Should an ex-Christian be able to explain why?

[bhsmte]

So because people can't figure out what is right (righteousness) and wrong (unrighteousness), righteousness and unrighteousness therefore does not exist. Is that your conclusion.

in Christ, Not me

Not what I said, strawman.

People can figure out what they feel is right or wrong and act accordingly.

 

[Not me]

I believe it was

in Christ, Not me

 

[bhsmte]

Me neither.

in Christ, Not me

Cool.

 

[Not me]

Not what I said, strawman.

People can figure out what they feel is right or wrong and act accordingly.

Scripture does say "everyone was doing what was right in there own eyes"

in Christ, Not me

 

[bhsmte]

Scripture does say "everyone was doing what was right in there own eyes"

in Christ, Not me

That's what people do.

 

[Not me]

That's what people do.

True, but is that right?

in Christ, Not me

 

[bhsmte]

True, but is that right?

in Christ, Not me

When you get all Christians to agree on what is right, then talk to me.

 

[Silmarien]

I'm no expert, but from what I've seen (if you know Church history) ... after Catholics went their own way from the rest of the Church, they did change their approach to become very scholastic and intellectual. Those tendencies have largely been inherited by Protestants in many ways. I wonder if it has contributed to the modern idea that "faith" really consists of mental gymnastics and making yourself believe something. It's SO far from the way the east approaches the faith though. But on the other hand, Greek philosophy had its influence on the early Church. But largely, the Church (at least Orthodoxy) is suspicious of philosophical approaches to the faith. We recognize that any "Truth" so discovered risks being nothing more than the construct of man's thoughts and imaginations.

Yeah, I'm familiar with Church history (though I'd assume less so than you). From what I understand, there are two major philosophical trends within it, the original Platonic approach and then the Aristotelianism that eventually got introduced into the West through the Muslims and became the foundations of Scholasticism. Of course, the Muslims didn't just "discover" Aristotle--they got all those writings from the Byzantines, so it's not really like the West had something that the East didn't. Though I suppose the fact that all this stuff was "new" to Catholicism in a way it never was for Orthodoxy meant that it needed to be theologically integrated to not pose a threat.

Sometimes I wonder how much it is just a matter of personalities, though. What would Catholicism be without Augustine or Aquinas? Something very different than it actually is. I'm not sure if Orthodoxy can point to the influence of very specific saints in the same way (not including Paul, of course). Maybe Gregory Palamas? I've seen him pointed to as the theologian who saved Orthodoxy from Scholasticism before, though I'm not sure precisely how.

But yeah, I think Protestantism is strongly defined in contrast with Catholicism. Either they drop the mysteries entirely and try to intellectualize everything, à la Calvinism, or they go the opposite route and oppose faith and reason--some of those Lutheran theologians certainly do that. Or they do one of a million others things because you can't really pin down Protestantism very well at all.

Anyway, no worries about tangents. I always like reading what you have to say.

 

[Not me]

When you get all Christians to agree on what is right, then talk to me.

As you wish, but that doesn't change the truth.

in Christ, Not me

 

[Silmarien]

Thanks, that helps me organize my reasoning a little bit. I honestly think there is something screwy about my brain. When I think it is like pacing in circles around the subject over and over until I gradually decide something (sometimes) after reaching a level of mental exhaustion - and the decision is never final. I think I am a "concrete thinker" instead of an "abstract thinker" (?) I don't feel comfortable until I can visualize things. Words are confusing.

But anyway I have a biography of Judaism and Christianity I have constructed that seems plausible and indicates they are malarky. But is there an alternative biography that also "connects the dots" of the historical evidence and makes the religions seem true? That's what I wonder sometimes. There are obviously many possible biographies that fit the dots. In other words can I use one of the known historical (or even personal experiential) data points to prove that any possible curve fit to this data will demonstrate the malarkey of the Abrahamic faiths? That's what I ask myself, and I don't know where to start to answer that.

Yeah, I think that's a very difficult question to ask. There's a sociologist of religion out there, Rodney Stark (an agnostic turned Christian), who's pretty comfortable with theories that you might think would demonstrate that Judaism is an accident of history. For example, if there were Zoroastrian influences, or even if the origins of the religion could be traced through Moses to Akhenaten in Egypt, we would still have to wonder whether this was not simply the way God chose to deliver his revelation, extending it historically through various figures we might not traditionally associate with Judaism in a sort of continuous revelation instead of all at once directly to Moses.

So even the same take on the development of the religions could lead to vastly different interpretations of the mechanics underlying them. That's always going to be a problem. History is tricky like that.

 

[gaara4158]

I'd like to point out that I've seen idealists say something similar to argue that belief in matter is unjustified. They would argue that idealism begins with a premise that cannot be doubted, i.e., that mental activity exists, whereas materialism and dualism require belief in something extra that can be doubted: the existence of something outside of experience.

"Evidence" is not really a neutral idea, since what we accept as evidence will depend upon how we've been conditioned to think about a certain question. There is no evidence you can offer to a convinced idealist for the existence of matter, because they've already ruled out as irrelevant any evidence that cannot be directly obtained from within conscious experience. Likewise, a convinced atheist will be coming from a direction from which any argument for God is invalidated because it's already outside of the atheist's preferred framework for assessing the question. What I see happen a lot is what I would call a Naturalism of the Gaps--the automatic assumption that naturalistic explanations will be found for every difficult question about reality facing us, tomorrow if not today. This really amounts to assuming your conclusion, and it's one of the places where conversation breaks down.

As for the claim that there is no evidence for the existence of God, I've seen atheists over at the Secular Outpost tear people apart for that one. The question isn't really whether any evidence exists, but whether there is sufficient evidence. I think that's very subjective, though. Some people think it's really, really strange (borderline impossible) that anything exists at all, and others don't really think it's even a question worth asking. Asking the "wrong" questions can lead you out of religion, but it can also lead you back to it. I spent months trying to figure out why I wasn't an atheist and pretty much independently hit upon everything the various theological traditions have been saying for millennia. Reinventing the Wheel 101.

The whole argument is of course very ambitious, and it's meant less as an actual solution to the question "does god exist" and more as a probe to any believer's epistemology. How they choose to attack either premise will uncover what kind of evidence warrants belief to them, and if they find they cannot successfully deny either premise within their own epistemology, they have to admit that they have no reason to believe in God. That's what happened to me. If they do attempt to deny either premise, you've got them accepting a burden of proof and you can go from there.

 

[Silmarien]

The whole argument is of course very ambitious, and it's meant less as an actual solution to the question "does god exist" and more as a probe to any believer's epistemology. How they choose to attack either premise will uncover what kind of evidence warrants belief to them, and if they find they cannot successfully deny either premise within their own epistemology, they have to admit that they have no reason to believe in God. That's what happened to me. If they do attempt to deny either premise, you've got them accepting a burden of proof and you can go from there.

Well, in that case I would change the formula somewhat, because with the potential denial of premise 1, you're conflating two questions: a metaphysical one concerning the existence of God and an epistemological one about justification of belief. So:

1. If God exists AND wishes us to have knowledge of his existence, there will be evidence that God exists.

2. There is no evidence that God exists.

3. Therefore, God either does not exist OR does not wish us to have knowledge of his existence.

4. If God does not wish us to have knowledge of his existence, all religions positing otherwise are false.

5. Therefore, all religions positing that God wishes us to have knowledge of his existence are false.

You can turn this into something of an argument from divine hiddenness (an argument which I think has some power against exclusivistic religious claims), but I would still of course have to challenge you on Premise 2.

(I thought you said you were originally agnostic, btw. I take it that was a later development?)

 

[Lukaris]

A person does not believe Jesus Christ is savior; I presume their conscience functions within reality as they understand it. End of story, I would think.

Secularists agree we all have faults; as Christians we see this problem as something deeper called sin. The Gospel convicts many of us but also not many of us. The choice is free will.

 

[bhsmte]

As you wish, but that doesn't change the truth.

in Christ, Not me

No idea what specific truth you are referring to.

 

[Not me]

No idea what specific truth you are referring to.

I’m going to bail out of this conversation it doesn’t seem to be going anywhere. So best wishes with your endeavors.

Much love in Christ, Not me

 

[~Anastasia~]

Yeah, I'm familiar with Church history (though I'd assume less so than you). From what I understand, there are two major philosophical trends within it, the original Platonic approach and then the Aristotelianism that eventually got introduced into the West through the Muslims and became the foundations of Scholasticism. Of course, the Muslims didn't just "discover" Aristotle--they got all those writings from the Byzantines, so it's not really like the West had something that the East didn't. Though I suppose the fact that all this stuff was "new" to Catholicism in a way it never was for Orthodoxy meant that it needed to be theologically integrated to not pose a threat.

Sometimes I wonder how much it is just a matter of personalities, though. What would Catholicism be without Augustine or Aquinas? Something very different than it actually is. I'm not sure if Orthodoxy can point to the influence of very specific saints in the same way (not including Paul, of course). Maybe Gregory Palamas? I've seen him pointed to as the theologian who saved Orthodoxy from Scholasticism before, though I'm not sure precisely how.

But yeah, I think Protestantism is strongly defined in contrast with Catholicism. Either they drop the mysteries entirely and try to intellectualize everything, à la Calvinism, or they go the opposite route and oppose faith and reason--some of those Lutheran theologians certainly do that. Or they do one of a million others things because you can't really pin down Protestantism very well at all.

Anyway, no worries about tangents. I always like reading what you have to say.

I think you must know history well enough.

I actually avoided studying certain parts of it for some time because I didn't want to be unduly influenced - say by bad behavior (even atrocities) which you can't escape knowing about on the part of some Church leaders, etc.

Personalities - that's a whole other level of interest. I'm still comparing how theologies develop, but personality is an important factor at many points. I'd add Eusebius and Luther. But Augustine especially was huge, I think. Ultimately, we are each influenced to a degree by our own personalities, so that's shouldn't be surprising. Sometimes I think the best we can do is to try to put it aside and go through whatever process, and allow it to come into play only after we've gotten the foundations.

That's interesting about the Muslims - I haven't had a chance to look into that much at all.

St. Gregory Palamas is probably a good choice. He defended the mysticism against the overly intellectual inquiry, true. I do think that is important in itself. Some of the most technically literate persons regarding Christianity that I have known have been atheists, who for whatever reason dedicated a great deal of time to studying what they don't believe. Yet for all the vast knowledge they possessed, they came no closer to understanding. Indeed, it seems to get in the way - if for no other reason they can't seem to understand overarching principles and frameworks which make sense of what can seem contradictory on the surface. That's an understandable challenge though. I'm not belittling them. Only saying once more that a strictly intellectual approach can be a hindrance.

I think too though that Palamas' understanding of grace as the very energy of God active in man's life, and not some created (and so quantifiable) thing - is part of the gulf between Catholics/Protestants and Orthodox. Catholics tend to measure sin, prescribe penance (to replace a measured punishment?), and likewise measure how much favor we can gain from God by going on a particular pilgrimage or praying x-number of prayers, and so on. That is totally foreign to Orthodox thought. It's simple for us - God wants to save/heal us, He does things for our good, we cooperate (or not), and the degree to which we cooperate (as well as what God in His wisdom does) affects how we progress in healing from the effects of sin, which is the ultimate goal. (Of course salvation is through Christ, if anyone reading thinks I'm saying otherwise, but saving/healing mankind is a more complete, organic process than the typical legal transaction that others tend to narrow to as their focus.)

Anyway. Rambling again. I hope you meant it when you said you didn't mind. Of course, if you do, you don't have to read my prattling lol.

It's a pleasure discussing with you.

 

[gaara4158]

Well, in that case I would change the formula somewhat, because with the potential denial of premise 1, you're conflating two questions: a metaphysical one concerning the existence of God and an epistemological one about justification of belief. So:

1. If God exists AND wishes us to have knowledge of his existence, there will be evidence that God exists.

2. There is no evidence that God exists.

3. Therefore, God either does not exist OR does not wish us to have knowledge of his existence.

4. If God does not wish us to have knowledge of his existence, all religions positing otherwise are false.

5. Therefore, all religions positing that God wishes us to have knowledge of his existence are false.

You can turn this into something of an argument from divine hiddenness (an argument which I think has some power against exclusivistic religious claims), but I would still of course have to challenge you on Premise 2.

(I thought you said you were originally agnostic, btw. I take it that was a later development?)

That's a reasonable modification I suppose, though since divine hiddenness is so problematic for someone trying to demonstrate God's existence I thought it a negligible provision. But yes, I spent my early years a devout Seventh-Day-Adventist, but as I exited my teens I found I couldn't justify my beliefs according to the very epistemology I used to reject the myriad of other "false" gods, so I spent some time calling myself an "agnostic" before finally settling with the label "agnostic atheist."

 

[Silmarien]

St. Gregory Palamas is probably a good choice. He defended the mysticism against the overly intellectual inquiry, true. I do think that is important in itself. Some of the most technically literate persons regarding Christianity that I have known have been atheists, who for whatever reason dedicated a great deal of time to studying what they don't believe. Yet for all the vast knowledge they possessed, they came no closer to understanding. Indeed, it seems to get in the way - if for no other reason they can't seem to understand overarching principles and frameworks which make sense of what can seem contradictory on the surface. That's an understandable challenge though. I'm not belittling them. Only saying once more that a strictly intellectual approach can be a hindrance.

Oh, yes. I would definitely agree that there's a difference between knowledge and understanding, though I'm not sure to what degree it's a matter of knowledge getting in the way. The problem is that if you take a combative stance towards something and spend your time looking for reasons to reject it, you never actually get to a point where you can grasp what your opponent is saying. There's a Catholic philosopher who I follow who's said something along those lines--it wasn't until he started teaching Aquinas to undergrads that he finally dug into the literature to figure out exactly what was being argued and why. And somewhere along the way he decided Aquinas was right.

I've had something of a similar experience. It took a long time for Christianity to stop looking like an opponent to be defeated, so everything I knew about it became a weapon to be used against it, not a source of understanding. Not even necessarily consciously, but if you're going to keep something at arm's length, you'll never really understand it. The problem there isn't knowledge itself, though.

The other issue is that there's a lot of misinformation out there. After all, everyone knows that Constantine put together the New Testament for political purposes and Galileo was a martyr for science against the blind dogmatism of the Catholic Church, right? No, but those myths are so very convenient that it's hard to set the record straight, since people tend to be convinced that they know everything.

 

[~Anastasia~]

Oh, yes. I would definitely agree that there's a difference between knowledge and understanding, though I'm not sure to what degree it's a matter of knowledge getting in the way. The problem is that if you take a combative stance towards something and spend your time looking for reasons to reject it, you never actually get to a point where you can grasp what your opponent is saying. There's a Catholic philosopher who I follow who's said something along those lines--it wasn't until he started teaching Aquinas to undergrads that he finally dug into the literature to figure out exactly what was being argued and why. And somewhere along the way he decided Aquinas was right.

I've had something of a similar experience. It took a long time for Christianity to stop looking like an opponent to be defeated, so everything I knew about it became a weapon to be used against it, not a source of understanding. Not even necessarily consciously, but if you're going to keep something at arm's length, you'll never really understand it. The problem there isn't knowledge itself, though.

The other issue is that there's a lot of misinformation out there. After all, everyone knows that Constantine put together the New Testament for political purposes and Galileo was a martyr for science against the blind dogmatism of the Catholic Church, right? No, but those myths are so very convenient that it's hard to set the record straight, since people tend to be convinced that they know everything.

Your points bring to mind a LOT of the arguing I see between Christians on this site.

I was raised in an anti-Catholic environment. I've read and heard the arguments. And for a number of reasons I could simply have never become Catholic. But one of the first things I did when I joined CF and saw Catholics that posted clearly about their beliefs was to ASK them what they actually believed, and why, and so forth. I wasn't gathering ammo, but I think you have a point about that kind of motive - it seems to give people a kind of tunnel vision. It's like being in a debate and not listening to what the other person is saying because we're just planning what we're going to say next. We cant truly understand if we don't try. I wasn't interested in becoming Catholic, but I was tired of the demonization I'd heard that I thought surely was somewhat misinformed. And it was VERY misinformed, as I'm sure you can imagine.

And those myths that never seem to die. I get so tired of hearing about Tammuz/Christ parallels. Along with Constantine, etc. At least Galileo doesn't affect me, but ignorance is tiring, lol.

And the attitudes that accompany the spats. I fear we make a total mockery of the faith by any atheists who happen to read such posts. I only hope God credits them all with their fervor for the faith (which they at least possess) rather than holding them responsible for perhaps convincing lurkers that Christianity isn't worth considering.

In the days of the early Church, people saw how Christians lived their faith, their love for one another, and their steadfastness even in martyrdom. THAT was a testimony, and many converted based on that, even at a danger to their own lives. What we show the world now ... it's hard to label it as the same faith.

My own Church/parish isn't perfect. It's made of people - some who are like living Saints (many in fact, thankfully!), but some who just aren't there yet and are still in the process of being healed, or maybe not having made much progress at all. (I suspect the same was true in some measure of the early Church as well, though maybe in different proportions.) Yet thankfully I can see the community, the koinonia, the Church AS a functioning Body - in this family that has welcomed me in and made me a part of them.

But it's a far cry from what I often see acted out in public forums. The disparity makes me cringe sometimes. (And I'm not bragging to say I'm above that - I'm sure at times I've made just as much of a jerk of myself and I just hope no one was taking my foolishness to heart.)

 

[DogmaHunter]

So because people can't figure out what is right (righteousness) and wrong (unrighteousness), righteousness and unrighteousness therefore does not exist. Is that your conclusion.

in Christ, Not me

That's not what he said at all.