I don’t know. I don’t think it has to be either/or.

Hmmm. Do you believe in the laws of logic?

Me: “Is creation necessary to God or was God free to create or not create?”

No idea.

Apparently, you believe that God is intrinsically unknowable?

Me: “Do you agree with the statement, ‘God is love?’”

Completely, yes.

What does this mean and, again, how do you know, if you don’t know anything about God? I asked these questions to elaborate on how a Trinitarian worldview makes sense of reality, but your agnosticism about the first two questions makes it difficult for me to know how to elaborate on this point. There isn’t enough clarity in your worldview for that. But again, for you to say that you know nothing about God, but you know that He is love and you know that things that lead to death and destruction are negative is just flailing around in the dark and grabbing for whatever appeals to you. There’s no substance there.

Let’s go back to the beginning. What do you claim to “know” about reality (as opposed to what you claim to just “believe?”)

This is the answer commonly given by Hindus, etc., but it doesn’t fit. All of the blind men described different features of the elephant, but none of the features were mutually contradictory the way that the different religions are.

The key in our context is to look past the specific claims of various faith systems. All around the world, people feel the divine presence, and seek to explain it.

The atheists claim not to feel it. If the combined experience of people all over the world is the measure you use, then how can you discount their experience?

And how can you just discount the specifics of the spiritual claims when those specifics are integral to the claims. My Jain husband and I testify to mutually exclusive religious impulses. Your reasoning is way too conveniently facile and self-serving.

Religions develop in the context of culture.

Cultures develop in the context of their religions. And you do recognize, I trust, that your interpretation presupposes the falsity of the religious claims so that you cannot even begin to examine them on their own terms. And this is really the heart of the problem of modernist thought–that you can examine ultimate truth claims from a position of neutrality. You can’t, and you aren’t. My proposal is that you examine ultimate truth claims on their own terms–using their presuppositions.

That is true, and that is an example of an unhealthy belief that has developed as an erroneous response to the foundational faith (and a good reminder that not all ideas are worthy of respect.)

But from what position does one stand to determine that suttee is “unhealthy” and “erroneous?” Based on its own presuppositions, it’s healthy and true. You criticize Christians for our “circular reasoning” (i.e., judging other beliefs based upon our own faith commitments), but you expect a free pass to do the same thing yourself. You can’t have one.

No, it isn’t. If it were, Unitarian Christianity would never have existed.

And this presupposes that Trinitarianism and Unitarianism (and Arianism, etc.) are all intellectually and morally neutral interpretations. It glosses over the fact that the hugely different philosophical/theological ramifications of each position has any effect on the interpreters and presupposes equal intellectual rigor and moral integrity on everyone’s part. This presupposition, of course, is contrary to the Christian assertion that our intellectual and moral faculties are corrupted by our sinful inclinations.

Once again, your epistemology rules out Christianity from the get-go.

The Trinity, as an explicit doctrine, was formulated and voted on by a Church council centuries after the New Testament.

It was formally codified and creedalized a few centuries after the New Testament, but the formal creed was based upon the church tradition testified to in Scripture. There are numerous resources demonstrating the Scriptural basis for the doctrine. There are also many post-New Testament early church documents testifying to a belief in the distinctiveness, yet co-equality of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit.

We’re talking about the infinite and eternal. Doesn’t the idea that the infinite and eternal can be summed up in a few lines of a human language strike you as more than a little absurd?

If Christians claimed that the infinite and eternal can be “summed up” in a few words, then I would have to agree with you. But the idea that God created man as a verbal creature and He reveals things about Himself, verbally, to creatures he created with an innate verbal ability is not absurd at all. What’s absurd to me is the idea that God must necessarily be unwilling and/or incapable of verbally revealing anything specific about Himself to His own creation.

Anyone also can read ancient writings and decide to believe them as true, but what makes you think the view of God they give you is any less “made up” than any other?

Their consistency, or lack thereof, with human experience and their internal coherence, or lack thereof.

Me: “Do all your answers to these questions cohere? Are they consistent with observable reality?”

I think so

But you haven’t demonstrated any kind of consistent epistemology. Your most basic assumptions have proven to be grounded in nothing but your own imagination. You make value judgments about other people’s beliefs based on nothing but your own personal and cultural sensibilities.

but most people’s views on such things change over time with added information, experience, insight and thought.

Do yours?

If they didn’t, I certainly wouldn’t be a Christian today. But since becoming a Christian, many of my views and ideas have changed over time as well. The difference between us is not that one of us is open to changing or refining our beliefs while the other is unwilling. The difference is in our underlying epistemology. My first principle is that, “the fear of the Lord is the beginning of knowledge.” Yours is that your own intellectual autonomy is the beginning of knowledge. These are mutually exclusive presuppositions that dictate the very basics of how we think and reason.

Er … what? Rational faith is based on incoherence? Please explain.

Sorry, that was a typo. I meant that rational faith is coherent; irrational faith is incoherent.

I didn’t say “human knowledge is non-existent.” I said the agnostic point of view, in our context, is that we can’t know the truth about God and related matters.

You didn’t say that because, presumably, you’re not a radical agnostic like a consistent postmodernist is, which is what I was referring to. You lack that kind of consistency because you claim knowledge, even while denying it’s source.

The only thing one needs to assume in order to make valid knowledge claims is that the universe is consistent.

But even this assumption must be philosophically grounded within the context of the overarching belief system to be philosophically valid. Just because it’s only one itsy-bitsy teeny-tiny little assumption, that doesn’t mean it can sneak past the bouncer to join the philosophical players at the bar.

Christianity certainly does facilitate this, but so do many other philosophical stances.

The questions to you are in regard to how your belief system facilitates knowledge, but I’m not really sure what you claim to know. I think you claim to know things about the physical world, but without any specific theology, you have no justification for these claims.

You also seem to be claiming to know that there’s some divine reality, but make no specific claims about what that means. Based on your so-called knowledge of a divine reality, you seem to make knowledge claims about some general “good” and “bad” (e.g., “unhealthy,” “barbaric,” etc.) Again, though, your lack of specifics fail to provide the preconditions for the intelligibility of any of these claims. You’re just taking shots in the dark.

You did make a fair point, though, that practices that are deadly and destructive are wrong.

How do you know this? How do you know that death and destruction don’t lead to a greater reality? Hindus say that suttee leads a woman closer to spiritual fulfillment. Christianity says that dying to oneself and one’s own desires and living for Christ alone (even to the point of martyrdom, if necessary) leads to ultimate and eternal joy. How do you know that either or both of these claims are wrong? You don’t even have any theological specifics, so how can you say that mine or someone else’s are wrong?

Yes, but there’s the heart of the issue, no? Unless I receive the revelation myself, all I have to go one is what other people claim was revealed to them (including the ones who wrote the books of the Bible.) And if I do receive the revelation myself, no one else can share it other than by my hearsay.

But when the claims are made publicly such as is the case with Christianity and other revelational religions, they’re are subject to the same kinds of corroboration other public claims are subject to. (Resources such as Lee Strobel’s books go into specifics on this claim in regard to Christianity.) The problem is when one’s epistemology rules out the claims a priori.

Do you believe that God is separate from creation or part of creation?

I don’t know. I don’t think it has to be either/or.

Is creation necessary to God or was God free to create or not create?

No idea.

Do you agree with the statement, “God is love?”

Completely, yes.

No, it isn’t. If it were, Unitarian Christianity would never have existed. The Trinity, as an explicit doctrine, was formulated and voted on by a Church council centuries after the New Testament.

There is no distinct statement of a Trinitarian doctrine in the Bible. It’s one of a few different conclusions that can be, and have been, drawn from the texts.

And it’s one of those cases where some people are certain it is the obvious truth and others are equally certain it’s obviously not.

(me) The possibility of a faith in a God that’s not contained within a creed escapes them.

(Ree)What’s not to understand about the notion that anyone can invent a religion for himself–whether monotheistic or otherwise?

Two points on this:

1. We’re talking about the infinite and eternal. Doesn’t the idea that the infinite and eternal can be summed up in a few lines of a human language strike you as more than a little absurd?

2. Anyone also can read ancient writings and decide to believe them as true, but what makes you think the view of God they give you is any less “made up” than any other?

It still applies to you–it’s not just secular humanists who require justification. You still must answer basic epistemological questions. How do you know anything? From whence is your conception of your god? How does s/he or it reveal himself? On what grounds do you trust your own reasoning? What about sin? Does it exist? Why? How do you explain evil? Etc.

Do all your answers to these questions cohere? Are they consistent with observable reality?

I think so, but most people’s views on such things change over time with added information, experience, insight and thought.

Do yours?

But, of course, you’ve already admitted that your beliefs are based on faith. Rational faith as opposed to irrational faith, though, is based on the internal incoherence of one’s entire belief system as well as its consistence with human experience.

Er … what? Rational faith is based on incoherence? Please explain.

(me) The idea of a “radical agonostic” is amusing. It’s like being a “passionate stoic.”

(Ree) The notion that human knowledge is nonexistent is radical in the most literal sense.

I didn’t say “human knowledge is non-existent.” I said the agnostic point of view, in our context, is that we can’t know the truth about God and related matters.

As Van Til would say, “the proof for the Christian faith is that, without it, one can’t prove anything.” This is the point I’ve been working on demonstrating all along. The denial of basic Christian epistemology undermines all knowledge claims.

Yes, there was a lengthy, confusing, frustrating and ultimately very weird conversation along these lines on the “Hopeful Monster” thread. I am familiar with the position; I don’t accept it.

The only thing one needs to assume in order to make valid knowledge claims is that the universe is consistent. Christianity certainly does facilitate this, but so do many other philosophical stances.

That’s how the “Enlightenment” notion of intellectual autonomy finally led to the postmodernist morass our culture is in now where there’s no longer any such thing as truth/lies–there’s only power/impotence.

Perhaps, but it’s not specifically Christianity, it was the notion of any sort of absolute at all. There are other ways to get there.

(me) There are many legitimate ways to meet those needs; I long ago lost my ability to believe that there is only one “right” religion and long list of “wrong” ones.

(Ree) Are there any wrong ones?

As I tried to explain in the previous post, it’s not the outer practices or even theologies that matter, at least not for the question of whether the belief is right or wrong; if it draws people closer to the divine, it’s right for those poeple.

You did make a fair point, though, that practices that are deadly and destructive are wrong.

If you say that there are any wrong religions (say, Islamic fundamentalism for instance) is that arrogant?

If I say that religious practices that harm people are wrong, I don’t think that is arrogant, though some of the practitioners might. Tough for them.

But I’m not going to say that someone who draws close to the divine through Christ is wrong, nor am I going to say that someone who draws close to the divine through pagan nature rituals is wrong. It’s the same divine, just a different window for each. (So I believe.)

(me)Humility in the face of the unknown is wise.

(Ree): True, but if God really has truly revealed Himself through general and special revelation, then denying Him would not be humility, but arrogance.

Yes, but there’s the heart of the issue, no? Unless I receive the revelation myself, all I have to go one is what other people claim was revealed to them (including the ones who wrote the books of the Bible.) And if I do receive the revelation myself, no one else can share it other than by my hearsay.

So how can we ever know?

Many religions have something in common in the peripherals, but at their core, they’re radically different. How can all these “representations of the light” be so contradictory in their essence and still be true in any sense of the word?

I want to devote one post to just this question because it does seem to trip people up. I admit is not easy to grasp.

The parable of the blind men and the elephant is often used to illustrate this idea. I won’t belabor it because it’s familiar and you surely know it. In this context, the blind man feeling the elephant’s truck and the one hugging the elephant’s back leg might well have a loud, lengthy argument over the true nature of the elephant.

The key in our context is to look past the specific claims of various faith systems. All around the world, people feel the divine presence, and seek to explain it. The answers they have come up with are all different, very often mutually contradictory and certainly different philosophical currents. And yet, the only reason anybody believes any of them in the first place is that foundational divine connection.

Religions develop in the context of culture. The ancient Hebrews, nomadic people, developed a belief that God had promised them a homeland and then, later, that he led them to victory in the battles needed to secure it. Later developments in Judaism, and eventually Christianity, also came in response to oppression and occupation. But other faith strands developed in other places, other climates, among other people in other circumstances, and so take other forms.

I brought up the practice of suttee, earlier, where women are burned on their husband’s funeral pyres. If Hinduism is true, this isn’t a barbaric practice at all, but a beneficial one. The devoted widow who goes willingly to her death on her husband’s pyre will improve her karma considerably. (In fact, according to Hindu beliefs, it’s the woman’s bad karma that caused his death in the first place.) Refusing to do so would delay her spiritual progress and keep her longer in the cycle of rebirths. It’s not an excessive literalism that compels adherence to the specific tenets of one’s beliefs, but the beliefs themselves. Ideas have consequences.

That is true, and that is an example of an unhealthy belief that has developed as an erroneous response to the foundational faith (and a good reminder that not all ideas are worthy of respect.) There are examples of such errors in most or all religious traditions; people aren’t perfect and, because historical religions began to develop among primitive peoples, they often retain primitive ideas.

That is another good argument for not literalizing beliefs. One of the hallmarks of (theologically) liberal religion is the ability to choose the good from a variety of sources and not feel obligated to fundamentalistically see it as an all-or-nothing proposition.

I will address your other points/questions in another post or two, to follow.

Do you believe that God is separate from creation or part of creation?

Is creation necessary to God or was God free to create or not create?

Do you agree with the statement, “God is love?”

My fundamental premise is that human knowledge is derivative–we can only know anything at all because God has created us to know Him. His creation reflects His glory.

“One true light (God), reflected, refracted, distorted and colored as it shines through hundreds of windows (human religions.) This is classic Unitarian and Universalist theology. And it is “unity in diversity” by definition.”

On what basis do you say that there is unity in different religions? God is Creator. God is creation. God doesn’t exist. Ultimate truth is discerned through inner contemplation? The human heart is deceitful and desperately wicked so that inner contemplation leads to deception? Humans are fundamentally good and worthy of salvation? Humans are fundamentally sinful and are not worthy of salvation. Humans don’t require salvation? Humans and animals are ontologically different? Humans, animals, and God are ontologically equal?

Many religions have something in common in the peripherals, but at their core, they’re radically different. How can all these “representations of the light” be so contradictory in their essence and still be true in any sense of the word?

I brought up the practice of suttee, earlier, where women are burned on their husband’s funeral pyres. If Hinduism is true, this isn’t a barbaric practice at all, but a beneficial one. The devoted widow who goes willingly to her death on her husband’s pyre will improve her karma considerably. (In fact, according to Hindu beliefs, it’s the woman’s bad karma that caused his death in the first place.) Refusing to do so would delay her spiritual progress and keep her longer in the cycle of rebirths. It’s not an excessive literalism that compels adherence to the specific tenets of one’s beliefs, but the beliefs themselves. Ideas have consequences.

Who had been perplexed by [the problem of the one and the many?

This was the essential philosophical question of ancient Greek philosophy and, although it’s not generally explicitly addressed in modern philosophy, it’s still implicitly answered in those philosophies.

And did God reveal a trinitarian nature, or did man develop a trinitarian theology to explain their belief in the divinity of Jesus?

Trinitarianism is the necessary consequence of the combined teaching of the Christian Scriptures.

The possibility of a faith in a God that’s not contained within a creed escapes them.

What’s not to understand about the notion that anyone can invent a religion for himself–whether monotheistic or otherwise?

That may be true; however, I am not a secular humanist, so I don’t see how it applies to me or my first principles.

It still applies to you–it’s not just secular humanists who require justification. You still must answer basic epistemological questions. How do you know anything? From whence is your conception of your god? How does s/he or it reveal himself? On what grounds do you trust your own reasoning? What about sin? Does it exist? Why? How do you explain evil? Etc.

Do all your answers to these questions cohere? Are they consistent with observable reality?

But, of course, you’ve already admitted that your beliefs are based on faith. Rational faith as opposed to irrational faith, though, is based on the internal incoherence of one’s entire belief system as well as its consistence with human experience.

The idea of a “radical agonostic” is amusing. It’s like being a “passionate stoic.”

The notion that human knowledge is nonexistent is radical in the most literal sense.

If you could make a case that Christianity provides a moral basis for objection that another person’s worldview lacks, it’s still only your chosen belief in an unprovable set of faith precepts that you’re appealing to. You would not have proved that their is an objective basis, only that you believe there is.

As Van Til would say, “the proof for the Christian faith is that, without it, one can’t prove anything.” This is the point I’ve been working on demonstrating all along. The denial of basic Christian epistemology undermines all knowledge claims. That’s how the “Enlightenment” notion of intellectual autonomy finally led to the postmodernist morass our culture is in now where there’s no longer any such thing as truth/lies–there’s only power/impotence.

There are many legitimate ways to meet those needs; I long ago lost my ability to believe that there is only one “right” religion and long list of “wrong” ones.

Are there any wrong ones?

I think that intelligent and reasoned discussion of these kinds of questions is always beneficial to all involved. Nothing rankles me more that dogamtic insistence that “only the way I believe is correct,” whether it’s coming from a fundamentalist Christian, one of the “new atheists” or anybody else.

I think it’s arrogant to declare that any of us has a sure and certain understanding of the “truth” about such things.

If you say that there are any wrong religions (say, Islamic fundamentalism for instance) is that arrogant?

Humility in the face of the unknown is wise.

True, but if God really has truly revealed Himself through general and special revelation, then denying Him would not be humility, but arrogance.

I don’t mean to dismiss you as just another Biblical literalist, because you’re much better able to argue for your point of view than most, but that just makes #138 that much more surprising.

I did neglect to respond to #133, so I’ll do that now.

f you’re asserting that another worldview does adequately explain unity in diversity, you’ll have to be specific about how it’s explained, not just say that you don’t agree that there aren’t other explanations. But even if you were to find an explanation, but it’s not your own belief, then you still haven’t advanced your position–you still haven’t proven the rationality of your worldview.

I don’t understand your insistence that that theological formulation of what God is must somehow mirror human experience in order to “explain” it.

Nevertheless, my actual worldview explains it quite well. God is one, but perceived by humans in many different ways. This is why there are many different religious ideas, all of which are responses to the inner religious impulse.

One true light (God), reflected, refracted, distorted and colored as it shines through hundreds of windows (human religions.) This is classic Unitarian and Universalist theology. And it is “unity in diversity” by definition.

The literal-minded get hung up on the differences they perceive as they compare the light shining through different windows (”These can’t both be true!”), and don’t figure out that both of them are simply showing representations of the light, not the pure light itself. (But the light is so brilliant that we need the windows to filter it down to a level we can see.)

And it’s true that pre-Christian Judaism didn’t hold to Trinitarianism. Another tenet of Christianity is that special (verbal) revelation is progressive. The fact that they didn’t have a clear answer to this philosophical problem doesn’t negate the truth of the pre-Christian revelation; it only shows it’s incompleteness.

I still don’t agree it’s a philosophical problem. I do, however, agree revelation didn’t end with the Old Testament. I think it didn’t end with the New Testament, either.

The point is that when God revealed His triune nature, it resolved an ancient philosophical problem that had previously been perplexing and irresolvable.

Who had been perplexed by it?

And did God reveal a trinitarian nature, or did man develop a trinitarian theology to explain their belief in the divinity of Jesus?

This, along with the fact that God’s character and nature provide a rationale for all the other a priorisms from which we think and reason (i.e., the reality of transcendent moral absolutes, the universality of the laws of logic, and the uniformity of nature)is what makes Christianity rational.

I agree with this with regard to God in general; it doesn’t necessitate a Christian formulation.

A lot of people seem to think religion requires choosing a system to move within. If you’re a monotheist, they reason, you must be either a Jew, Christian or Muslim or some variant of those (e.g. Mormon, B’hai, etc.) The possibility of a faith in a God that’s not contained within a creed escapes them.

I’m glad you recognize that, but your contention is that Christians hold our first principles “just because.” My response is that you’re the one whose faith is blind or “just because,” while our faith is rational. If we all start with faith, then we all end up with circular reasoning. That isn’t a charge from which you’re exempt. But Christian first principles are justified internally and holistically by our worldview. It’s your first principles that are “just because.” In fact, secular first principles are borrowed from Christianity–they have no internal rationale. Secular humanists are just post-Christians who’ve cut away the branch on which they sit.

That may be true; however, I am not a secular humanist, so I don’t see how it applies to me or my first principles.

And even radical agnostics give away the game by what athey do. They may say that we can’t know, but then they put plenty of effort into imposing all kinds of moral imperatives on others. In fact, in our current culture, it’s the moral relativists (Michael Moore and his ilk) who are generally the most bombastic and unyielding in their moral denouncements and in their attempts to hold others to their standards.

The idea of a “radical agonostic” is amusing. It’s like being a “passionate stoic.” I think most agnostics, if arguing specifically from agnosticism, would simply say that because we can’t know one religious idea is more or less true than another, a country with freedom of religion needs to be careful to allow its people to form their faiths without government favortism.

I think you’re conflating agnostics with social activists who are driven by different motivations.

Now, you say you don’t approve of “barbaric” practices in other cultures, but then, you don’t approve of them on what grounds? Do you admit that your objections are thoroughly subjective and personal and have no universal binding value based on your presuppositions about knowledge?

No, I don’t. They’re based on my belief that all humans are interconnected through our common humanity — a sentiment that can be shared by atheists, theists and adherents of traditional religions.

At root, all such beliefs are “subjective and personal.” If you could make a case that Christianity provides a moral basis for objection that another person’s worldview lacks, it’s still only your chosen belief in an unprovable set of faith precepts that you’re appealing to. You would not have proved that their is an objective basis, only that you believe there is.

Also, if you say that other religions meet spiritual needs, you acknowledge that humans have spiritual needs?

Absolutely I do.

What’s the basis of these needs and who’s to say what is and isn’t a legitimate way to meet these needs?

My personal belief is that as we evolved sentience we became aware of things other animals are not. The awareness of death is one. Spiritual need is another. That is, there is a God who seeks us and we have the awareness of that.

There are many legitimate ways to meet those needs; I long ago lost my ability to believe that there is only one “right” religion and long list of “wrong” ones.

You’re welcome–I guess. Actually, I really didn’t mean it as a compliment or an insult–just an observation and an explanation for why it might feel as if I’m stalking you when you realize that about half of my responses on the board are to you.

I understand.

I think that intelligent and reasoned discussion of these kinds of questions is always beneficial to all involved. Nothing rankles me more that dogamtic insistence that “only the way I believe is correct,” whether it’s coming from a fundamentalist Christian, one of the “new atheists” or anybody else.

I think it’s arrogant to declare that any of us has a sure and certain understanding of the “truth” about such things. Humility in the face of the unknown is wise.

That “argument” is always amusing coming from one who believes literally in the Bible, just because.