** In the Galileo thread, I gave up because people kept making strange and historically controversial claims about caring about supporting them. Guess who’s making such claims again in this thread? [cough Dewey cough]
No you don’t. You explicitly believe in miracles – specifically, that God communicates with you. And you’re certainly not interested in the same standards of evidence, judging from your posts thus far.
Wrong. Both the Catholic and Orthodox Churches emphasize the communal over the individual, although the doctrine is much stronger in the eastern Church.
Without caring about supporting them? Are you kidding? The bulk of citations on that matter came from myself and tomndebb. The only citations you provided turned out, upon closer examination, to support the precise opposite of your position. **
Context and six pages of my posts should make clear that by “miracles” I mean direct divine interaction with the physical world. And spare me the “your experience impacts the physical because you can articulate it” routine; we went over that several pages ago, and I ceded the semantic point on that particular quibble. **
Which was a big part of Martin Luther’s point, of course: he said Catholic (Roman or Orthodox) doctrine had become separated from what Christ’s disciples and their progeny were originally teaching, most specifically in the area of God’s relationship with the individual. A big part of the Protestant Reformation was in suggesting that individuals did not need the intercession of church officials to communicate with God, and that the principle engine of salvation was not communitarian worship but rather individual relationships with the Almighty.
Obviously, there is some dispute between Catholicism and Protestantism as to who’s right about the specific doctrine held by the first Christians, but the existence of that dispute hardly invalidates my point.
Dewey: Since you’re back (at least for the moment)…
You state that you “believe that [your] spiritual experiences are valid because [you’ve] experienced them firsthand.” Nobody is questioning whether you have had such experiences or not. What we want to know is why you accept them as valid (i.e., originating from God) and cannot accept the possibility that these experiences might have a different explanation.
If you saw a strange blinking light in the night sky that seemed to move at incredible velocity, I suspect your first thought would not be that you had just seen an interstellar craft piloted by small, grey aliens with large eyes and a fetish for anal probing. Instead, since that explanation totally defies logic, I’m sure you would assume that there was some perfectly rational explanation for what you had seen, even if you couldn’t think of one right away.
Similarly, if somebody claimed to been abducted by the aforementioned aliens and had his anus probed, I assume your first thought would be that the person was either insane, lying, or deluded – in spite of his assurances that his experiences are valid because he experienced them first hand.
And yet, when you have an experience that defies all rational explanation, you decide to believe in an invisible, intangible God instead of the possibillty that there is some other rational explanation. Why is that?
What it boils down to is that you experienced something that you could not explain, and you then chose to believe that “God” must be the cause without subjecting the experience to the same rigourous logical and empirical testing that you yourself would require of anybody else’s “unexplainable” experiences. Unless, of course, those experiences matched yours, in which case I’m sure you would accept them at face value.
Personally, I don’t think you’re insane for believing in God. Or, to be more precise, I don’t think you are insane for having what you label a “spiritual experience.” I’ve had them myself, believe it or not, and I think these feelings are part of the human condition. I do think, however, that you are gullible at best and deluded at worst when you choose to ascribe the cause of those experiences to an invisible, intangible, yet nevertheless omnipotent being who, although he can interact with the material world, chooses not to do so, and who still manages to find time in his busy schedule to talk to you personally while ignoring other people who are begging for his guidance (and apparently saying conflicting things to different people all over the world).
** No they didn’t, Dewey; that’s one of the reasons I left: you can’t even determine what my positions are because you’re so busy contradicting what you presume my position to be.
** Yet you fail to put two and two together. You accept the axioms but reject the conclusions that follow from them.
** Who said anything about church officials? The earlier Church emphasized community, not intermediaries. That is not a small or trivial distinction. It also included “individual relationships”, but God would (supposedly) judge both the individual and the community.
Not that any of this has anything to do with the problems in your position.
I always just figured God was really good at multitasking.
As for the rest: well, you’re asking me to explain the inexplicable. At the end of the day, I just have not the words to elucidate what I’m talking about. That response may well be inadequate; it will have to do.
I suppose what disturbs me is not that people choose to disbelieve in God – as I’ve plainly stated, I don’t expect anyone to believe on my say-so. What I find most disturbing instead is the particularly virulent form of atheism (and I do not lump you into this category) that carries itself with an unbelievable sense of its own superiority – the kind that sneers down its nose at the religious, as though those who elect theism are somehow chronically inferior to the great and mighty atheist. I find it oddly shortsighted that these folks can’t dare to imagine that they just might be wrong (as I do; I cycle through periods of doubt like anyone else). I rarely see that tone of absolute certainty outside of fundamentalist strains of Christianity or Islam.
This particular strain is also annoying, unable to have a reasonable conversation on deism without reaching for unnecessary pejoratives. Someone earlier in this thread said he thought arguing the atheist point of view was impossible without insulting the deist. Not so. One need only trot over to the Infidels site and read some of their archived debates on the topic: any number of them are characterized by respectful disagreement on both sides. It is tragic that similar attitudes are not in play here. The whole tone of many of these discussions (and again, I exclude you from this) on the atheist side amounts to “I won’t just argue my opponent’s points; I will mock and belittle those points as well.”
I have always felt that this is a serious topic upon which reasonable minds can legitimately disagree. Tragically, that view is not shared by all.
Suffice to say your cite did not say what you suggested it said. Interested readers can hie thee over to the Galileo thread and decide for themselves.**
One of the fundamental pillars of Protestantism is the priesthood of the believer. Catholicism renders this heresy on precisely the grounds that it renders much tradition – sacraments and the like, yes, but also participation in the church’s community – irrelevant to communion with the Almighty. Coupled with the other two pillars – justification by faith alone and the primacy of the Scriptures – Protestantism renders the church community strictly unnecessary for either salvation or communion with God (though important for living a healthy life on earth).
And Protestantism claims to be getting back to what the original church (meaning Peter, Paul and their followers) was preaching. Obviously, you are free to think the Protestant reformers were wrong and the Roman Catholic and Orthodox churches were right on those points (Catholics of both stripes would agree with you). But that’s a debate that’s gone on for centuries. Your view of the matter is not dispositive, and my point is therefore not without merit.
** And the Orthodox ignore both of these viewpoints, taking a doctrinal stance that’s unlike either the Protestant and Catholic beliefs. So what’s your point?
Of course it’s without merit… just not for that reason.
We were discussing why you feel it’s appropriate to believe something even though you readily admit no one else would find sufficient reason to belief based on the available evidence. What makes you so special?
** So you can’t even conceptualize what you claim to believe?
** Nah. Most of those people are just reasonable atheists who’re really, really tired of listening to half-baked points and logically contradictory arguments in favor of someone’s flavor of Great Sky Being. There are, of course, idiotic atheists. There are many more atheists who know perfectly well that certain (read: virtually all) conceptualizations of God are logically impossible, and thus are certain that those conceptualizations are wrong.
** Skepticism requires an awareness of the possibility of error, but if there is sufficient reason to reach a conclusion, it doesn’t generate “periods of doubt”. What would be doubted?
Thankfully, that view is not shared by all. You’re making a claim. Either you have sufficient justification for that claim, in which case you should share that information and we will come to agree with you, or you don’t and your claim is invalid. Reasonable people can validly disagree only when personal interpretation comes into play.
I had claimed that the basic motivation behind most Christian churches was fellowship, and that strictly speaking, the church was wholly unnecessary for communion with God. To which you replied: “Doctrinally incorrect. The earliest Christian beliefs revolve around the community, not the individual, and religious worship can take place only in a gathering in the oldest tradition.”
To which I replied, take it up with Martin Luther. Protestantism holds that the “earliest Christian beliefs” – meaning that of Peter, Paul, and their followers – were centered on an individualistic notion of God, and that the Catholic church (both Roman and Orthodox) had long since departed from that vision.
Now granted, that is a hundreds-year-old debate between Protestantism and Roman and Orthodox Catholicism. What exactly the “earliest Christian beliefs” were is a matter of some dispute. But that doesn’t render my statement about the necessity of the church for communion with God “doctrinally incorrect.” It only makes it “doctrinally arguable,” unless you assume from the get-go that the Catholic view is necessarily the correct one.
Dewey: What makes you think the Christian concept of God is any more valid than the Jewish, Moslem, or Zorastrian concept of God?
Well, I’m glad you don’t lump me into that category, as I do not feel that way toward those who believe in God. At least, not toward all of them. Although I was born Jewish, I was raised in a very fundamental Christian religion, and still have many very intelligent friends and relatives who cling to those beliefs. My feeling is that as long as those beliefs bring them comfort and don’t lead them to hurt other people, then it’s not my business to try and disabuse them of their beliefs. I’ve also had a number of “spiritual experiences” in my life and know full well the impact they can have on one’s outlook. Eventually, I decided to analyze those experiences and see if I could tell for sure whether they came from God or from some internal source, and I came to the conclusion that it was far more likely that I was the author of those feelings and not some invisible, intangible, external being.
Well, you seem to be absolutely certain that psychics like John Edwards are frauds, in spite of the testimony from numerous people who are utterly convinced. As a “good skeptic” I’m guessing you are also pretty darn certain that people are not being abducted by anal probing aliens, or that people can bend objects with their minds, etc. And I’m guessing the reason you are so certain is because of the existence of counter evidence, the complete lack of physical proof, and the availability of alternate explanations for what many of these people sincerely claim to experience.
Do I think that it is possible that God exists? Of course, and I’m pefectly willing to discuss the pos and cons of that possibility with anyone. I also happen to think, though, that it’s possible that aliens and ghosts and psychic powers exist as well. So far, however, I haven’t seen any compelling evidence to prove the existence of aliens, ghosts, psychic powers or God, and so I remain skeptical.
I asked you before, but you chose not to answer, so let me ask you again:
This question is, I believe, the very core of this discussion. Not whether God exists, not whether you can prove he exists, and not whether early church doctrine taught that the individual was more important than the community (or any of the other sidetracks that this discussion has wandered off into repeatedly).
In short, why should religious experiences be exempt from a skeptic’s rigorous inquiry? Why are they held to a lower standard of proof?
We experience the world and the spiritual through ourselves. Personal experience is the only method of experience, now why would one not believe what they have experienced?
It is true that one can “think” theirselves into or out of anything. Sure you can have a spiritual experience and say it was only a fluke, lots of people do that. “Skeptic’s rigorous inquiry” bothers me a bit. Is this like a police grilling. Just to make sure the person keeps their story straight. What kind of “proof” would skeptics have about other people’s personal experiences, that they don’t have. Who needs skeptics anyway? Why would one person think he knows more about the personal experience of others, than they did. I see this as highly arrogant and egotistical. If the skeptic has some solid proof, they never do, then I will listen to them. Otherwise they are useless.
Lekatt: We’re talking here about people who claim to be skeptics about all things, but who nevertheless make an exception for religious experiences. The question is why do religious experiences get a “free pass” when other so-called supernatural experiences are required to have empirical proof before being worthy of belief.
If I remember correctly, you also believe in psychic powers and ghosts, no? If so, this whole issue doesn’t apply to you, since you refuse to apply the rules of skepticism to anything.
I don’t believe I’ve made any such claim. Correcting TVAA’s incorrect statement about Christian doctrine is not tantamount to endorsing Christianity. **
The answer, for me personally, is that my personal experience tells me God exists and that the typical skeptic responses simply ring hollow. I freely grant that belief in God fails under ordinary scientific inquiry. To my mind, however, that sort of inquiry just seems unsuited to the task at hand. Not the greatest answer, I know, but there it is.
For others, I agree that religious experence should not be subject to different rules, and that no one should believe solely on the say-so of any particular believer. Indeed, absent spiritual experience, I would say that skeptical agnosticism is the most intelligent default position for any given individual to take – i.e., tending to disbelieve in God, but open to the possibility nevertheless.
OK, so your belief in God is not subject to the “sort of inquiry” that skeptics typcially employ to determine the veracity of a claim. And you acknowledge that, with regard to other people’s beliefs, “no one should believe solely on the say-so of any particular believer.”
What about people who say they believe in a supernatural event (psychic powers, let’s say) not because of the say-so of any particular believer, but because of something they themseves have experienced? You “know” that psychic powers don’t exist (i.e., because psychic claims have never been proven true, and many have been proven false), and therefore it doesn’t matter what somebody claims to have experienced. Either they are flat-out lying a la John Edwards, or else they have simply misinterpreted what they experienced, right?
Basically, your interpretation of what happened to you gets to go unchallenged by you, because you choose to believe a certain way. But if other people choose to interpret their experiences (not what they are told, but what they experience first-hand) in a way that conflicts with logic and reason, you will challenge their beliefs. Unless, of course, their interpretation agrees with yours, in which case you take it as evidence that your belifs are right.
That’s all well and good, but hardly behavior befitting a true skeptic, nu?
The sources that we can glean even an indirect view of the early Church from are the Epistles, and Paul’s letters do not seem to be consistent with the emphasis on individuals.
Besides, wasn’t Christ reported as saying “Where two or three of you are gathered together, there I shall be?”
** It’s not at all an incorrect statement. It’s just that you don’t know enough about Christian doctrine to evaluate it. Emphasis on community does not in any way imply that intermediaries between God and Man are necessary – and that’s the point you were responding to.
** First, there are no strictly “personal” answers. Your reasoning is in abeyance.
Secondly, the scientific method is merely systematic honesty. If that is an inappropriate tool to use, then there is nothing of truth about your position.
What makes you different?
And open to the possibility of what, exactly? The God you’ve described is logically impossible. Being open to the possibility of that God’s existence requires a denial of reason.
How about virtually everything ever written about Protestantism and the Protestant Reformation?
I’m actually flabbergasted that you would contest this. This is one of the basic dividing lines between Protestants and Catholics (and do note, by “Catholic,” I mean both the Roman and Orthodox churches). The priesthood of the believer is one of the fundamental tenets of Protestantism, and one of the key reasons Protestantism is deemed heresy by Catholicism is precisely because that tenet makes church services – and thus communitarian worship – unnecessary for communion with God.
Protestantism holds that communal worship is a good thing, useful for the spiritual health of Christ’s followers, but not absolutely necessary to converse with the Almighty. **
That, of course, depends on which Epistles you’re reading and how you interpret them. The Catholic church will tend to emphasize those writings that favor communal worship; Protestants will tend to emphasize those writings focusing on individualized relationships with God.
There is no “right” answer on this. Both sides have been debating the relative merits of the three pillars of Protestantism for centuries now. What you are essentially saying is that the Catholics have been 100% right and the Protestants have been 100% wrong. That’s a mighty absolutist position to take on one portion of what is, essentially, the most hotly contested theological issue in the Western world. **
Yes, more or less. The Catholics would say this means communitarian worship is essential. Protestants would say this means communitarian worship is a good thing, healthy for the faithful and one way to worship and converse with the Almighty, but by no means the only or even the most important way to worship. **
Again, you claimed that, as a matter of doctrine, “[t]he earliest Christian beliefs revolve around the community, not the individual, and religious worship can take place only in a gathering in the oldest tradition.”
All I’m pointing out is that this particular matter is in fact a major fault line between Protestantism and Catholicism. Your statement is incorrect insofar as Protestants are concerned. Unless you’re willing to say that Catholicism has a monopoly on historical truth about the early church, that necessarily renders your statement false because it was written in absolute terms.
** I said evidence, not restatements of the position. If the material written about the Reformation is the evidence, how did the people actually in the Reformation reach the conclusion?
“Communion with God” is considered to be perfectly possible on an individual level in the Orthodox Church – and I believe in the Catholic as well. I don’t think you understand their positions at all.
Neither the Orthodox nor Catholic Churches claim that communal worship is necessary to “converse with the Almighty”.
** Since the early (and current) Church has both, there’s no need to focus on either type.
** That statement is correct. It’s a tradition that Judaism also has – are you familiar with the concept of the minyan? The O & C Churches have plenty of services that a priest can perform alone – and plenty of methods of communion that worshippers can use by themselves – but certain sacraments require several people, primarily because they’re supposed to be done for the benefit of the community.
Are you going to discuss the OP, your position, and the ways in which these points relate to them? Or are you simply going to continue jabbering?
Lemme get this straight: you want a full recounting of the theological rationales underlying the Protestant Reformation? Why? I haven’t suggested that Protestantism is correct and Catholicism is wrong on doctrinal matters; I’ve simply noted the existence of a distinction between those two groups. **
I don’t think you understand. Your claim was that early Christian doctrine emphasized the communal over the individual, particularly in matters of worship. Yet that is hardly a settled matter: Protestantism emphasizes the individual over the communal. **
But they do emphasize communal worship and the church community as an absolutely necessary component of religious life. Protestantism does not. **
Again I say: take it up with Martin Luther. That theologans differ on the interpretation and application of various facets of scripture should be entirely unsurprising. **
That illustrates the point nicely. Protestantism does not have sacraments. It is focused not on the God’s relationship with the community, but rather with the individual believer.
