Conference lgp30::christian-perspective

"A young atheist can not be too careful of his beliefs." -- C.S. Lewis
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From "The Episcopal Church" by Fr. Roy Pettway, SSP

Everybody has to believe something, even if what he believes is "I can not
know anything as certain, for there is no uniformity or consistencey that
exists; therefore I can not believe anything."  Even in this case, a person
believes that he can not believe anything.

But: This is contradictory; and how can one prove that there is no
uniformity or consistency existing?

All knowledge is based on two assumptions which we must accept by faith:
(1) We simply accept the belief that the things we hear, see, and feel
really exist and are not imaginary.  We can not prove this.  (2) We simply
accept the belief that we are able to think.  We can not prove this,
either.  Thus everything depends on faith.

Knowledge is arrived at by: (1) Observing certain facts or happenings;
(2) Making guesses to explain what we have observed; (3) Trying out various
guesses to see which one seems to work the best; (4) Accepting the most
satisfactory guess as probably true, and acting as if it were true.

When some new fact or happening, some anomaly, is discovered, we repeat
this process, and arrive at a better guess which we accept as probably
true.

This is the way of knowledge, both in science and religion.  It is a
mistake to assume that "scientific laws" are necessarily true.  Anomalies
are continually being discovered, and scientific laws are continually being
revised and improved, as more facts are observed.  Scientific experts are
aware of the fact that there is much knowledge whidh has not yet been
discovered, and that scientific laws are only tentative guesses which may
have to be changed when further knowledge is discovered.

We can not completely prove anything.  We act on the basis of probability.
We act as if that which seems most probable to us is really true, until we
find out that some other explanation is more probable.  Furthermore, we
must recognize the limitations of the human brain.  What seems reasonable
to us may not, in fact, be reasonable to the Perfect Mind who knows
everything, Whom we call "God."

All truth is an expression of the nature and will of God.  Since God's will
is consistent, and not capricious or variable, truth is consistent.  If it
seems at times to us to be inconsistent, it is because we do not know
everything.  There is very much of truth and reality which we simply have
not discovered.  Perhaps it would be an exaggeration to claim that we know
even one percent of everything.

Our senses are instruments by which we discover much truth.  But we must
admit that there are things which our natural senses are not equipped to
receive.  Obviously an illustration of this would be rays which are of a
different frequency than the light rays which our eyes can detect or the
sound waves that our ears can detect.  It is reasonable to assume, then,
there is very much of truth and reality which we can not detect with our
physical senses, or even with such instruments as we have been able to
invent.

Dealing with truth which we can receive through our senses, either natural
or aided by instruments, we arrive at some of the truth, and we reason
about it and arrive at certain guesses or explanations.  But always we must
remember that our explanations are only probable ones, and do not fully
explain all there is to explain.

Revelation is another method of receiving truth.  A teacher teaches his
pupils things which the individual pupils would never have the time or
ability to discover themselves.  An individual does not have to start all
over at nothing and discover everything for himself: if he did, the human
race would never have progressed beyond the level of the first generation
of humanity.  Teachers reveal things to pupils, and the pupils accept this
on faith, believing that the teacher is telling the truth; and then, if new
facts are discovered, the pupil adds this to that which was revealed to him
by his teacher.  And so knowledge increases from generation to generation.

God, we believe, has revealed truth to certain men who were able to receive
this revelation; and thus has taught the human race truths which we did not
discover by ourselves.  We accept this truth on faith, because God, we
believe, is truthful.

Dealing with truth received from our senses, human reason can arrive at
certain explanations.  But dealing not only with this, but also with truth
received by revelation, we can arrive at more complete and more
satisfactory explanations.

Science and religion are never contradictory.  If they seem to be so, it is
because we have an inadequate knowledge of science, or an inadequate
knowledge of religion, or an inadequate knowledge of both of them.

Science itself depends upon a faith that there is a rationality, uniformity,
and consistency in the universe.  Science is concerned with how things act
and react.  Philosophy must be used to interpret the things observed by
science.

Religion is concerned with the purpose of things:  why they exist, why they
act, and the totality of existence.

It is true that sometimes the two become confused.  It is wrong, for
example, to put the Book of Genesis against the findings of science as an
explanation of how things were created; for the Book of Genesis is a
religious book that teaches us that "In the beginning, God created"
everything that exists.  The "how" is a matter for scientific
investigation.  Similarly, it is wrong for a chemist or medical doctor to
act as if his training in chemistry or medicine qualifies him to make
pronouncements in anything other than chemistry or medicine, for he has no
competence in philosophy or religion, no authority to pronounce "why".  A
medical doctor may ease suffereing and prolong life, but he does not, as a
medical doctor, have any competence to say why suffering should be eased,
or why life should be prolonged.  It is the business of religion to answer
"why?"

All truth is part of one Whole.  The supernatural is not distinctly
separated from the natural, but is that part of the Whole which we have not
yet, by unaided reason, been able to interpret or formulate into those
guesses we call natural law.

A miracle is not a suspension or violation of nature, but is a fact of
nature which we can not predict or explain.  The things we can explain are
those which happen with such frequency that we are able to predict them
with some certainty.  If there were a combination of natural forces which
brought about a certain event once every 100,000,000 years, we would not be
able to predict it, and it would seem to us to be a miracle when it
happened.

Everybody must believe something, that is, have some interpretation of
life.  Ours may be the contradictory one mentioned at the beginning, and
for some reason, we believe that we can not believe anything.  But we must
believe something before we can believe that we cannot believe anything.

Our interpretation of life may be a very casual, inconsistent, unthinking
one, or it may be one which has been considered, reasoned out, and thought
over very profoundly, either by ourselves, or by others in whom we have
faith.  Our interpretation of life may be called our "religion."

Christianity calls upon us, not to accept a religion when we have none, but
to change from our own religion (whatever it may be) to the Christian
religion, because the Christian religion is a better explanation and
interpretation of life.

One should not, in all reason, demand "proof" for Christianity when he does
not demand equal proof for his other "religion."  It is unreasonable to
accept atheism or materialism without proof, and then demand proof for
Christianity.  Remember that we can not absolutely prove anything.

Consider both Christianity and whatever other interpretation of life you
wish.  Whch of the two more fully interprets all the facts of the universe?
Which of the two works best in human relations?

A DIALOGUE:
A: I don't believe in God.  There is no God.
C: One of these must be true: "God does exist" or "God does not exist."
A: Yes; but I cannot believe that God exists unless you prove that God
   exists.
C: Then you can not believe that God _does_not_ exist unless you prove that
   God _does_not_ exist.
A: Then I can't believe anything at all, either that God does or does not
   exist.
C: No.  If you say that you indicate that you should be reasonable, and why
   should you be reasonable if there is no Reason behind things?  And what
   proof can you give for your belief that you can not believe anything
   without proof?
A: Then how can I know anything or believe anything?
C: Take the theory "God exists", and also take the theory "God does not
   exist."  Consider everything that does exist, and decide which of these
   two theories seems to be the most probable explanation or interpretation
   of everything.

Christians accept Christianity on faith, as we must accept everything else
on faith.  Christianity explains the facts of life and the universe, to us,
more satisfactorily than anything else explains them.  We have found no
facts which are contrary to the true Christian faith.  There are, of course,
facts contrary to distortions of Christianity which people may think to be
the Christian faith.

We believe that it is more probably that Christianity is true than that
any other explanation or interpretation of life is true.

...

Is it possible?  We believe that it is, and that it can't be proved
impossible.

Is it probable?  Yes, if thereby God's purpose might be realized.

Did it happen?  Evidence for the event upon which Christianity is based is
as good or better than evidence for anything else in ancient history and
for many things in modern history.

Christianity is based on actual fact, not on mere speculation.

      Hi Steve,
    
        In the last month, I have been laboring over a certain sin
        which nature I will not disclose.  I will say this.  It is
        a behavior that I lack the strength to change.
    
        I have first-hand had the experience of KNOWING Jesus has
        endured all the pain I have endured and then some.  I have
        first-hand had the experience of KNOWING that I have been
        making myself "of some reputation", all the while Jesus 
        "made Himself of no reputation" and said, "I am a worm and
        no man."  Oh, sorry, I quoted scripture.
    
        The tears of repentence have been real.  They were not 
        psychologically induced.  The experience is real.  It is divine.
        I am going through an absolute blender right now and I know
        that the work is divine.
    
    						Tony

Steve,

	I've been following your inquiries for some time now.  I've been
reluctant to respond.

	I cannot tell you why I believe in God.  Much of what I believe
would not withstand empirical examination.  Admittedly, my faith is not
rooted in objectivity or scientific analysis.

	Saying "the Bible tells me so" does not buy it for me either.
I consider the Bible to be a kind of log or journal of others' experiences
of God and therefore helpful to me for that reason.

	I believe I have encountered the Living Christ.  I believe I have
experienced first-hand the Divine and Everlasting.  To me, this makes all
the difference.  Unfortunately, I cannot show you my experience.  I cannot
hold it up for you to see.  Perhaps my life reflects something of it.
Perhaps not.  I would like to believe it does.

Shalom,
Richard

    	Faith.  Either you have it, or you don't.

Thanks for the responses so far, I truly appreciate them. I will follow up next
week (no time today) if I may, to ask clarifying questions on these responses. I
believe that I *may* be closer to an explanation that makes sense for me.
-------------------------------------------
.4 CSC32::J_OPPELT "Whatever happened to ADDATA?"

    	Faith.  Either you have it, or you don't.

Joe, is it a personal failing to not have faith, like a personality flaw?

Steve

    .5
    
    I think everyone has some degree of faith, even atheists and agostics.
    
    I don't see faith so much in binary terms.
    
    Shalom,
    Richard
    

re .0

Steve,

some thoughts on your questions

1. WHY do you believe in God?

Many reasons:

	- Creation

	- Witness accounts, the main one being Jesus himself
	  who bore witness about God.

	- Taking in accurate knowledge of God's Word and applying
	  the counsel, has given me confidence that God really does
	  exist. He has taught me to benefit myself and family. None
	  of the counsel has been detrimental.
 	
	- Modern day miracles, such as a united brotherhood of people
	  of all nations brought together, united in peace, faith
	  and worship. No man could do this.

	- prophecy

        and more

2. WHY do you believe in your particular version of God as opposed to the other
   versions that are out there. 

	Most people find that religion has failed them, just looking at
	the problems that stem from religion and one can quickly see why.
	For example, many wars are fought in the name of religion, or
	religion has failed to stop wars or tribal conflict amongst it's
	own members. Rwanda is a prime example that is meant to be a
	predominately Christian country.

	Though not always a Jehovah's Witness my experience as one, in the
	last 6 years, has been that no matter what region or country I 
	have visited strangers of the same faith have always made me
	welcome. Also they are united in faith there are no schisms. Not
	something I have ever witnessed before.

	Teachings from Jehovah's Witnesses are only based on the Bible so 
	you can check it out for yourself.

 Phil.

ZZ    Teachings from Jehovah's Witnesses are only based on the Bible
ZZ    so you can check it out for yourself.
    
    What about the Watchtower?  Don't alot of the doctrinal followings of
    the Jehovah Witnesses come from them??
    
    -Jack

    Also see topic 732, "Jehovah's Witnesses"
    
    Shalom,
    Richard
    

          <<< Note 1078.6 by CSC32::J_CHRISTIE "Unquenchable fire" >>>

>    I think everyone has some degree of faith, even atheists and agostics.
    
    	Yes, but faith in what?  This topic is about faith in God, and
    	I take that to mean the Christian God since we are discussing
    	it in this conference.
    
    	"Athiest" and "faith in God" are mutually exclusive to me.
    	"Agnostic" and "faith in God" are not.
    
>    I don't see faith so much in binary terms.
    
    	I suppose you put faith in that statement!  :^)
    
    	I partly agree with you.  I do believe that there are different
    	degrees of faith, but there is a point where faith simply does
    	not exist.
    
<<< Note 1078.5 by TINCUP::BITTROLFF "Creator of Buzzword Compliant Systems" >>>

>Joe, is it a personal failing to not have faith, like a personality flaw?

    	It is my belief that faith is a gift to be accepted or rejected.
    	Is it a personality flaw to reject a gift?  The question is for
    	each of us to answer individually, not one for me to answer for
    	you.

as an atheist and formerly believing christian, i can offer you the following 
reasons why i think people believe in god:

- some people it seems, cannot bear to live with themselves or with their 
past. they have a very strong need to start life afresh with all their 
prior wrong-doings having been forgiven. for these people god is the one 
who forgives and who sets the rules for the new life.

- some people it seems, need answers. these are the seekers who appear to
uncover every stone and always look for reasons why and where. no matter how
much and how hard they look, they will never find a why. which is why god 
eventually becomes the why.


these are two of possibly several reasons.

in my observation the reasons of the "sinner" and the "seeker" are certainly
very prominent with converts to christianity, though the same reasons are 
also found, perhaps to a lesser degree, with people who have grown up as 
christians. 


.1> "A young atheist can not be too careful of his beliefs." -- C.S. Lewis

clearly, the young atheist will have to choose very carefully what he wants
to carry as his wrong-doings for the duration of his life, as there is no 
one who will take the weight of his errors from him. also there will be no 
higher reasons why things are the way they are. he will have to move in
a world of uncertainties with no more than himself and his fellow humans to 
rely on. truly, he cannot be too careful with his beliefs.



andreas.

   <<< Note 1078.11 by DECALP::GUTZWILLER "happiness- U want what U have" >>>

>- some people it seems, cannot bear to live with themselves or with their 
>past. they have a very strong need to start life afresh 
    
    	Won would have to wonder if the same reasoning holds for the
    	Christian-turned-atheist...

>much and how hard they look, they will never find a why. which is why god 
>eventually becomes the why.
    
    	... or the "why not".

>>- some people it seems, cannot bear to live with themselves or with their 
>>past. they have a very strong need to start life afresh 
    
>    	Won would have to wonder if the same reasoning holds for the
>    	Christian-turned-atheist...


personally i have great difficulty with statements like "up to point X my life 
was worthless." this applies to any type of convert. if life is a process of 
discovering, why should former discoveries be any less valuable than new ones?



andreas.

While I believe faith in general is a matter of degree, I also believe that
faith in God is a matter of degree and that there's always room for new
growth.

Shalom,
Richard

    
    Why?... Hmm, good question. I've been asking myself that quite a
    bit lately. I guess I find it frightening, or at least
    distressful, to think that humanity is the highest and final stage
    in the order of life. Conversely, I find great comfort in
    believing there is a greater, higher purpose to things than the
    banalities of human existence and conflict; that there is someone
    out there who cares. When I look at the beauty, complexity
    and symbiosis of the natural world I find it very easy to have
    faith in God; when I look at the human condition around the world
    I find it very easy to question God.

    What is more difficult to answer is what do I believe *about* God.
    While all of us in this conference, and the fundamentalist
    conference, believe in God we differ, sometimes greatly, in what
    we believe about God. This gets into your second question, why do
    you believe in your particular version of God. I think we simply
    gravitate to a vision of God that is relative to us, a vision or
    doctrine that is the easiest to rationalize. 

    Is faith a gift form God? Probably. But so is reason, curiosity,
    and knowledge. Does everyone have the same capacity for
    faithfulness? No more the we each have the same capacity to create
    poetry or write music. In the end faith is the desire and ability
    to believe in that which is not proven (or provable). I reject
    almost all binary thought and therefore do not believe that one is
    rejecting God just because they do not possess a strong faith in
    the the Divine.

>personally i have great difficulty with statements like "up to point X my life 
>was worthless." this applies to any type of convert. if life is a process of 
>discovering, why should former discoveries be any less valuable than new ones?

    I hear people make similar statements concerning "discovery" and its
    value.  I discovered drugs, used them then discarded them.  I wished I
    had never discovered them for what they have done to my life.  I
    discovered pre-marital sex.  I wish I had never discovered sex until 
    marriage.  I would have saved myself a tremendous amount of emotional and
    spiritual damage.  
    
    Sin is objectively real.  It has objectively harmful consequences. 
    Viewing sinful acts and practices as merely benign or even useful
    discoveries is naive or indicates a life without reflection.  Even if I
    weren't a Christian I believe I could see in hindsight that some of my
    acts were harmful.
    
    I can only pity people who say "I have no regrets".  They obviously
    don't know the difference between good and evil, bad and good, good and
    best and so on.
    
    jeff


andreas.

    
From another topic...

================================================================================
Note 100.251            Comments on inspirational quotes              251 of 251
TINCUP::BITTROLFF "Creator of Buzzword Compliant Sy" 10 lines  10-MAY-1995 13:29
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
.250 APACHE::MYERS

    Faith in God, but reason to choose with which group to associate.
    Faith in the Word of God, yet reason to discern literal from poetic.
    Faith in the Will of God, and reason to avoid superstition.
 
How can you justify faith in God, and reason for all else? This also implies
that you have not chosen God through reason.

Steve

    =================

    My response... 

    Faith in God is like an unproven mathematical given, like infinity or
    integration with the lim=0. You don't necessarily understand it, but
    viscerally you accept it as true. Generally speaking, faith is the
    opposite of reason, or at least provability through reason. Yet as we
    need both exercise and rest (surely opposites) for a healthy body, we
    need both faith and reason for a healthy soul.
    
    As I said before, contemplating the beauty and complexity of nature and
    the cosmos leads me to believe that there is indeed a God. Seeing the
    powerful effect that love and compassion can have leads me to believe
    that Jesus was the Word of God. But in the end, I simply find it
    comforting to believe in a loving and compassionate God who cares that
    we treat eachother with love, gentleness and respect. It must be right.
    
    
    Eric
    

    
    The existence of God can be logically proven.
    
    All logical statements denying the existence of God are self-defeating
    and in the terminology of formal logic, are fallacies, that is, the
    statements are false.
    
    jeff
    
    

    THe existence of God can be neither logically proven or disproven.

    
    I beg your pardon, Patricia.  The existence of God can indeed be
    logically proven.  I would be glad to provide the argument but the
    general public has lost its understanding of the science of logic (due
    to relativism) and therefore it would be for me not only a lot of writing
    but a great deal of instruction too.
    
    jeff

.17    

>					Generally speaking, faith is the
>   opposite of reason, or at least provability through reason. Yet as we
>   need both exercise and rest (surely opposites) for a healthy body, we
>   need both faith and reason for a healthy soul.


hey, i like that!!

and following descartes, reason goes with doubt.

i tried to explore that balance between faith and doubt in 389.16

according to that, _just_ faith or _just_ reason/doubt spell imbalance.


andreas.

.16>  I hear people make similar statements concerning "discovery" and its
.16>  value.  

fwiw, the times that i got into drugs i discovered they didn't do it for me. 
so i let them be.
and the way i discovered pre-martial sex was pretty gradual and without
damage too. 

maybe i was lucky.

that's no reason why i should degrade the value of my discoveries though!


andreas.

    Jeff, I've been reading an interesting book on the Science of Bible
    Hermaneutics that applies the laws of logic.  They made a case that you
    can only properly study the Bible using induction.
    
    Mike

>pre-martial sex

Is this what soldiers do before they go off to war?

absolutionly! :-)

    Tae Kwon Do competitors do too.

.18 USAT05::BENSON "Eternal Weltanschauung"

O.K. Jeff, prove God to me, logically, using observable and verifiable facts. I
would prefer that you prove the God of the Bible, but I will accept any
omnipotent creator of the universe.

BTW, not disproving God does not prove God.

    All logical statements denying the existence of God are self-defeating
    and in the terminology of formal logic, are fallacies, that is, the
    statements are false.

You can make the exact same statement regarding any mythical being (including my
favorite, the Invisible Pink Unicorn) and be just as accurate. This is one of
the oldest and most easily refuted arguments around.

Steve

P.S.

"The religion of the IPU involves both faith and logic. We logically KNOW she is
invisible because we have never seen her, but we must take on faith that she is
pink"

>O.K. Jeff, prove God to me, logically, using observable and verifiable facts. I
>would prefer that you prove the God of the Bible, but I will accept any
>omnipotent creator of the universe.

I will, in time, provide the skeleton of the argument for the existence of God.
The proof of the existence of God comes first.  Once the proof is given all
non-theistic arguments attempting to deny the truth of God's existence are 
discarded as contradictions.  Then arguments may proceed on the truth of the
God of the Bible.

>BTW, not disproving God does not prove God.

That's correct.

>>    All logical statements denying the existence of God are self-defeating
>>    and in the terminology of formal logic, are fallacies, that is, the
>>    statements are false.

>You can make the exact same statement regarding any mythical being (including my
>favorite, the Invisible Pink Unicorn) and be just as accurate. This is one of
>the oldest and most easily refuted arguments around.

I don't understand what you are saying exactly.  My statement above is not 
an argument at this point.  Also, it is important to understand that nonsense
is sayable and may be stated in formal arguments.  However, it is still
nonsense.  If truth is the objective and the seeker is sincere, s/he will
avoid the nonsensical.

jeff

> I will, in time, provide the skeleton of the argument for the existence of God.
> The proof of the existence of God comes first.  Once the proof is given all

i've seen this argument before. just a shame that noone who can think for
her/himself will fall for it. ;-)




andreas.

.28 USAT05::BENSON "Eternal Weltanschauung"

>You can make the exact same statement regarding any mythical being (including
>my
>favorite, the Invisible Pink Unicorn) and be just as accurate. This is one of
>the oldest and most easily refuted arguments around.

  I don't understand what you are saying exactly. 

What I was saying is quite simple. When present your proof, simply substitute
'Santa Claus' wherever you would normally have written 'God'. If, at the end,
you have proven the existence of Santa Claus you may want to rethink your
argument. 

From your note, however, I believe that your intent is to first prove that the
universe must have had a creator, and prove later that the creator was the God
of the Bible, which is fine. As you present the case for a 'generic' creator,
however, you may want to see how it applies to the creator of the creator, i.e.
your argument should also prove that God is eternal and does not need a creator
like the universe does.

Steve