Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Is Jesus the Circular Messiah?
Archer Opteryx
Member (Idle past 3598 days)
Posts: 1811
From: East Asia
Joined: 08-16-2006


Message 31 of 122 (477739)
08-07-2008 4:32 AM
Reply to: Message 21 by Modulous
08-06-2008 11:55 AM


Mod:
1: My culture heavily imprints Christian imagery into many significant life events.
2: I have a mystical experience (ie,. significant life event) centred around Christian imagery.
3: I continue the cultural Christian imagery drive.
This isn't circular reasoning, though it is a nice little self-feeding process.
Right. It isn't circular reasoning.
You open a broad new topic: the self-renewing aspect of culture. Culture indeed shapes all of us. All of us contribute to culture and shape it in turn.
Another example:
1: My culture heavily imprints a preference for simple linear explanations when faced with potentially complex phenomena.
2: I have a mystical experience in which an Aztec deity speaks to me while hovering in the sky over Teotihuacán.
3: I resolve to quit eating at Taco Bell, thereby sustaining my culture's simple linear explanation drive.
____
Edited by Archer Opterix, : html.
Edited by Archer Opterix, : brev.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by Modulous, posted 08-06-2008 11:55 AM Modulous has not replied

  
iano
Member (Idle past 1941 days)
Posts: 6165
From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland.
Joined: 07-27-2005


Message 32 of 122 (477747)
08-07-2008 6:15 AM
Reply to: Message 26 by Modulous
08-06-2008 4:41 PM


Modulous writes:
You cannot escape the clear fact that large numbers of people have mystical experiences, and the majority of those interpret it within their cultural framework which usually means 'religion'.
I can't comment on how many people have mystical experiences about (your words) real supernatural entities. The large numbers who claim to have experienced such a thing can be divided (potentially) into those;
- who have had a mystical experience with a real supernatural entity.
- who have had a mystical experience with a imaginary supernatural entity
There is no need for me to escape the fact that the totality of numbers covered by the two options above is large nor is there a need for me to escape the fact that there is a very strong correlation between culture and interpretation-of-experience.
I am simply pointing out that given the above possibility, any attempt to connect interpretation-to-culture as if it must govern all cases, fails. For example, perhaps few people actually have an experience with a real supernatural entity. And perhaps those few Muslims who become Christians belong to the relative few having that real experience and the rest (muslims who don't become Christians) are culturally influnced. And perhaps only a few of the many Christians in Ireland actually have had an experience with a real supernatural entity - the rest of the 'Chrisitans' in Ireland being culturally influenced (which certainly appears to be the case)
Sift all the worlds nations out and a few Christians settle out to the bottom of all populations; whether Christianity was cultural or not in their locality. Perhaps.
The point isn't to argue the Christian case, but to illustrate a problem the Cultural-Christian-Only argument faces

This message is a reply to:
 Message 26 by Modulous, posted 08-06-2008 4:41 PM Modulous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 33 by Modulous, posted 08-07-2008 7:51 AM iano has replied

  
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 33 of 122 (477750)
08-07-2008 7:51 AM
Reply to: Message 32 by iano
08-07-2008 6:15 AM


I am simply pointing out that given the above possibility, any attempt to connect interpretation-to-culture as if it must govern all cases, fails.
Clearly, philosophically speaking, that is the case. Since we are talking along such terms - any attempt to suggest that any given experience by any given person was the real McCoy is likewise doomed to failure. There is no way for you, for instance, to be able to with any confidence state that your own mystical experiences reflect reality rather than simply your internal state of mind one day.
And perhaps those few Muslims who become Christians belong to the relative few having that real experience and the rest (muslims who don't become Christians) are culturally influnced.
Indeed, perhaps it is the significant numbers of Christians who become Muslim are the ones who are statistically speaking having the the real experience - or all those people abandoning middle-eastern religions in favour of Buddhism are having experiences of actual mystical entities.
The point isn't to argue the Christian case, but to illustrate a problem the Cultural-Christian-Only argument faces
Right, in Message 24 I mentioned that it is only a simple statistical bias - any given individual might be influenced in a different fashion. In Message 26 I expanded by saying that "You cannot escape the clear fact that large numbers of people have mystical experiences, and the majority of those interpret it within their cultural framework".
We are all aware that some people are contrarian, some people are exposed to other world religions at just the right moment, and some people begin entirely new religions and maybe, just maybe, one particular grouping of them are having genuine contact with the supernatural (though we then are faced with the second impossible problem of sorting out whether or not the vision/experiences are created by a deceptive agent from another religion/belief system/culture or by an honest agent from the religion it purports to come from).

This message is a reply to:
 Message 32 by iano, posted 08-07-2008 6:15 AM iano has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 34 by iano, posted 08-07-2008 9:40 AM Modulous has replied

  
iano
Member (Idle past 1941 days)
Posts: 6165
From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland.
Joined: 07-27-2005


Message 34 of 122 (477759)
08-07-2008 9:40 AM
Reply to: Message 33 by Modulous
08-07-2008 7:51 AM


Mod writes:
Clearly, philosophically speaking, that is the case. Since we are talking along such terms - any attempt to suggest that any given experience by any given person was the real McCoy is likewise doomed to failure. There is no way for you, for instance, to be able to with any confidence state that your own mystical experiences reflect reality rather than simply your internal state of mind one day.
True - with the external reality 'we' would agree 'we' share being part of my own mystical experience. I do accept I could very well be the proverbial brain-in-jar.
Right, in Message 24 I mentioned that it is only a simple statistical bias - any given individual might be influenced in a different fashion. In Message 26 I expanded by saying that "You cannot escape the clear fact that large numbers of people have mystical experiences, and the majority of those interpret it within their cultural framework".
Granted
Suffice to say, Brians circle fails to square.
maybe, just maybe, one particular grouping of them are having genuine contact with the supernatural (though we then are faced with the second impossible problem of sorting out whether or not the vision/experiences are created by a deceptive agent from another religion/belief system/culture or by an honest agent from the religion it purports to come from).
Impossible for us mayhaps. But if God - let's say God of the Bible, then not impossible for him to sort out for us. It would be hard to imagine an argument that would render the creator of the universe unable to manifest himself to a person in a way that is any less satisfactory that anything else that manifests itself to us.
Edited by iano, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 33 by Modulous, posted 08-07-2008 7:51 AM Modulous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 35 by Modulous, posted 08-07-2008 10:20 AM iano has replied

  
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 35 of 122 (477762)
08-07-2008 10:20 AM
Reply to: Message 34 by iano
08-07-2008 9:40 AM


It would be hard to imagine an argument that would render the creator of the universe unable to manifest himself to a person in a way that is any less satisfactory that anything else that manifests itself to us.
Likewise it would be hard to imagine an argument that would render a demonic entity unable to manifest a deception to a person that was as convincing as anything else that manifests itself to us. If LSD can convince someone they are under attack from trans-dimensional Nazis coming from a dimension where dogs bark like ducks...anything with supernatural power over the mind shouldn't have too much difficulty in convincing someone that their cultural beliefs are reality.
When I am presented with an optical illusion, sometimes I am convinced that the lines are not parallel, the colours are different shades, or the shapes are different sizes. Fortunately I have a way of testing if my brain is 'playing tricks' (taking hard wired perceptual shortcuts) on my consciousness - I can measure the lines, the colours, the sizes.
We cannot do this with mystical experiences, so an experiencer is left with a dilemma: Do I accept the experience as a rare real reflection of reality knowing that at least 70% of the world that chooses this path must be wrong when they do so OR do I simply enjoy the experience but lend it no more credit as to reality as my amusing experience of being convinced that parallel lines were actually converging?
Granted, the acceptance of the experience may purely be reflexive or emotive at the time of a mystical experience and shortly thereafter...but if at some point a person chooses to reason why they chose to believe it, what is their reasoning process?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 34 by iano, posted 08-07-2008 9:40 AM iano has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 36 by iano, posted 08-07-2008 12:06 PM Modulous has replied

  
iano
Member (Idle past 1941 days)
Posts: 6165
From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland.
Joined: 07-27-2005


Message 36 of 122 (477763)
08-07-2008 12:06 PM
Reply to: Message 35 by Modulous
08-07-2008 10:20 AM


Likewise it would be hard to imagine an argument that would render a demonic entity unable to manifest a deception to a person that was as convincing as anything else that manifests itself to us.
As (or more) convincing that God himself manifesting himself? Only if God choose to limit himself so as to permit the demon to trump him in the manifestation stakes.
But if God choose to trump the demon then a person would know it is God manifesting because God would conform them into a state of absolute knowledge - something the demon clearly cannot do.
Being in a state of absolute knowledge renders the usual argument about testing perceptions void. That is to say, the usual reason given for testing our perceptions (against an arbitrary standard it must be said) lies in the fact that we decide our perceptions can fool us (when measured against an abitrary standard). It's us testing us against a standard decided upon by us. Now that's circular!
No such testing is required if God manifests himself because there is no reliance our our ability to percieve - rather the reliance would be on Gods ability to conform us to knowledge of him.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 35 by Modulous, posted 08-07-2008 10:20 AM Modulous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 37 by Modulous, posted 08-07-2008 12:57 PM iano has not replied

  
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 37 of 122 (477764)
08-07-2008 12:57 PM
Reply to: Message 36 by iano
08-07-2008 12:06 PM


As (or more) convincing that God himself manifesting himself?
You'd have to have the benefit of having the creator of the universe also manifesting themselves to you before you'd be in a position to judge which is truer. But then again, what if you've been visited by two different supernatural beings, one vastly more convincing than the other (or perhaps the latter one simply makes you think they are more convincing - it'd be far easier than actually being more convincing).
But if God choose to trump the demon then a person would know it is God manifesting because God would conform them into a state of absolute knowledge - something the demon clearly cannot do.
It assumes that the creator of the universe was capable of such an act. But it is not clear that a hypothetical demon clearly cannot do that. What if the creator of the universe imbued the demon with such capability or what if there is no creator of the universe?
And besides, how would you be able to tell the difference between absolute knowledge and the delusion of having absolute knowledge. In both cases you are as sure of the knowledge as anyone ever can know: it's just that in one condition you're actually delusional. That's why crazy people are convinced of crazy things. They really think these things are true.
Being in a state of absolute knowledge renders the usual argument about testing perceptions void.
But you just made up this state, which we can never be sure we are in, and we can never know who has the capabilities of rendering it, or whether or not said knowledge has to be actually true.
That is to say, the usual reason given for testing our perceptions (against an arbitrary standard it must be said) lies in the fact that we decide our perceptions can fool us (when measured against an abitrary standard). It's us testing us against a standard decided upon by us. Now that's circular!
We perceive that our perceptions can fool us. If our perceptions cannot fool us, then we have a paradox since our perceptions tell us our perceptions can fool us. Clearly then, our perceptions can fool us.
No such testing is required if God manifests himself because there is no reliance our our ability to percieve - rather the reliance would be on Gods ability to conform us to knowledge of him.
Yes, there is a reliance on our ability to perceive because in order for us to experience the manifestation we have to perceive it. If we do not perceive the knowledge, then we are unaware of it. Once we are aware that we have the knowledge we have to question whether the knowledge is correct or not. If we are completely crazy, that will be impossible and we'll just accept the delusion and any further tests (even tests that make no sense or are in no way related to demonstrating the truth of things) will either be ignored or be twisted to be believed to confirm the delusion.
I have many absolutely convincing mystical experiences. In one it was a Christian flavour, I felt an overarching fatherly love spread throughout the universe with a hint of fatherly reproach and forgiveness. I felt looked after. I knew absolutely that everything would work out.
I felt several buddhist mystical experiences wherein I felt close to nirvana my mind the centre of a terrible ravishing whirlwind. I knew at that moment that the attachment was the cause of suffering and that I was no longer attached and free from suffering and that one day I would forever feel the joy and bliss of this moment.
I have had others too, Islamic, pantheistic and atheistic. Which moments of feelings of absolute knowledge and wonder should I trust as being the true? Chronologically they all felt like the previous experience was but a fancy and that this one was a true divine moment.
Your 'absolute knowledge' is nothing more than a feeling one gets associated with all similar states of mind including drug or technology-induced ones. In fact, if you are convinced that something is absolute knowledge I'd wager that was a good sign you are hallucinating in some fashion since it is massively characteristic of strong hallucinations and delusions...many hallucinations are just visual or auditory. Many however, can completely convince a person that something they are experiencing is totally true including concepts that are simply surreal nonsense. The feeling is akin to a pressing, almost crushing weight of absolute TRUTH to whatever gibberish the hallucination is trying to foist upon you.
Why would one rely on God's ability to do anything anyway? If you come into the religion via the mystical experience - how can you rely on anything a God you don't yet believe in can do? I smell circularity here, don't you?
How do I know? Because I had absolute knowledge it was the truth. But how do you know it was absolute knowledge? Because I was given absolute knowledge? How do you know you were given it? Because I had absolute knowledge that the absolute knowledge was given to me. Round and round we go
Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.
Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 36 by iano, posted 08-07-2008 12:06 PM iano has not replied

  
Brian
Member (Idle past 4959 days)
Posts: 4659
From: Scotland
Joined: 10-22-2002


Message 38 of 122 (477904)
08-09-2008 4:45 AM
Reply to: Message 30 by Archer Opteryx
08-07-2008 2:58 AM


Hi A, sorry about the delay in replying.
Right. The belief began with the emotional bond.
Here’s the way I see it, and I am more than capable of being incorrect.
This emotional bond, IMO, is circular because of the internal thought process of the grandchild.
Fair enough, the child has been conditioned into believing that everything grandpa says is true, the child believes that grandpa would never lie, thus we enter a circular argument. Everything grandpa says is true, he says Jesus is the Messiah, Jesus must be the Messiah because everything grandpa says is true.
Am I explaining it correctly or have I misunderstood the argument?
The belief does not arise from a reasoned argument, flawed or otherwise.
This is where I tend to disagree, rightly or wrongly.
IMO, surely the trust in grandpa didn’t just happen in regard to Jesus as Messiah, the child has been conditioned into thinking grandpa always tells the truth. If the child is accepting the proposal because the child believes everything grandpa says is true then this is circular.
The 'reasoning'--really just a description of the bonding-and-surrogate process--is assembled post hoc.
This is what I have a problem with. How do you know it is post hoc and that the child hasn’t used circular reasoning to accept Jesus as Messiah?
The example serves to show how the hypothesis 'All religious belief is based on circular reasoning' fails the test of known facts. Religious belief springs from many things.
I wouldn’t say this about all religious beliefs, for the reasons, and more, that you outlined in the rest of the paragraph.
In such cases the individual believes on irrational grounds. The arguments enter after the fact when individuals try to explain why they believe as they do.
I do see where you are coming from, but I still think it is possible that the reasoning behind accepting an ”irrational’ belief could be circular at the moment of acceptance.
Flawed logic is par for the course at such moments. One is, after all, trying to rationalize the irrational.
This still doesn’t mean that the acceptance wasn’t circular at the time. Just because at a later time it is explained away as circular doesn’t negate that it was circular reasoning at the time that led to acceptance of a particular belief.
(Experienced mystics know better than to bother.
I did a unit on Mysticism at Stirling Uni about ten years ago, and mystics do know that their experiences are not real life, which is the main difference between them and psychotics. And symbolism plays a big part, I still don’t know how Theresa of Avilla got away with telling the church that Jesus entered His spear into her.
Another thing about mystical experiences was highlighted in one of the course books. Stephen Katz’s research shows that all mystical experiences are premeditated. The mystic essentially experiences the absolute reality that they expect to experience. If Theresa had united with Brahma I would have found that a tad more convincing.
They understand that their experience is symbolic rather than rational in nature. So they communicate using paradox and riddles instead. They say things like 'I am in you and you are in me.' A statement like this is poetic, it's evocative, it's intimate, it's numinous--and logically, it's apple sauce.)
The one over riding feature of mysticism is the problem of language, these experiences are ineffable. Meister Eckhart in particular got into a lot of trouble through his explanations being misunderstood.
You are on firmer ground if you submit a hypothesis like 'All arguments for belief in God are ultimately circular.'
Perhaps this is what I meant, and perhaps this is where my misunderstanding is coming from.
This gets you out of the business of making grandiose claims about single universal causes for complex real-life phenomena. It places the discussion in the realm of rational argument. This is obviously where you intend to operate, and it's where the hypothesis is demonstrated or disproved in any case.
Okay, thanks for pointing this out, I’ll chew it over today and get back to you tomorrow, although the more I read your points the more the clouds are rising.
I wont be able to post until tomorrow, I am playing in a pool tourney today and wont be home until late.
If we win it will probably be Monday before I can post!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 30 by Archer Opteryx, posted 08-07-2008 2:58 AM Archer Opteryx has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 39 by Binary, posted 08-10-2008 7:58 PM Brian has not replied

  
Binary
Junior Member (Idle past 5078 days)
Posts: 9
Joined: 07-12-2008


Message 39 of 122 (478006)
08-10-2008 7:58 PM
Reply to: Message 38 by Brian
08-09-2008 4:45 AM


Brian writes:
I do see where you are coming from, but I still think it is possible that the reasoning behind accepting an ”irrational’ belief could be circular at the moment of acceptance.
Are you referring to the logic I pointed out in another thread?
a. The Bible is absolutely true
b. Any facts which contradict the inspired scriptures must therefore be false.
a. Since anything which doesn't agree with the Bible is false, the Bible is true, and Jesus is the Christ.
If that's the kind of logic employed at the moment of conversion/repentance, I'd agree the belief is circular. Although in my limited experience, people believe for other reasons initially, and only later get trapped in the circular loop of fundamentalism.
Edited by Binary, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 38 by Brian, posted 08-09-2008 4:45 AM Brian has not replied

  
Phat
Member
Posts: 18262
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 40 of 122 (478011)
08-10-2008 10:10 PM
Reply to: Message 26 by Modulous
08-06-2008 4:41 PM


The X-Files
Entity X must therefore be real=circular reasoning
Entity X makes a lot of sense=choice of belief

"All that we call human history--money, poverty, ambition, war, prostitution, classes, empires, slavery--[is] the long terrible story of man trying to find something other than God which will make him happy."--C.S.Lewis
* * * * * * * * * *
“The world has achieved brilliance without wisdom, power without conscience. Ours is a world of nuclear giants and ethical infants.”--General Omar Bradley
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
"The free man owns himself. He can damage himself with either eating or drinking; he can ruin himself with gambling. If he does he is certainly a damn fool, and he might possibly be a damned soul; but if he may not, he is not a free man any more than a dog." -GK Chesterson

This message is a reply to:
 Message 26 by Modulous, posted 08-06-2008 4:41 PM Modulous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 41 by Modulous, posted 08-10-2008 11:37 PM Phat has replied

  
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 41 of 122 (478014)
08-10-2008 11:37 PM
Reply to: Message 40 by Phat
08-10-2008 10:10 PM


Re: The X-Files
Entity X makes a lot of sense=choice of belief
Why does it make a lot of sense? Why does one particular entity seem to predominantly make sense in areas where said entity is ingrained in the culture? Why go from 'it makes sense' and jump to 'choice of belief'? Is it because a religion that shapes, and is shaped by, a culture is obviously going to 'make sense' to someone of that culture?
Your avenue of thought seems to come under the 'circle of cultural reinforcement' hypothesis brought up earlier in the thread. I'm in agreement that it isn't circular reasoning, the reasoning has flaws of its very own.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 40 by Phat, posted 08-10-2008 10:10 PM Phat has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 42 by Phat, posted 08-11-2008 8:09 AM Modulous has replied

  
Phat
Member
Posts: 18262
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 42 of 122 (478037)
08-11-2008 8:09 AM
Reply to: Message 41 by Modulous
08-10-2008 11:37 PM


Re: The X-Files
All I am saying is that the circle has to begin at some point. If people find comfort and strength in their culturally chosen belief, why needlessly speculate on whether the God that they believe in was created by their need for Him or not?
As annoying as it may be for some who have to deal with believers who pedal their God like cheap heroin, it is equally as annoying when I am told that if my God exists, I need to be able to somehow produce Him like a calculus problem in order to validate my belief.
What good would it do for me to attempt to question and doubt on principle...in the process raising enough questions in my mind so that I no longer affirm my belief? My belief is not based on the Scientific method.
Not to sound close minded and/or stubborn....I simply am curious why people are more happy with a seeker who is endlessly questioning and unable (or willfully unwilling) to arrive at any definite conclusion in their soul as opposed to a believer who has settled on a cultural icon and who is content to leave it at that.
Edited by Phat, : added jabberwocky

This message is a reply to:
 Message 41 by Modulous, posted 08-10-2008 11:37 PM Modulous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 43 by Modulous, posted 08-11-2008 8:43 AM Phat has not replied

  
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 43 of 122 (478039)
08-11-2008 8:43 AM
Reply to: Message 42 by Phat
08-11-2008 8:09 AM


Re: The X-Files
All I am saying is that the circle has to begin at some point. If people find comfort and strength in their culturally chosen belief, why needlessly speculate on whether the God that they believe in was created by their need for Him or not?
Well there is no need to do anything that is needless. However, there are many reasons why one might speculate on the origins of beliefs. For example, if one was engaged in a debate about the origins of beliefs. It is also useful to study how humans can come to believe such radically different things so that one can insulate ones self from poor thinking. Even the believers of the most popular religious belief have to concede that the method of 'mystical experience of a cultural icon' leads to about 70% of people believing something that must be false.
What good would it do for me to attempt to question and doubt on principle...in the process raising enough questions in my mind so that I no longer affirm my belief? My belief is not based on the Scientific method.
Clearly your belief is not based on the scientific method: that isn't the problem. The contention is that the rationalisation process behind believing in certain things is largely or entirely based on philosophically or logically flawed reasoning. Are you conceding that your belief is based such flawed reasoning?
I simply am curious why people are more happy with a seeker who is endlessly questioning and unable (or willfully unwilling) to arrive at any definite conclusion in their soul as opposed to a believer who has settled on a cultural icon and who is content to leave it at that.
You mean, why *some* people find the agnostic position logically and philosophically more sound? Phat - you can leave yourself psychologically open to believing whatever comes to you without critically analysing the reasoning behind it if you like. Meanwhile some other people will analyse said beliefs, conclude that there is significant fault with any reasoning used to justify said beliefs and then point that out hoping to rescue people from their own mental shortcuts by giving them the analysis.
If we didn't do that, the world might still be filled with ideas that 'made sense' like slavery or having a church with strong or total political power.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 42 by Phat, posted 08-11-2008 8:09 AM Phat has not replied

  
Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


Message 44 of 122 (479001)
08-23-2008 1:11 AM
Reply to: Message 7 by Brian
08-05-2008 3:13 AM


Circular reasoning on the other foot
Personally I don't think this happened to Saul at all, but imagine that it did. Saul's story comes to us solely from the Bible, thus we are back to circular reasoning.
Then isn't circular for you in disbelief by the same token? The Bible is full of fables, anything that comes out of it must be the product of wild vagaries of a peoples dead and gone.
Whether you would like to admit it or not, the Bible is full of empirically verifiable data. Arguably, not all of it, but certainly a good deal of it. When it comes to spiritual matters, what is known from history, and what is known from historical goodwill is applied to what is known in the reader -- his or her personal experiences. The suggestions of the Bible prove to him or her to be excellent suggestions, which give them no reason to doubt the veracity of much of what is critical about the bible -- the moral and spiritual influence.
That's not circular.
It could be said that it is somewhat foolish to simply believe as your family believes, but if you think about it, this is how we all learn. You don't run out in to the street now because your parents cautioned you.

“Tu ne cede malis sed contra audentior ito"

This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by Brian, posted 08-05-2008 3:13 AM Brian has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 45 by Brian, posted 08-23-2008 5:15 AM Hyroglyphx has replied

  
Brian
Member (Idle past 4959 days)
Posts: 4659
From: Scotland
Joined: 10-22-2002


Message 45 of 122 (479007)
08-23-2008 5:15 AM
Reply to: Message 44 by Hyroglyphx
08-23-2008 1:11 AM


Re: Circular reasoning on the other foot
Then isn't circular for you in disbelief by the same token?
The Bible is full of fables, anything that comes out of it must be the product of wild vagaries of a peoples dead and gone.
If anyone took this approach then yes it would be circular. Personally, I don't know anyone who does take this approach, although I don't doubt that they exist somewhere.
Whether you would like to admit it or not, the Bible is full of empirically verifiable data.
I am quite happy to admit that, I have no problem with biblical claims that have been empircally verified by external evidence. The problem I have is the abuse of history and archaeology by people who don't know much about these disciplines in their attempts to turn the Bible into something that it isnt.
Arguably, not all of it, but certainly a good deal of it.
There's much of the Bible that is beyond the scope of verification. The private conversations between characters are never going to be verified, Jesus' chat with Pilate is a good example.
When it comes to spiritual matters, what is known from history, and what is known from historical goodwill is applied to what is known in the reader -- his or her personal experiences. The suggestions of the Bible prove to him or her to be excellent suggestions, which give them no reason to doubt the veracity of much of what is critical about the bible -- the moral and spiritual influence.
That's not circular.
I would argue that it is.
What is known from history about the Bible is very little, certainly far outweighed by the evidence against the Bible. Again I'd mention the 'messianic prophecies' that were allegedly fulfilled by Jesus.
As wee know, outside of the Bible Jesus is invisible in history, so any evidence supporting His life and actions will be circular, which doesn't mean they never happened of course. What it does mean is that we have to investigate the plausbility of the claims made for Jesus and decide if they are plausible or not. I mentioned earlier the events surrounding Jesus' birth in Bethlehem as a fulfillment of Micah 5:2. When we examine the internal and external evidence surrounding this story the only reasonable conclusion is that this didn't happen, the whole census idea is historically ridiculous, registering at the city of a distant ancestor is plain stupid. This doesn't stop people accepting everything about this story though, probably because they have already made up their mind that Jesus was the Messiah.
I acknowledge that it is very difficult for believers on Christ to study the Bible with any degree of objectivity, but to any reasonably objective researcher the majority of the Bible, the early books of the OT in particular, are indeed fables.
Can you really blame people for not taking much of the Bible seriously? Fruit that imparts knowledge upon digesting, people living for nearly a thousand years, the Flood has been falsified beyond all reasonable doubt, the Exodus and Conquest have similarly been falsified beyond all reasonable doubt, the Bible account of the Exodus isn't even being considered by scholars who are looking for the origins of Israel.
Of course it doesn't follow that just because there was no Flood, or people have never lived for almost a thousand years, that everything else in the Bible is untrue, no historian would ever take that stance. Equally, just because we know there was a King Omri that doesn't mean that anything else in the Bible is true. What we do have to do is to investigate each event on its own merits and then decide the historical plausibility of each individual claim. But this is when the investigator's approach to history takes over, because what is good evidence for one historian isn't necessarily good evidence for another historian. This is one reason why academic papers are peer reviewed before publishing.
It could be said that it is somewhat foolish to simply believe as your family believes, but if you think about it, this is how we all learn.
It's perfectly understandable that anyone who believes that Jesus is Lord and Saviour that they would want their children to be saved too. But children do tend to believe what their parents say is true, we have probably all believed in the tooth fairy at some stage of our life. But our parents, or siblings, eventually tell us that there is no Santa or tooth fairy, but some Christians don't take that extra honest step and tell their kids that most of the Bible is about as true as fairies at the bottom of the garden.
What chance did the Hovind of Phelps children have of being encouraged to look at the Bible objectively? These kids have been psychologically abused by retarded parents, goodness knows what damage has been done. I'll never forget those poor tiny Phelps children at those funeral protests, or the 'child preachers' whose parents should be in jail.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 44 by Hyroglyphx, posted 08-23-2008 1:11 AM Hyroglyphx has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 46 by Phat, posted 08-23-2008 5:57 AM Brian has not replied
 Message 48 by Hyroglyphx, posted 08-24-2008 12:19 AM Brian has not replied
 Message 51 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 10-26-2008 5:59 PM Brian has not replied
 Message 53 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 10-26-2008 6:20 PM Brian has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024