-
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
How does one come to believe something?
- Thread starter Joshua260
- Start date
Let’s talk about evidence.
First, is evidence objective? In some sense maybe. But interpreting it isn’t necessarily obvious. When discussing details of how the “big bang” happened, and other parts of astronomy, evidence is often not very obviously connected with the model. Much of it is the exact way in which light is distributed in the sky. It becomes evidence for different models because the models make various predictions about how light should be distributed. But there could be other models no one has thought of that could fit the evidence just as well, and have other advantages. The same thing is true in the search for the foundations of physics.
Second, not everything is as clearcut as physics and astronomy. Behavioral and social science has to look at data that is even harder to interpret. In economics in particular, it’s nearly impossible to conduct repeatable experiments. There are often many very different explanations for the same behavior. History is like that, but even worse.
I think Christianity is closer to history than to physics. After all, it’s often dealing with one-time events. Of course there are times when we can use scientific evidence. That’s why neither of us believes that the world was actually created in 7 days, and (although I’m not sure you’re looked at this yet), why the account of the Exodus in the OT is probably not historically accurate. But it’s much harder to deal with Jesus on a basis like this.
To my knowledge, there are at least three types of evidence used.
* philosophical
* historical
* experiential
PHILOSOPHICAL. For centuries Christians have been proposing arguments to establish the existence of God. These shouldn’t be thought of as proofs in the sense you’re used to them in math. They are probably best thought of as pointers. I’m not a great fan of these, but some people have found some of them suggestive. A former pastor claims he became a Christian because of the ontological proof.
HISTORICAL. Christianity claims to be a revealed religion. If God exists in anything like the form most religions think of, the only way we can know about him is if he tells us or shows us. Christianity believes he’s done so by sending prophets, and finally Jesus. But those are events in the past, so assessing them is really a historical enterprise. We’ve only thought about this subject using anything like current critical methods since the Enlightenment. Initially the assessment was pretty negative. But during the last 100 years, we’ve learned more about 1st Cent Judaism, and also about how sacred stories are transmitted in traditional oral cultures. As a result, I think at least some assessments can be made about what Jesus taught, what Paul was up to, etc. Of course none of this can show that Jesus actually was sent by God. But it at least lets us assess what he said and did. If you’re interested in this, you should be looking for topics like the “historical Jesus” and Pauline studies.
Supposing we know at least in general terms what Jesus did and what he taught. How do we know whether he was right in claiming to have been sent by God? Now we get into the fuzziest area, but an area that we use every day. When someone describes something they’ve experienced, or talks about themselves, how do we know whether to believe them? This isn’t an area where we can use proof, but we do have some evidence. We look at what we know about their personality and their actions. We look at whether what they say makes sense, and whether it seems to fit with what else we know about the world. In the case of Judaism and Jesus, we compare what they taught with what the world was like outside and ask whether this represents a real advance that seems to have been based on enlightenment. We ask whether they’re credible witnesses. This is all pretty far from what you may think of a objective evidence, but it’s the way we make most of the decisions that matter most in our lives.
PERSONAL EXPERIENCE. It is very unlikely that Christianity would survive simply on the basis of Biblical accounts, if people didn’t have religious experience today. Something like 50% of the people in the US think they’ve had a personal encounter with God. Now we all know alternative ways to explain these. But again, we decide who to marry, how to treat our parents and children, etc, based on our experience with them. Christians pray. That doesn’t mean they all experience miracles. But most Christians will tell you that it matters. People experience things that may or may not be miracles but are certainly very low-probability events, and make you think.
Also, when looking at something like Christianity, which is a total world-view, it’s relevant to look at what Christians around you are like. While some people probably become Christians through reading the Bible, I think there’s pretty good evidence that most become Christians because of Christians around them, or because of the Church. I think this is a kind of evidence. If Christians are actually in touch with our creator, it should make a difference in our lives. I’m part of one of the most liberal churches around. But our people still pray and say it makes a difference. One of my colleagues is part of our church because the Church saved his life. The people who grew up with are now mostly dead or in prison. He came very close to that himself. He also experienced one of those very low probability events that saved his life. My situation is different. I grew up as a Christian, and can’t quite imagine being anything else.
I am well aware that this particular criterion is a dangerous one. You’ve reported three friends who took a look at CF and ran the other direction. I understand exactly why. If I didn’t already have experience with good churches, I’d do the same. But there are still Christians, and Christian communities, that show us Christ.
YOUR BACKGROUND
Realistically, most people believe what they do because their parents or community does. I think this is perfectly rational. If we all had to start from scratch, and build up a set of beliefs ourselves, doing all of our experiments, humanity would never get anyway. We accept authority even in science. While high schools often have their kids do a few experiments, the answers you give on science tests mostly come from things your teachers have taught you.
So the fact is, most Christians are Christians because that’s how they grew up. Obviously there are converts, both in and out, but I think that’s a small fraction.
I maintain that there’s nothing wrong with starting from where your parents and community have put you. However I also think it’s important to test things. Check what evidence you can. Look carefully at what kind of world your religion leads to.
First, is evidence objective? In some sense maybe. But interpreting it isn’t necessarily obvious. When discussing details of how the “big bang” happened, and other parts of astronomy, evidence is often not very obviously connected with the model. Much of it is the exact way in which light is distributed in the sky. It becomes evidence for different models because the models make various predictions about how light should be distributed. But there could be other models no one has thought of that could fit the evidence just as well, and have other advantages. The same thing is true in the search for the foundations of physics.
Second, not everything is as clearcut as physics and astronomy. Behavioral and social science has to look at data that is even harder to interpret. In economics in particular, it’s nearly impossible to conduct repeatable experiments. There are often many very different explanations for the same behavior. History is like that, but even worse.
I think Christianity is closer to history than to physics. After all, it’s often dealing with one-time events. Of course there are times when we can use scientific evidence. That’s why neither of us believes that the world was actually created in 7 days, and (although I’m not sure you’re looked at this yet), why the account of the Exodus in the OT is probably not historically accurate. But it’s much harder to deal with Jesus on a basis like this.
To my knowledge, there are at least three types of evidence used.
* philosophical
* historical
* experiential
PHILOSOPHICAL. For centuries Christians have been proposing arguments to establish the existence of God. These shouldn’t be thought of as proofs in the sense you’re used to them in math. They are probably best thought of as pointers. I’m not a great fan of these, but some people have found some of them suggestive. A former pastor claims he became a Christian because of the ontological proof.
HISTORICAL. Christianity claims to be a revealed religion. If God exists in anything like the form most religions think of, the only way we can know about him is if he tells us or shows us. Christianity believes he’s done so by sending prophets, and finally Jesus. But those are events in the past, so assessing them is really a historical enterprise. We’ve only thought about this subject using anything like current critical methods since the Enlightenment. Initially the assessment was pretty negative. But during the last 100 years, we’ve learned more about 1st Cent Judaism, and also about how sacred stories are transmitted in traditional oral cultures. As a result, I think at least some assessments can be made about what Jesus taught, what Paul was up to, etc. Of course none of this can show that Jesus actually was sent by God. But it at least lets us assess what he said and did. If you’re interested in this, you should be looking for topics like the “historical Jesus” and Pauline studies.
Supposing we know at least in general terms what Jesus did and what he taught. How do we know whether he was right in claiming to have been sent by God? Now we get into the fuzziest area, but an area that we use every day. When someone describes something they’ve experienced, or talks about themselves, how do we know whether to believe them? This isn’t an area where we can use proof, but we do have some evidence. We look at what we know about their personality and their actions. We look at whether what they say makes sense, and whether it seems to fit with what else we know about the world. In the case of Judaism and Jesus, we compare what they taught with what the world was like outside and ask whether this represents a real advance that seems to have been based on enlightenment. We ask whether they’re credible witnesses. This is all pretty far from what you may think of a objective evidence, but it’s the way we make most of the decisions that matter most in our lives.
PERSONAL EXPERIENCE. It is very unlikely that Christianity would survive simply on the basis of Biblical accounts, if people didn’t have religious experience today. Something like 50% of the people in the US think they’ve had a personal encounter with God. Now we all know alternative ways to explain these. But again, we decide who to marry, how to treat our parents and children, etc, based on our experience with them. Christians pray. That doesn’t mean they all experience miracles. But most Christians will tell you that it matters. People experience things that may or may not be miracles but are certainly very low-probability events, and make you think.
Also, when looking at something like Christianity, which is a total world-view, it’s relevant to look at what Christians around you are like. While some people probably become Christians through reading the Bible, I think there’s pretty good evidence that most become Christians because of Christians around them, or because of the Church. I think this is a kind of evidence. If Christians are actually in touch with our creator, it should make a difference in our lives. I’m part of one of the most liberal churches around. But our people still pray and say it makes a difference. One of my colleagues is part of our church because the Church saved his life. The people who grew up with are now mostly dead or in prison. He came very close to that himself. He also experienced one of those very low probability events that saved his life. My situation is different. I grew up as a Christian, and can’t quite imagine being anything else.
I am well aware that this particular criterion is a dangerous one. You’ve reported three friends who took a look at CF and ran the other direction. I understand exactly why. If I didn’t already have experience with good churches, I’d do the same. But there are still Christians, and Christian communities, that show us Christ.
YOUR BACKGROUND
Realistically, most people believe what they do because their parents or community does. I think this is perfectly rational. If we all had to start from scratch, and build up a set of beliefs ourselves, doing all of our experiments, humanity would never get anyway. We accept authority even in science. While high schools often have their kids do a few experiments, the answers you give on science tests mostly come from things your teachers have taught you.
So the fact is, most Christians are Christians because that’s how they grew up. Obviously there are converts, both in and out, but I think that’s a small fraction.
I maintain that there’s nothing wrong with starting from where your parents and community have put you. However I also think it’s important to test things. Check what evidence you can. Look carefully at what kind of world your religion leads to.
Upvote
0
- Dec 25, 2015
- 2,829
- 982
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Eastern Orthodox
- Marital Status
- Private
- Politics
- US-Constitution
Try it yourself - Set up any parameters you like...
I just prayed generically: "Lord have Mercy on [Name...]"
Do it morning and night for two weeks...
And pay attention to [Name]'s life events...
It was as simple as that...
I was genuine in the prayer...
That's all...
Arsenios
Upvote
0
- Dec 25, 2015
- 2,829
- 982
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Eastern Orthodox
- Marital Status
- Private
- Politics
- US-Constitution
Upvote
0
bhsmte
Newbie
This experiment, would be prone to serious confirmation bias.
Have you ever noticed, when you buy a new car, you tend to notice others with your same car much more often, than you did before you bought the car?
You are basically telling yourself, look for anything to attach to a God, in what you are explaining.
Upvote
0
The point is that miracles or prayer are never credited with the regrowth of amputated limbs; why? because amputated limbs don't spontaneously regrow, and so their spontaneous regrowth can never be misattributed to prayer or miracles, unlike recovery or remission from many other diseases and injuries.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
No, "long ago" only pertains to our perspective in present time. But...our present time is not "now" as it would appear, but rather only "now" in the story...and that is simply where we "now" are ourselves.
However, there is no past, present, and future with God...so, it is all "now." So...it is only in the "story line" or "story time" that we have freewill. Put into proper context, time, having a timeline, actually only exists for the eternal purpose of telling the story. God is the Author, and we walk it out moment by moment, every moment of which we indeed have freewill - but, it all exists within the "created" "image" in the mind of God...in the twinkling of His eye (so to speak). Theology often gets in the way - but these are the words that are written, and the truth of it.
History...is His story. It's whatever He wants...and if He wants His story to have a timeline, then that is what it has - but it is all a "created" "image" within a timeless eternity.
Consider "I am." God was not, nor will be - but simply is. Likewise, His story has a timeline, wherein we all have freewill - but it was not, nor will be...but simply is.
Upvote
0
If it was as simple as that, high-quality research would not require the meticulous, expensive, time-consuming, and tedious procedures like painstaking experimental design by experienced researchers, randomized controlled trials, and blinding, etc. Why waste time, money, resources, and patience doing all that? because it's so easy to make mistakes and fool yourself. I strongly recommend Ben Goldacre's entertaining book "Bad Science", which highlights and explains a raft of common misconceptions arising from bad science.
Upvote
0
If the 'characters' in the 'story' have free will, they can change what happens in the 'story', so not only is it only a story in retrospect (not already 'created'), but the characters are the real authors and the 'author' is only relating what actually happened... It really doesn't hold together.
That simply restates what I questioned - that you appear to want it both ways - that God is outside time, and yet can interact with the world within time; these are logically incompatible. How does your interpretation reconcile this conflict?
Upvote
0
That is indeed where it gets tricky to contemplate. Nevertheless, it does hold true: As "created" beings, we will do what we were created to do - but the real time reality is, that the story timeline is not real but created also, and yet it is told on a timeline (which makes it confusing), simply for the sake of media.
We could talk about the details of time lapse, and you could come back as you have, saying, "Yeah, but...(referring to a timeline)". But...there is no timeline - the timeline is part of the story too.
No, I am saying, time only exists within the story, but is actually non-existent - only a form of media.
Imagine a newspaper on your front step: If I asked you how long it is? You might give me the number of pages. And if I said, no, not how many pages, but how much time is it? You might, say, "You mean, how long did it take to make it?" And I would, say, "No, how long is it now, right this very second?" And then, your answer would have to be..."A second?" ... But in the case of a timeless God, there are no seconds...everything just is. So, then I might say, "Then I will read the paper and see how long it takes...and I will tell you how long it is." But when I am done, God will tell me, "In my mind and in your mind, it took you your whole life to read My story, but time was never real...except in the story."
Upvote
0
- Dec 25, 2015
- 2,829
- 982
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Eastern Orthodox
- Marital Status
- Private
- Politics
- US-Constitution
The only evidence you will find on this eminently empirical approach will be found only within your SELF...
So I can understand your hesitation...
But so will any other evidence - If you do NOT experience it, how can you believe it?
Arsenios
Upvote
0
- Dec 25, 2015
- 2,829
- 982
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Eastern Orthodox
- Marital Status
- Private
- Politics
- US-Constitution
As you get older, you may be blessed to discover that the curse is the blessing...
Arsenios
Upvote
0
- Dec 25, 2015
- 2,829
- 982
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Eastern Orthodox
- Marital Status
- Private
- Politics
- US-Constitution
A one m Hm... So I am not totally awash, I say!
When first experienced, I was as awe-overwhelmed as you will be...
It IS possible for man, because he is created in the Image of God...
Hence He has the potential to so participate in God...
But not to BE God...
Arsenios
Upvote
0
- Dec 25, 2015
- 2,829
- 982
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Eastern Orthodox
- Marital Status
- Private
- Politics
- US-Constitution
Upvote
0
- Dec 25, 2015
- 2,829
- 982
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Eastern Orthodox
- Marital Status
- Private
- Politics
- US-Constitution
Upvote
0
Similar threads
