Really? Do you mean that literally or allegorically?
(I have no intention of challenging you to a factual debate on this or of critiquing your beliefs. I’m really just asking out of pure curiosity. I’ve never seen you express this belief overtly before)
Literally.
I find that the idea of God putting off divinity to become fully human, then reclaiming that divinity after making an ultimate sacrifice resonates with me in the way that I have encountered God in my life. I am open to exploring the tradition begun with Bultmann and most recently espoused by Spong, but that expression does not resonate in the same way.
I tend to view most miracle stories as possible, but recognize that they could be equally possible as simple wonderworker tales. However, I tend to see both the Resurrection and the Divine Presence in the Eucharist as factual (if messy and difficult to explain).
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by tomndebb *
**One does not come to belief through logic. So what is your point?
**
Without logic, the Debate ain’t so Great. More of a shouting match. Or (dare I say) Witnessing.
Well, this thread has taken numerous turns over many weeks and several pages. I have made no claims to the Truth of my beliefs (although, if I had, witnessing is permitted in this Forum).
My participation in this debate (or in one of the multiple battles within this thread) has been limited to opposing the unsubstantiated claim that myth is an attempt to describe the world scientifically. I have also provided a subtext that one approach to scripture recognizes that scripture proceeds from faith rather than the apparent view that faith proceeds from or is based upon scripture. These are cultural or anthropological points that may be debated. I simply choose to not confuse an anthropolgical point by dragging in my personal beliefs, which are irrelevant to the anthropology.
tomndebb, if you don’t mind my asking more questions, what is the goal of your religion?
Polycarp, since you’re back, perhaps you’d care to answer this finally?
I’m not at all sure that I understand the question, but I guess that my “goal” would be to join with others who have shared my experience of God as Creator and Redeemer and Counselor and celebrate our mutual understanding of our experiences, then to try to carry our understanding to others in the world through providing other people physical and moral and emotional support, working for a more just world, and sharing our experience. (Since not everyone has the same talents, not everyone will participate equally in every aspect of spreading the faith. I find that I am not well-suited to sharinmg (witnessing), so I confine my activities to the “support” functions.)
What if you found out that God didn’t want you to do that?
Then I would follow what I thought God wanted. Barring the clouds parting and a Great Voice declaring a new mesage, I doubt that I am going to encounter God giving me a different set of directions.
Tomndebb:
I imagine that you used logic to come to this belief. Is that so?
Huh?
I would say that I believe 2+2 = 4. I would say that if my underlying assumptions regarding mathematics are correct (which I believe they are) then I know the answer is 4 in the common usage of the word “know”, saving for the concept that we never really know anything for sure. So how about if I say that I believe 2+2 = 4 and I am more than fairly confident that I am correct. I am also more than fairly confident that you are playing the semantic game not I.
Of course not. You made the statement that beliefs are “come to by experiencing your life and finding the explanations that feel the most comfortable.” My claim is that thinking I would win the lottery would make me more comfortable, however I discard it in favor of what is more likely real based on probability, which is more reasonable to base reality on than comfortable feelings. I do think however that as opposed to your beliefs in evolution, in which you use logic and reason, your belief in a Christian god comes rather from what makes you feel more comfortable. I really don’t think that comfort is a sufficient reason to justify belief in supernatural stuff like telekinesis and the belief in a god that loves you.
I use probability if not formally with my best estimates on all the above. Generally people don’t I’ll grant you that. That’s why people generally believe in the supernatural but have piss poor reasons for explaining why.
If a claim is incorrect it’s wrong. If it’s wrong then it’s not good science. Sure you can allow for allegory, fiction, mistakes and lies but you should come up with a good reason for determining which part is “myth” and which part is real.
How have you encountered god in your life that specifically speaks of the resurrection? I’ll take it that the resurrection is a scientific claim. Why do you believe it so, cause unlike evolution there is no direct evidence for the contrary (aside from the fact that the probability of a darn near impossible event is darn near zero)?
Are you shitting me? Equally possible? Given what you know about various religious myths and how they all tend to have wonderworker tales, don’t you think it is more probable that most/all the miracle stories are fabrications?
I’ll bet.
You’re just playing word games, here. (As, I suspect, you are throughout your posts.)
The point is not that I would be more comfortable if I believed any given thing. I do not select beliefs in order to be comfortable. (I doubt that you do, either.) Rather, in the sense that I used the word comfortable, everyone matches expectations against beliefs and the beliefs that fit more “comfortably” into the world view that they possess tend to be reinforced. Unless you have a history of winning cash payments at games of chance, your experience is not going to be one that confirms your faith that you will win the lottery. Winning the lottery is not a “more comfortable” belief, it is, in your example, a belief (or a hope) that you will be more comfortable if it happened. I doubt that you would choose to believe it against your expectations, simply to make yourself more “comfortable.”
It is, however, more comfortable for you to believe that all the people in the world who have religious faith are (deliberately?) self-delusional, so that is a belief that you do hold.
Tomndebb:
Tom. Do you think ignoring my clearly worded questions makes onlookers with marginal faith more likely to believe you have sufficient reason to back up your beliefs in the supernatural, or less likely?
badchad, you’re being dishonest.
I used the word comfortable in the context of aligning one’s world view with one’s experiences. In the context, the word simply indicated that one’s experiences would shape one’s worldview (seeking a level of “comfort” that reconciled the two). You took the word “comfortable” and pretended that expressing a desire to be comfortable was the same thing that I had said. If you choose to believe that all religion is wishful thinking, you are welcome to that belief. However, simply using the word “comfortable” in a sentence and pretending that we are discussing the same concept is not a “clearly worded question,” it is a word game.
Since a) I have already indicated that my participation in this Forum is not to witness and b) I have already indicated that one does not come to belief by reason, your question is simply silly: you ascribe motives to me for an action in which I am not engaged and you are attempting to pretend that I hold that one comes to belief through reason.
Tomndebb:
No, Tom you are.
It’s not my fault that you were unclear in your use of the word comfortable, and it’s not a point I care to argue much further.
The clearly worded questions I was referring to were:
Regarding evolution: I imagine that you used logic to come to this belief. Is that so?
Regarding the resurrection: How have you encountered god in your life that specifically speaks of the resurrection? I’ll take it that the resurrection is a scientific claim. Why do you believe it so, cause unlike evolution there is no direct evidence for the contrary (aside from the fact that the probability of a darn near impossible event is darn near zero)?
Regarding other miracles in the bible: Given what you know about various religious myths and how they all tend to have wonderworker tales, don’t you think it is more probable that most/all the miracle stories are fabrications?
My use of the word comfortable in the context I provided was quite clear to any competent reader of English. I do understand why you would now prefer to duck away from the deliberate misuse of the word in your challenge to me.
I do not believe in Evolution. You may choose to join Young Earth Creationists in claiming that Creationism and Evolution are simply competing beliefs, however, I recognize a difference between understanding scientific information and believing in a world view. The Theory of Evolution as the mechanism of speciation through naturual selection is not a belief. It is an understanding of hyptheses tested against evidence with a recognition of the information that those examinations provide.
Regarding the other points: I have already indicated that my beliefs are irrelevant to our discussion. That you prefer to present the same questions over and over again would seem to indicate that you are not actually reading my responses. You asserted that myth was simply bad science based on too little information. Any competent anthropologist will note that your assertion is in error. My personal religious beliefs have no relevance to your misunderstanding of myth.
tomndebb
No it wasn’t.
Look who’s talking Tom.
So why did you say this?
Do you have a third alternative that you believe in or do you have another definition for the word belief than Webster uses. If so please define it and define what your thoughts on evolution are.
A belief is what you do when you say you think its true.
Fine, then describe how you think the evolution hypothesis compares with the resurrection hypothesis with regards to supporting evidence.
And I have indicated that they are.
Oh, I’m reading them, I just buying any of it.
Some of it is. Some of it is just plain fiction and some of it lies. Your belief in the literal aspects of any of it is just plain childish, unless you have some strong evidence indicating them to be true. Should we discuss the Santa Clause myth next.
Sure it was. And pretending otherwise simply makes you look petulant. I used it in the sense of deriving actual comfort from reconciling one’s world view with one’s experiences. You deliberately changed the usage to say that if an event occurred (which you did not even believe might occur) the event. itself, would make you comfortable regardless of your beliefs. That was disingenuous, but your persistence in maintaining the charade is merely dishonest.
Belief is holding as true that which cannot be known.
If a proposition may be proved, it is no longer faith or belief, but knowledge. Evolutionary theory is knowledge (except for you and certain Young Earth Creationists). The Resurrection is a matter of belief.
Well, you have certainly repeated the claim that my beliefs are relevant to this discussion, but you have provided me no reasons why I should accept your strident calls. You misused the concept of myth and I corrected you. All the rest is simply you seeking to pick a fight over whether I have a right to believe something that you choose to not believe. Since I have made no claim that you should share my beliefs, my beliefs are irrelevant to a discussion of your misconception of myth.
badchad:
I’ve been trying to stay out of these catfights lately, partially out of exaustion and partially out of the realization that defending liberal Christianity is not only somewhat disingenuous for me since I don’t actually believe it but that individuals like Tom and Poly are capable of explaining themselves without my help.
I would just like to step in as a somewhat impartial observer and tell you that I think that your semantic quibbles are a little misdirected and are not helping your case. As someone who has a little education in this area I can tell you that the term “myth” is used academically to illustrate a genre of literature in which abstract truths (or at least beliefs) are imparted through allegorical storytelling. The story may or may not be literally true but literal or historical truth is only incidental to its designation as myth. Theoretically, a story can be literally true and also be myth. I would argue that the American revolution has some mythical elements in the way that it is remembered and taught but that doesn’t mean that it’s fiction. It is also not contradictory to believe that a story is not literally true but that it imparts symbolic truth. Nitpicking about the definition of myth is not fruitful to this debate.
Also, I have to side with tom on his distinction between belief and knowledge. They’re not the same thing.
I think some of the questions you raise are quite legitimate and they illustrate some of the problems I have with theistic beliefs but you have a snideness in your tone that is off-putting. I know where it comes from, believe me. I used to be far worse than you are. I found that the questions I had as a non-believer were sufficiently challenging on their own that they did not require any extra sneering or knife-twisting on my part. I also found that I had a better chance of getting someone to think and to listen if I approached them with respect and civility. Some of the smartest people in history have believed in God. It’s not impossible to learn from some of them.