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