I'll try to be brief:
>>How can you be sure? Maybe it is unanswerable *because* it
is not true.>>
That one is easy, Derek. I can be sure because "I was there."
I can be sure I have white socks on right now because I can see them. You
can
never be sure. I can be sure my dad, deceased now 25 years, was of a
certain character. You can never be sure. Kitty Ferguson's book explains
the concept better than I can.
>>"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.>>
"Scientific" proof? Of course not. "Historical" proof. I think a number
of historians would debate that.
>>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 long 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.>>
Fair enough. I was using the word "proof" in a popular, not a rigorous
manner.
Do you, personally, "know" anything that cannot provide "testable
evidence?"
>>What about "non-scientific evidence"? Can any idea that is
untestable by science be more than merely opinion?>>
Absolutely. I gave some examples above. Polanyi writes of it (I gave you
the reference). Ferguson writes of it (same comment).
>>It would seem to me that the only way to study it
"sincerely" is to half believe it before you start.>>
Absolutely NOT. When I began a serious study, I very much did not believe
it. Not even half-believe. As my study progressed, I found I did not even
WANT to believe it. But what I forced myself into was a frame of mind in
which I said, "If the thing appears true, and its negation substantially
unconvincing, then I have to follow it."
Analogy. The doctor says you have cancer and that it is terminal. You are
going to study that area rather carefully. Or -- you can simply declare
him a quack and forget about his claim. One would rather do that of
course -- but not if what he says is true.
>>I don't know about you, but my intellect guards the door to
my commitment.>>
I think mine does too. My intellect tells me that logic and reason have
their place but that place is not primary. Pascal said that best, I
think: "The heart has reasons that the head never understands." (Probably
badly misquoted, sorry).
>>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.>>
OK. I'll agree with your second sentence. "Commitment knowledge" has
nothing (that I can see) in common with "salvation history" or "origins
science." What it is is this: One may study some areas of knowledge "only
in the head." Most areas of knowledge are of this type, I think.
But some areas of knowledge carry with them a necessary commitment to a
goal, or a person, or a cause. You can study them "in the head" all you
want but never apprehend what they are really about. I see Christianity
as one such area. The following question might be asked:
"If I, after serious study, finally conclude that Jesus was "the Christ,"
am I then prepared (committed) to living my life trying to follow his
claims?"
If one answers that "no," or even answers it with a "maybe," or even
answers it with a "yes" but has in mind some caveats, then (I think) he
or she will never figure out what Christianity is all about.
>>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.>>
That's a very fair question to ask. It remains perhaps the 2nd most
important question for Christians (and others) to wrestle with.
I would hardly tell you the answers are easy, or simple, or even
worked out (at least not to my satisfaction). However, you conclude with
the phrase " it is reasonable to assume that there is something innately
unreliable about belief... ." I would say it is reasonable to do so, but
not so reasonable that one stops there. Even if the question cannot be
answered!
Again, Pascal. Christ is not approached (apprehended) through reason. I
love my wife dearly. Sometimes that does not appear reasonable. Doesn't
matter.
>>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.>>
I hope not. There are some people of whom the above could be said.
I don't perceive any of them on this LISTSERV however. I don't perceive
CS Lewis or John Polkinghorne as one, or many others I could name. That's
far too easy a cop out!
>>Fortunately, I treat all such extraordinary claims with the
extraordinary scepticism they deserve.>>
I have no quarrel with your "extraordinary skepticism." But I'm sure you
would agree that assuming the claims of Christ to be true negates the
word "Fortunately" in your sentence above.
>>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.>>
I cannot speak to that possibility. I am who I am. There are Christians
in those countries too, of course.
>>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".)>>
You have not read enough Lewis, methinks. His address on that occasion
did not cover EVERY possibility, of course. Should he? He apparently did
not think so, as MERE CHRISTIANITY went through many printings after his
initial radio broadcast. I always thought he should have addressed the
other possibilities, but he did not ask me! < G >
>>It appears as though you also assume the historic accuracy
of the Gospel stories.>>
I have much to learn in this area. I've read some of the claims of the
"Jesus Seminar" people and find them unconvincing. But my relationship
with Christ is not part of that particular question.
>>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?>>
I cannot, of course. The key word above is "testably."
>> 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.>>
Of course not. It does pose some interesting questions, of course, said
questions being largely unanswerable. I can live with that.
>>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".>>
Try Polanyi's book.
>>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>>
Thanks for the references. I've added them to my "look up at the
library" list.
Understand, though, that I've read many books written from the viewpoint
that I suspect these are written from. Sagan's THE DEMON HAUNTED MIND is
one last year -- there have been 2 or 3 since then but I've returned the
to the library by now.
>>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 comparative religious studies choose among
religions? >>
If there are none which are "true," there is no way. If there is one
which is true, or even one which is "more true" than the others, assuming
Christ's claims to be true, for instance, then supernatural help must be
given and will be given. In my case, at least, it was given. I can go no
farther than this. Your milage may vary, as the auto ads say! < G >
>>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.>>
Understand. When I was a non-Christian, that was exactly my observation
also.
>>I *have* entered into "that sort of commitment" to my wife
and children. Of course, the evidence of their reality is
wonderfully inescapable.>>
And on that note I'll quit. That, too, is an important part of life.
Peace
Burgy
_____________________________________________________________________
You don't need to buy Internet access to use free Internet e-mail.
Get completely free e-mail from Juno at http://www.juno.com
Or call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866]