physics exist. If he already accepts that there is a something for which existence is necessary, that is a stance that draws dangerously close to theism for somebody presumably arguing against it!

Great post, but at the same time I feel like my head is gonna explode.

bhsmte said:
I find the general trends interesting, because i believe you would agree, as time goes on, we learn more well evidenced realities about the universe and this knowledge, tends to be the kryptonite (sp) to religious beliefs. There is a clear correlation, between those exposed to higher levels of education and less religious beliefs. I realize correlation does not always mean causation, but i find the clear relationship telling.

Why am i not agnostic? Well, i was a christian for most of my life and what set the ball rolling towards me becoming an atheist (towards personal gods) was a decision i made, to dive into scripture to understand it better and i dived into reading the works of established NT scholars and historians. What i learned was eye opening and caused me to take a step back and overlay the basic claims of christian theology, with well evidenced reality. When i did so, i could not longer reconcile the christian story as something i could accept as legit in my own mind. We have a basic description of the christian god and i can reach a conclusion on the knowledge i have accumulated and conclude that i have no reason to believe this god exists (atheist). Now, when it comes to non personal gods, which do not interact with life, we dont have the same level of description of this potential god and i would call myself agnostic, towards non personal gods.

There are an awful lot of people out there who are taught this 'Historically Airtight' pretty little package of Christianity. I could find critical Biblical scholars who are full blown Christians (like Richard Hess) that would rip a lot of 'Safe Zone' Christians out of their beliefs if they read certain material from them. Heck Bill Mahr's Religulous documentary ended a lot of Christian beliefs...talk about straw men did you see the people who 'Defended' Christianity in that documentary lol?

Maybe one day these former Christians will stop to ask themselves why there are these critical Christian scholars who know even 20 times more Biblical 'Difficulties' than they do, yet remain Christians. The Bible suffers the same difficulties as all ancient documents.

I believe people like me look at the Bible in reverse order then a lot of Christians do who get rocked out of their faith. I believe most people throw this 'Book' down on the table and say to themselves "This is the infallible perfect word of God!" And anything that comes along that challenges that becomes a crack in their dam!

The cracks in my dam were in reverse order because I was overly skeptical. I through this 'Book' down on the table and said to myself "This is a bunch of superstitious fables from people thousands of years ago!" The cracks in my dam were things that would come along and start suggesting "Hmm, for being a bunch of superstitious fables THIS raises a few questions...hmm, for being a bunch of superstitious fables THAT raises a few questions as well..."

I know that it comes down to personal perception for each individual, but the cracks in my dam became too plentiful for me to hang onto my stance that I had a book of fables on my table. Plenty of ISSUES remained, I will not argue that, but for me it was a matter of being pushed past a borderline as opposed to having the ability to tackle every objection.

Silmarien · Sep 22, 2017

2PhiloVoid said:
That would be ain "Uber" good thread. In the meantime, maybe I'll consider modifying my term to "Epistemic Relativity" to make it clearer that I'm not ... exactly ... in the Richard Rorty Camp.

Come now, don't leave me all alone in epistemological trainwreck land! Want a metanarrative? We've got plenty to spare!

bhsmte · Sep 22, 2017

Silmarien said:
I am not sure just how clear correlations actually are. I have seen everything posited, from agnostics being more highly educated that atheists, to lower levels of education leading to lower levels of religiosity, to correlations between education and lack of belief existing in former communist countries because of Soviet use of education to suppress religion, and the list goes on. I would assume that education tends to reduce belief in inerrancy and leads to more informed approaches to a religion, but I think the question is much too complicated, especially when factoring in all the various cultural factors, for anything to be telling at all.

How are you defining personal and non-personal gods? And what is the basic description of the Christian God? You've got even orthodox believers who are so deeply involved on the theoretical and theological side of the religion that they seem to ignore the Bible entirely, so I really do not know what the basic description is at all! I'm an atheist about the God of literalist inerrancy and an agnostic towards orthodox Christianity, but I fall within the limits of liberal Christianity, so I am not sure just how broadly a brush you're painting with.

Simple, personal gods have influence over human life, they are involved.

Basic description of christianity to me:

Jesus was god
Jesus was crucified to relieve others of sin
Jesus rose from the dead
Jesus (god) must be believed to have a chance at salvation

Would you agree, to be considered a christian the above is required belief?

When it comes to the simple points above, i got to a point i simply couldnt buy it any longer, when i overlay it, with well evidenced reality.

bhsmte · Sep 22, 2017

Dirk1540 said:
Great post, but at the same time I feel like my head is gonna explode.

There are an awful lot of people out there who are taught this 'Historically Airtight' pretty little package of Christianity. I could find critical Biblical scholars who are full blown Christians (like Richard Hess) that would rip a lot of 'Safe Zone' Christians out of their beliefs if they read certain material from them. Heck Bill Mahr's Religulous documentary ended a lot of Christian beliefs...talk about straw men did you see the people who 'Defended' Christianity in that documentary lol?

Maybe one day these former Christians will stop to ask themselves why there are these critical Christian scholars who know even 20 times more Biblical 'Difficulties' than they do, yet remain Christians. The Bible suffers the same difficulties as all ancient documents.

I believe people like me look at the Bible in reverse order then a lot of Christians do who get rocked out of their faith. I believe most people throw this 'Book' down on the table and say to themselves "This is the infallible perfect word of God!" And anything that comes along that challenges that becomes a crack in their dam!

The cracks in my dam were in reverse order because I was overly skeptical. I through this 'Book' down on the table and said to myself "This is a bunch of superstitious fables from people thousands of years ago!" The cracks in my dam were things that would come along and start suggesting "Hmm, for being a bunch of superstitious fables THIS raises a few questions...hmm, for being a bunch of superstitious fable THAT raises a few questions as well..."

I know that it comes down to personal perception for each individual, but the cracks in my dam became too plentiful for me to hang onto my stance that I had a book of fables on my table. Plenty of ISSUES remained, I will not argue that, but for me it was a matter of being pushed past a borderline as opposed to having the ability to tackle every objection.

Thats all good and people interpret and percieve things based on their own psyche. I am sure you dont believe in the claims of other religious beliefs, because you cant reconcile them in your own mind. Some folks, are like this with christianity.

2PhiloVoid · Sep 22, 2017

Silmarien said:
Come now, don't leave me all alone in epistemological trainwreck land! Want a metanarrative? We've got plenty to spare!

Oh, don't worry. I didn't say that our various epistemic states don't still amount to a trainwreck. It's just that I'm more of a Constructivist "type" than a pure proponent of Relativism or Nihilism; I think the passengers can come out alive and much of the cargo can still be salvaged. I'm still "out-there" a bit as far as present evangelical Christianity is concerned. In fact, I'll just say that my main influence at the moment for things epistemological is Ralph Baergen, among some others. So, Sis, no one's abandoning you....!

Peace,
2PhiloVoid

Dirk1540 · Sep 22, 2017

bhsmte said:
Thats all good and people interpret and percieve things based on their own psyche. I am sure you dont believe in the claims of other religious beliefs, because you cant reconcile them in your own mind. Some folks, are like this with christianity.

I agree, starting with myself. Many times I rejected Christianity as well. I'm an odd case, I went back & forth many times. Other religions never had anything over me, I didn't see any arguments in them that would have an effect of yanking me back & forth.

bhsmte · Sep 22, 2017

Dirk1540 said:
I agree, starting with myself. Many times I rejected Christianity as well. I'm an odd case, I went back & forth many times. Other religions never had anything over me, I didn't see any arguments in them that would have an effect of yanking me back & forth.

Like i always say, if a certain faith believes gives someone hope and makes them a better person, it is the right thing for them personally.

How did you arrive at Christianity?

"Super Genius"

Newbie

Critically Copernican

"Super Genius"

Well-Known Member

Newbie

Well-Known Member

Existentialist

Critically Copernican

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Existentialist

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Existentialist

Newbie

Newbie

Critically Copernican

Well-Known Member

Newbie

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency