Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: $Revision: 1.6.2.13 $; site iuvax.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!mgnetp!ihnp4!inuxc!iuvax!dsaker From: dsaker@iuvax.UUCP Newsgroups: net.religion Subject: Re: Failure of the Christians Message-ID: <1700023@iuvax.UUCP> Date: Sun, 3-Jun-84 17:42:00 EDT Article-I.D.: iuvax.1700023 Posted: Sun Jun 3 17:42:00 1984 Date-Received: Tue, 5-Jun-84 20:23:35 EDT References: <134@ssc-vax.UUCP> Lines: 128 Nf-ID: #R:ssc-vax:-13400:iuvax:1700023:000:7339 Nf-From: iuvax!dsaker Jun 3 16:42:00 1984 [] Paul Dubuc - I keep thinking that I have made my question clear, and I keep finding that someone misunderstands. I will try once more to explain what I mean. Here is the question > 1. The objective evidence for Christianity is not strong. It is >certainly not stronger than the evidence for some other religions. > 2. The subjective evidence for Christianity is very much the same as the >subjective evidence for other religions. Certainly, it is not stronger. > So, how do you Christians justify your belief? > >What I am asking for here is how you Christians deal in your own minds >with points 1 & 2. In my original note, I pointed out that this question could be posed to quite generally, but that I was directing it to christians because that was the context in which the discussion of objective and subjective evidences for religion had arisen. Please note, Paul, that in that discussion the terms "objective evidence" and "subjective evidence" were being treated as understood. (Before you attack me for not defining my terms, you should look at the context in which the discussion arose.) The terms were never defined in the discussion, but the ways in which they were used made it pretty clear what was meant by them. I won't pretend to be capable of a precise definition of these terms (I am well aware of the difficulty of delineating them), but I can give you the feeling of how they were being used. Please note that the discussion (including my question) did not require that these terms be defined precisely. By "objective evidence" was meant evidence of an externally observable kind. For example, historical accuracy of parts of the bible, fulfilled prophecies, observed miraculous events, faith healing, and so forth. In the discussion, christians had pointed to various objective evidences supporting christianity. Others had pointed out that other religions lay claim to similar supporting objective evidences. Now, I am not claiming that I have been able to sift through the various claims of this kind made by the various religions. (Perhaps if I could do that, I would discover, for example, that every claim to faith healing could be proved bogus except for those made by christians. On the other hand, perhaps I would find that only the muslims' claims could not be proved bogus.) What I am saying is that the sifting I have done does not support the christians' claims any better than it does the others' claims. In my question, I was inviting christians to "explain away" the faith healing, miraculous events, fulfilled prophecies, historical accuracies in sacred texts, and so forth, of non-christian religions. I am not trying to measure evidence. But if chrisitan faith healing is held as evidence for christianity, then muslim faith healing must be admitted as evidence for islam. A christian who points to the objective evidences for christianity surely carries, in his own mind, an explanation of the claims of objective evidences made by non-christian religions. (This explanation might be as simple as saying that the claims are bogus.) In my question, I was asking for some christians to tell me what their explanations are. By "subjective evidence" was meant evidence of an internally observable kind. For example, sensations of god's presence or of communion with god, a sense of spiritual growth, feeling one's life come together as one grows in one's faith, and so forth. In the discussion, christians had pointed to various subjective evidences (primarily their own sense of spiritual growth and of having their lives come together) as supporting christianity. Others had pointed out that followers of other religions lay claim to similar subjective evidences, that they too claim a sense of spiritual growth, of moving towards the truth, of having their lives come together. In my question, I was inviting christians to "explain away" the inward experiences of followers of non-christian religions. I am aware that I cannot accurately know the nature of the inward experiences of other people. But surely every christian who points to his own inward experiences as evidence for the truth of christianity must carry, in his own mind, an explanation of the inward experiences of followers of non-christian religions. (This explanation might be as simple as saying that the experiences are delusions.) In my question, I was asking for some christians to tell me what their explanations are. Paul, you wrote a lot about subjective religious experience, too much for me to quote. However, the main thrust of what you wrote seemed to be that subjective experiences, such as feeling one's life improve, do not say anything about the truth of what one believes. I imagine then that you would not claim that your own subjective experiences were evidence for the truth of christianity. (Though I suppose that you would still say that your own subjective religious experiences were caused by god, whereas those of the muslim were not. Is this true?) The point is, though, that in the discussion, christians were putting their own subjective experiences forth as evidence for the truth of christianity. Let me stress here that I am not saying that christians must justify their beliefs to me. I am merely enquiring as to what christians say to themselves in their own mind on this issue of the evidences for other religions. I entered this whole discussion wondering why it was that people believed. As I have explained in previous notes, I myself have never had a "revelation" of god's existence, nor have I found any "objective evidence" (for any religion) that seemed convincing. Nevertheless, I have often been exhorted by christians to believe in their religion. But, until I have some evidence, why ever would (or should) I believe? (If you want more about this, I can send you my earlier articles.) Your own position on your faith seems to be that, until christianity runs out of answers, you will keep believing. My simple question here is: Why did you believe in the first place? (My muslim friend assures me that islam never runs out of answers either.) Another point, Paul, why does a religion's attributing a personality to god make that religion any closer to the truth? What if god doesn't have a personality? Finally, Paul, you pointed out that the issue with regard to historical evidence for Jesus wasn't simply a matter of showing whether Jesus actually existed, but was a matter of showing "who *he* was" (I quote you). Yes, yes, a thousand times yes! That is the point I was trying to make! You see, in the original discussion (from which all of this sprang), christians had claimed that the reference in Josephus to Jesus was evidence for christianity. Now, that reference in Josephus only states that a Jesus exists; it says nothing about his divine status. (BTW, it is my understanding that the reference is now considered to be a later interpolation into the true text.) If you want me to explain any of my beliefs, then just ask me and I will give it a try. If I find that I have a belief that I can't justify, then I will freely admit it. (And maybe I will drop it.) Daryel Akerlind ...ihnp4!inuxc!iuvax!dsaker