The very fact that we all believe in SOMETHING no matter how aberrated it
may be indicates God built into us the desire for worship. In order for us
to be able to choose, however, He left it up to us how we are going to
express it. The Bible is quite explicit that we should worship the God of
it to the exclusion of any others and to obey its precepts. The problems
occur, however, with obedience. We all seem to prefer the Frank Sinatra
approach (I did it my way). In fact, the ancient history of the Jews
reveals the desire to worship, but to do it their way, not God's
(Idolatry).
Trust in the LORD with all your heart,
and do not rely on your own insight.. Pr. 3:5
Ron Chitwood
chitw@flash.net
----------
> From: Derek McLarnen <dmclarne@pcug.org.au>
> To: John W. Burgeson <johnburgeson@juno.com>
> Cc: EVOLUTION@calvin.edu
> Subject: Re: Debate
> Date: Saturday, February 28, 1998 12:40 AM
>
> John W. Burgeson wrote:
>
> > dmclarne wrote, in part:
> >
> > "I'm sure you've heard that extraordinary claims demand
> > extraordinary evidence. I await this extraordinary
> > evidence."
> >
> > Of course, this is a standard challenge. Generations of
> > Christians (but
> > not all Christians) recognize it as basically
> > unanswerable. This is not
> > because it is not true, of course,
>
> How can you be sure? Maybe it is unanswerable *because* it
> is not true. Proponents of geocentricity are unable to
> coherently answer challenges because geocentricity is not
> true.
>
> > but because proof of Jesus is not a matter that science
> > can address.
>
> "Proof of Jesus" or, more specifically, unambiguous evidence
> of the claims of the New Testament with regard to the divine
> nature of Jesus, is certainly a matter that history could
> address, but fails to do so in any convincing manner.
>
> > Is there non-scientific proof? Of course.
>
> Given that there is no such thing as scientific proof (in
> spite of the efforts of marketing departments and
> advertising agencies), I find the prospect of
> "non-scientific proof" incredible. It has nong been my
> understanding that proof is limited to mathematics and
> logic. In any event, I wasn't asking for anything so
> difficult as "proof" - only some testable evidence.
>
> What about "non-scientific evidence"? Can any idea that is
> untestable by science be more than merely opinion?
>
> > Such is available to anyone who really wants to study it
> > sincerely.
>
> It would seem to me that the only way to study it
> "sincerely" is to half believe it before you start.
>
> > Not for "head knowledge," of course, but for "commitment
> > knowledge."
>
> I don't know about you, but my intellect guards the door to
> my commitment.
>
> I am interested in the phrase "commitment knowledge". It
> sounds like "salvation history" or "origins science". I see
> no need for special types of history, science or knowledge
> that are only applicable to Christians.
>
>
> > I was an agnostic/atheist until age 30 (36 years ago). I
> > would be one
> > today except that I finally figured out what many people
> > were telling me.
>
> I was a Christian once, too. I would probably still be one
> except that I never had any personal experience of God, and
> I eventually figured something out. If there are millions of
> Christians that all believe fervently in the Christian God
> and all that such a belief implies, and if there are
> millions of Muslims that all believe fervently in Allah and
> all that such a belief implies, and if there are millions of
> Hindus that all believe fervently in Brahma, Vinshu, etc.
> and all that such a belief implies, and if there are
> millions of ....... you get the idea - then all of these
> fervent believers can't be right, but they can all be wrong.
> (Much later I was introduced to the concept that the most
> reliable indicator of a person's religious beliefs is their
> parents' or community's religious beliefs - not any innate
> correctness of the religion itself.)
>
> Now, if all of these fervent believers can't be right, in
> spite of the strength of their belief, then it is reasonable
> to assume that there is something innately unreliable about
> belief, particularly fervent religious belief.
>
> > When I finally decided (1) I could not approach the issue
> >
> > "scientifically," (I was a physicist), and (2) that if
> > God/Jesus were
> > "real" they were perfectly capable of revealing themselves
> > to me, then I
> > finally figured out that I had to do something --- that
> > was -- be open to
> > their revelation. In essence, I said to them "I don't
> > believe in you. BUT
> > I AM WILLING TO -- YOU JUST HAVE TO HELP."
>
> I'm sure one could say the same thing to an astrologer,
> numerologist, dowser, spirit channeler, etc. and walk away
> half an hour later as a firm believer. If I were really
> willing to believe in the authenticity of any of these, it
> would only take a skilled evangelist to turn my willingness
> into actual belief.
>
> Fortunately, I treat all such extraordinary claims with the
> extraordinary scepticism they deserve.
>
> > No, I didn't yell it -- and probably didn't even "pray" it
> > -- just
> > thought about it. One day I suddenly discovered I was a
> > Christian. I was
> > surprised. I was not at all sure I approved of being a
> > Christian. But
> > there I was, none the less.
>
> And I have little doubt that if you had been Iranian or
> Indian instead of American, your thoughts would have led you
> to be a Muslim or Hindu, assuming you managed to survive
> your first 30 years as an atheist in either of those
> countries.
>
> > C. S. Lewis describes something like my experience in his
> > book SURPRISED
> > BY JOY. As I remember, he describes his conversion as
> > "being dragged in,
> > kicking and screaming... ." Worth reading.
>
> I lost interest in CS Lewis when I first came across his
> "God, liar or madman" argument, and found the fatal flaw in
> 30 seconds. (He assumes, without independent evidence, the
> historic accuracy of the Gospel stories and the validity of
> Paul's concepts of "Christ".)
>
> > Why not "scientific evidence?" I don't know. I guess it
> > didn't work when
> > it was used (the miracles of Jesus convinced some, not
> > others).
>
> It appears as though you also assume the historic accuracy
> of the Gospel stories.
>
> > Is my knowledge of God, then, subjective only? No.
>
> If your knowledge of God is objective-public, then everyone
> who "knows" God (or Allah or Vishnu or ....) knows the same
> God, in the same way that we all "know" the same physics
> equations. This is obviously not the case. If your knowledge
> of God is objective-private, then how can you testably claim
> that everyone else's knowledge of God (or Allah or Vishnu or
> ....) is not also objective-private? If we have a range of
> contradictory items of objective-private knowledge, doesn't
> that invalidate your use of the word "objective" in this
> context.
>
> > There are three kinds of knowledge,
>
> Are there? I would suggest it is more like one type of
> knowledge and two types of opinion.
>
> > objective-public
>
> presumably, knowledge that is, in principle, available to
> all and testable publicly
>
> > objective-private
>
> presumably, knowledge that is, in principle, available to
> all but is only testable within the confines of an
> individual's mind.
>
> > subjective-private
>
> I can't find a definition that separates this from
> "objective-private".
>
> > Kitty Ferguson has a fairly good discussion of this in her
> > recent FIRE IN
> > THE EQUATIONS (chapter 7).
>
> Yes, this is a good discussion, but it does not validate, or
> even make a strong case for, the actuality of
> "objective-private knowledge" assomething different from
> "subjective-private knowledge".
>
> > The philosopher Michael Polanyi wrote on it
> > in his 1962 book PERSONAL KNOWLEDGE: TOWARDS A
> > POST-CRITICAL PHILOSOPHY
> > (U of Chicago Press).
>
> I haven't seen this one, but the title suggests that it
> advocates acceptance of ideas without rigorous examination
> of their bona fides. I expect that it would have encouraged
> some of the woolly-headed thinking for which the 60's was
> famous.
>
> Might I also recommend two books to you.
> "Belief and Make-Believe - Critical Reflections on the
> Sources of Credulity", George A. Wells, 1991, Open Court
> Publishing Company
> "After God - The Future of Religion", Don Cupitt, 1997,
> Weidenfeld & Nicolson
>
> > Well -- that's how I see it from this corner.
> > Extraordinary claim? Of
> > course. Extraordinary evidence? That's up to the
> > individual.
>
> This is the central issue. I don't see how assessment of the
> evidence can be left to each individual. Very few
> individuals have taken the time to study and compare in
> detail the claims of the world's major religions, let alone
> the claims of the minor ones. On what basis could a person
> untrained in comparitive religious studies choose among
> religions? There are too many competing, contradictory,
> but nevertheless widely supported claims concerning evidence
> for the existence, attributes and behaviour of various
> deities. The God's of Christians, Jews and Muslims can't
> *all* be "the one true God", in the same sense that
> Christianity, Judaism and Islam can't all be the one true
> religion.
>
> It appears to me that, when such wildly divergent beliefs,
> each with many millions of followers and many thousands of
> scholars, have existed for so long without significant moves
> toward common "truth" on central differences, that the whole
> concept of belief in deities is horribly flawed. This is
> especially so when one considers the amount of violent death
> associated with religious differences.
>
> > For the claim is not one of the natural world, a claim
> > which is "neutral." The
> > claim requires everything you have, and are, and will be.
> > If that sort of
> > commitment is one you will not consider, I see no other
> > pathway to
> > grasping it.
>
> I *have* entered into "that sort of commitment" to my wife
> and children. Of course, the evidence of their reality is
> wonderfully inescapable.
>
> --
> Regards
>
> Derek
>
> -----------------------------------------------------
> | Derek McLarnen | dmclarne@pcug.org.au |
> | Melba ACT | derek.mclarnen@telstra.com.au |
> | Australia | |
> -----------------------------------------------------
>
>
>