Credo: what and why I believe [Archive]

cj.23

25th November 2008, 02:07 PM

In another thread Volatile asked the excellent question as to why I converted from atheism to theism, and that subset of theism known as Christianity.
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=4216892#post4216892

I very much doubt anyone gives a hoot, and I am not that bothered about explaining my reasoning (or lack thereof) for three reasons

i) I don't actually know the why. I distrust 'testimonies' as retrospective justifications of the ideological change -- I could tell the story in thirty different ways, and each would tell you more about who I am now and what I am trying to communicate now than anything to do with my thinking about a decade ago. Waybackmachine can find some of my atheist era writings when I attacked Christianity I'm sure, and if anyone actually had the slightest reason they could construct a more reasoned and objective view than I could. I simply don't know - I think I know, but I'm not able to recall all the factors, and some may not even be relevant -- I just thought they were.

ii) My personal story is completely irrelevant to the question of if my beliefs bear any realtion to objective truth. If I had created a new theory of great scientific merit, or sone something noble or infamous, maybe the metaphysical speculations of my late twenties would interest someone. In fact, my reasoning may well be flawed, my story is tedious, and I doubt anyone would care enough to read it. I'm afraid it would just be boring ego-m****bation.

iii) I'm probably wrong on lots of things. So thinking for yourself is far more useful than worrying about how i came to hold my beliefs.

Having said all that, I'm a Christian, a convert from atheism to agnosticism to theism, hold fairly mainstream Christian beliefs and will cheerfully discuss them with anyone remotely interested. I'm quite used to dialogue with atheists, I'm not out to convert anyone, and I really don't mind if you think I'm crazy. I will however cheerfully answer questions if, as volatiles questions seems to suggest, some people are interested in thsi stuff.

cj x

quixotecoyote

25th November 2008, 02:13 PM

ImaginalDisc

25th November 2008, 02:14 PM

quixotecoyote

25th November 2008, 02:16 PM

I'm afraid you did no such thing. Atheism is not a set of beliefs. It has no scripture, no revelation, and no authority. You can no more convert from being an atheist than you can convert from being a non-stamp collector.

Are you sure I can't convert from being a non-stamp collector to being a stamp collector? It doesn't seem to be all that difficult.

cj.23

25th November 2008, 02:19 PM

So as a result of a question about your reasons for conversion, you created an entirely separate thread about the reasons for your conversion in order to say that you won't be saying anything about the reasons for your conversion in the thread which your created about the reasons for your conversion.

Beautiful.

Well I will discuss my beliefs now - I just don't think the reasoning behind them is the reasoning from when I converted. Simple honesty, but yes, well criitiqued! :D

Seriously though, of course I will discuss my conversion. I just don't claim it actually amounts to anything of evidential value. However a dialogue about some of the beliefs might be fun and interesting, if you get my drift...

cj x

cj.23

25th November 2008, 02:20 PM

I'm afraid you did no such thing. Atheism is not a set of beliefs. It has no scripture, no revelation, and no authority. You can no more convert from being an atheist than you can convert from being a non-stamp collector.

I never said it said, but sure the word conversion is probably inappropriate. OK, I started believing in a deity, and hence went from not. :)

cj x

rocketdodger

25th November 2008, 02:59 PM

So you literally believe jesus christ died for your sins?

Because if not I don't really see the point of labeling yourself a "christian."

Almo

25th November 2008, 03:05 PM

Wolfman

25th November 2008, 03:36 PM

Jimbo07

25th November 2008, 03:45 PM

You can no more convert from being an atheist than you can convert from being a non-stamp collector.

Are you sure I can't convert from being a non-stamp collector to being a stamp collector?

Maybe ImaginalDisc requires us to use a separate word, since convert comes with so much baggage, I'd suggest trying the following synonyms:

- Change
- Switch
- Transclownomorph

:D

Wolfman

25th November 2008, 03:55 PM

I'm afraid you did no such thing. Atheism is not a set of beliefs. It has no scripture, no revelation, and no authority. You can no more convert from being an atheist than you can convert from being a non-stamp collector.
I understand your argument...but think it is overly sophistic.

At one point, this person did not believe in god. They had a worldview based on that lack of belief. At some point, their worldview changed. In fact, it is logically impossible to argue that this person did not change.

"Change" means transition or transformation from one state to another. There was a previous state, and the current state. The two are different, and distinguishable from each other.

Same thing with "converting"...you can't convert "to" something without also converting "from" something. You are converting "from" one particular state "to" another particular state.

If the "previous" state in this case was not "atheist", then what was it? What exactly did this person "change" from?

quarky

25th November 2008, 04:06 PM

I may be in the minority here in thinking that a switch from atheism to theism is about as significant as a change in laundry soap brands.

I'll tell you why I switched brands:

Brand 'x' became cheaper than brand 'y'...yet they were identical chemistry wise.

Switching from theism to Christianity, however, is like buying a new, sexier washing machine.

MarkCorrigan

25th November 2008, 04:15 PM

Switching from theism to Christianity, however, is like buying a new, sexier washing machine.

New washing machines break when exposed to logic?

Darth Rotor

25th November 2008, 04:34 PM

I think a few of the responses have ignored something: there is a human being at the other end of that keyboard

Friendly and lively indeed.

Almo

25th November 2008, 04:50 PM

I think a few of the responses have ignored something: there is a human being at the other end of that keyboard

Friendly and lively indeed.

Seconded.

quarky

25th November 2008, 05:14 PM

New washing machines break when exposed to logic?

They break when exposed to enough dirty laundry. Logic is irrelevant. The important thing to do is to buy a new washing machine. One that is 'better' than the old one.

plumjam

25th November 2008, 05:15 PM

cj.23

25th November 2008, 05:27 PM

Right, let's play. :) Sorry I was delayed by being forced to work, something I am not suited to... I did not mean to ignore anyone. Please be as blunt and direct in calling me a credulous woo merchant as you want, and please feel free to discuss your own belief systems, and to open this to wider questions of theism etc. I know we have lots of Christians, Buddhists, atheists, agnostics and presumably some Jains, Hindus, neo-pagans etc, etc. I could go on - Sikh, Zoroastrians, Thelemic types - but we would be here all night. This is an open party.

I'd ask, because i'd never try to dictate, that you are willing to a) consider the possibility you may be wrong, as I freely acknowledge, indeed suspect to be the case in many instances with regard to my own beliefs, and that b) religion is a target for scrutiny every bit as much as any other woo claim - I can dish it out, so I'm happy to take it (and let's face it we all have the 'woo we used to do' clanking it's metaphorical chains in the closets of our pasts) and c) aren't here to threaten other people with hellfire or being turned in to a sacred Mao button and being distributed to the poor in the region of Thud, let us commence. Join in - this is not a thread about what cj.23 the third rate ghosthunter believes in in terms of religion or no religion - it's what we all believe in. I'm pretty certain that the excellent Beth, DR, Meadmaker. arthwollipot and many others, believers and non-believers alike, can run rings round me in their knowledge of Christian theology, but I'll discuss honestly my own beliefs -- please don't make it a solo ego-thon/ cj- bash-athon!

I'm just sick of drive by trolling, "burn in hell you sinners" and rampant fundiesim type post from any faith/non-faith perspective, and I don't think we should be so British (or maybe US?) as to think that religion should never be talked about in public. Let's talk... and i'm with Dawkins here, the idea of "respect" for religious beliefs should not enter in to it.

One polite request -- let's talk beliefs, not people. I'm a lazy often bewildered crap ghosthunter -- I freely acknowledge my failings, rendering ad hominems pretty pointless. Let's stick it to the actual beliefs, not the believers/non-believers :)

Enough preamble -- I'll start answering. Just jump in and start discussing your beliefs as you see fit: Hey, ****, it's a forum, you'll do that anyway, I can't make any rules on how the threads run - the JREF do that well - but hell, I can ask! :)
cj x

Wolfman

25th November 2008, 05:31 PM

Having looked at your sig...just felt it was fair to mention that I was born and raised Anglican, my dad is an Anglican minister in fact.

Gurdur

25th November 2008, 05:33 PM

Hi cj.23,

which particular "mainstream Christian beliefs" do you espouse? Which church do you find closest to what you believe?

And if I may ask, what was the impetus behind your migration from atheism to Christianity? Would you say it was for emotional reasons? I ask because it seems to me most of those who started off as atheists but converted to Christianity seem to do it because they find in atheism no answers to emotional problems, and they personally find atheism as evidenced by many to be a dessicated over-intellectualism (it needn't be so, but often is); thinking of such people as C.S. Lewis, or Karen Armstrong (who went from Christianity to atheism to a vague panentheism).

Did you ever consider secular humanism as an answer to ethical and emotional problems?

Looking forward to the discussion.

cj.23

25th November 2008, 05:39 PM

So you literally believe jesus christ died for your sins?

Because if not I don't really see the point of labeling yourself a "christian."

Yes. I'm an Anglican: it rather goes with the territory. In fact ever since I joined here my sig file has declared my religious orientation, on the principle of fair and open disclosure.

This was the biggest problem that I had with Christianity. Quite simply, my reason revolted at the idea. My mantra whn an atheist debating Evangelicals was "Why did God sacrifice Himself to Himself to appease Himself?" I still find that a bizarre formulation: though I no longer believe that is how it works. I was vaguely tempted by the Irenean Theodicy or Process Theodicy simply to avoid the horrific nonsense that I saw the Augustinian Theodicy as -- then I thought "why accept some now popular form of soteriological theology (stuff on salvation and sin etc) just because it makes more sense to you? So I went back and reread the Bible, and some of the Church fathers, and set about working out what I believed made sense. My current beliefs may be heretical, but I'm an Anglican so no one notices. I'll explain them if you are interested.

Oh yeah I used some theological gobbledigook in there -
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theodicy
will quickly bring anyone bothered up to speed, as will googling the terms. Or you can ask - I'm not setting out to be obscurantist.

cj x

cj.23

25th November 2008, 05:48 PM

Hi cj.23,

which particular "mainstream Christian beliefs" do you espouse? Which church do you find closest to what you believe?

Anglican with Anglo-Catholic, Orthodox and Evangelical and Methodist sympathies, and some vaguely Baptist thinking on necessity of adult conversion. So Church of England/Episcopalian really, or catholic with a small 'c' and orthodox with a small 'o'.

And if I may ask, what was the impetus behind your migration from atheism to Christianity? Would you say it was for emotional reasons? I ask because it seems to me most of those who started off as atheists but converted to Christianity seem to do it because they find in atheism no answers to emotional problems, and they personally find atheism as evidenced by many to be a dessicated over-intellectualism (it needn't be so, but often is); thinking of such people as C.S. Lewis, or Karen Armstrong (who went from Christianity to atheism to a vague panentheism).

NO, I think it was because i saw a ghjost and questioned the materialism and atheism of my childhood. I am not convinced said ghost was a "dead guy", or indeed anything other than a purely naturalistic phenomena - I am absolutely certain it was not "supernatural" - there is a thread around somewhere where I discuss it - but that firt made me question my rock solid materialism, no matter how inappropraitely. I changed career paths and studied religion, and later taught it, and slowly became agnostic, and later theistic. I don't think at any point did I have any major emotional feelings associated with my "conversion".

Did you ever consider secular humanism as an answer to ethical and emotional problems?

Yes, I remain a contributor to the British Humanist Association: while i disagree with some of their political aims, the grassroots work they do especially in secular funerals is too important to be left to secular humanists alone. As I believe Satre said, I am not convinced the existence of God settles any major moral issue - my thinking is and remains humanist in that I regard concern for my fellow human as a key ethic.

You can find the BHA here - http://www.humanism.org.uk/site/cms/ - do support the good work they do at community level.

Looking forward to the discussion.

Same here, and do join in with your beliefs.

cj x

cj.23

25th November 2008, 05:50 PM

Having looked at your sig...just felt it was fair to mention that I was born and raised Anglican, my dad is an Anglican minister in fact.

AH!Anglicans are an odd bunch -- Richard Dawkins is another raised Anglican. In fact he discusses the Anglican Church with some affection in the beginning of the The God Delusion, might be in the preface or in chapter one? He could be appointed Bishop of Bury St Edmunds yet (for those who know Yes, Minister).

cj x

cj.23

25th November 2008, 06:06 PM

The thing that I'm curious about is what happened in your mind to decide you thought there was a god as opposed to there being none. I personally can't imagine making that decision. I recognize some of the basic tenets of Chrsitianity to be a good way to live, but I don't go for anything supernatural.

Yes: thats the difficult bit, because the reasons I give, and i have briefly outlined a bit of it below, will change depending on when and who asks me. Personal Construct Theory at work I guess, or just that my sense of self identity is a narrative i create to explain, rather than a reflection of actual events and drives, many of which I do not consciously understand. When I was a polemical atheist I would sometimes attend the Christian Union - and if people asked why I would point out the cute girls -- and bung thi son the jukebox in the bar

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4f4GpZQk6rw&feature=related

I was pretty cynical! Yet was i drawn there by something more? Dunno! I have a strong controversialist/contradictarian character trait I guess - my fave sites are the Dawkins place and here, and my beliefs are hardly orthodox for either?

So really, dunno. I coudl feed you a ine about how I reasoned it all out or whatever, or was convinced by evidence, or anytthing else - but is it true? Dunno! I know myself well enough to know I don't know myself!

However you ask how I came to make the decision -- and I don't think I made any decision. Afew years ago there was a wonderful little quiz which told you which religion best suited your lifestyle and personality based on how you answered questions, but it made no sense to me. When I was an atheist I could no more decide to believe in God than I could to believe in the marshmallow man, or thta gravity did not exist. When I was an agnostic that was how I saw the world - I did not choose to be agnostic. When I became theistic it was because I had come to see the world in a theistic sense - I could not deny the evidence of my senses. The changing perspective was never a choice, it was just how I understood reality to be. I'm guessing its like that for all of us? I could be wrong though! (I often am!) :)

cj x

Gurdur

25th November 2008, 06:08 PM

Anglican with Anglo-Catholic, Orthodox and Evangelical and Methodist sympathies,

You're definitely making sure not to offend anyone, yes? ;) Low Chapel to High Church? ;) Please pardon my sense of humour.

NO, I think it was because i saw a ghjost and questioned the materialism and atheism of my childhood. I am not convinced said ghost was a "dead guy", or indeed anything other than a purely naturalistic phenomena - I am absolutely certain it was not "supernatural" - there is a thread around somewhere where I discuss it - but that firt made me question my rock solid materialism, no matter how inappropraitely.

This is extremely interesting; many thanks for your very honest and open answers. To reciprocate, I specify my own stance below.

Yes, I remain a contributor to the British Humanist Association: while i disagree with some of their political aims, the grassroots work they do especially in secular funerals is too important to be left to secular humanists alone. As I believe Satre said, I am not convinced the existence of God settles any major moral issue - my thinking is and remains humanist in that I regard concern for my fellow human as a key ethic.

This is really good stuff; I am very glad you opened this discussion. Nice to meet you!

You can find the BHA here - http://www.humanism.org.uk/site/cms/ - do support the good work they do at community level.

Me and the BHA have quite a history --- I once offered to make them free a bulletin board worthy of the 20th century, so did others, the BHA management refused. Ever encounter Sue Lord, BTW? AFAIK, she continues on her trolling unabated on the 18th-century-technology BHA board. I fully agree with you that the BHA's programs of activities are very worthy, Ijust wish they could actually embrace technology, proactive management and delegation.

I am personally an atheist, and a secular humanist; I have been one now for a very long time. I do enjoy talking about religion, humanism, ethics and atheism (and in fact I run a board to do just that), and since many of my relatives are quite ... (overly) religious (something which unsurprisingly led me to becoming a conscious atheist), ranging from Broad-Church Anglicanism to Roman Catholic to Continuing Presbyterian and then to Closed Plymouth Brethren :boggled:, then I am very aware of much of the broad palette of beliefs and theologies.

Again, I am glad you opened this discussion, and I look forward to continuing it for a long while. Do feel free to ask me any questions you would like to pose, by all means. Reciprocality is a Good Thing.
:)

billydkid

25th November 2008, 06:13 PM

Yes. I'm an Anglican: it rather goes with the territory. In fact ever since I joined here my sig file has declared my religious orientation, on the principle of fair and open disclosure.

This was the biggest problem that I had with Christianity. Quite simply, my reason revolted at the idea. My mantra whn an atheist debating Evangelicals was "Why did God sacrifice Himself to Himself to appease Himself?" I still find that a bizarre formulation: though I no longer believe that is how it works. I was vaguely tempted by the Irenean Theodicy or Process Theodicy simply to avoid the horrific nonsense that I saw the Augustinian Theodicy as -- then I thought "why accept some now popular form of soteriological theology (stuff on salvation and sin etc) just because it makes more sense to you? So I went back and reread the Bible, and some of the Church fathers, and set about working out what I believed made sense. My current beliefs may be heretical, but I'm an Anglican so no one notices. I'll explain them if you are interested.

Oh yeah I used some theological gobbledigook in there -
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theodicy
will quickly bring anyone bothered up to speed, as will googling the terms. Or you can ask - I'm not setting out to be obscurantist.

cj x
See, I don't understand this at all. Your problem with Christianity had to do with the tenets involved and not with whether or not there was any truth behind it? It sort of reminds me of an argument I had in here with someone who had a problem with the idea that one can only be moral by obeying God's will however offensive it might be to our mortal sensibilities - their problem with Christianity seemed to have to do with its content and not with whether or not it was a factual or even roughly true reflection of reality.

Almo

25th November 2008, 06:13 PM

Thanks for your answer to my question. I hope people see that it is possible to have this kind of discussion here. :)

cj.23

25th November 2008, 06:24 PM

I guess the first question is, "What kind of Christian are you?"

Saying, "I'm a Christian" or "I believe in the Bible" means less than nothing, really...since it actually can mean so many different things. So let's clarify.

We agree strongly here.

Do you believe that the Bible is the inerrant, inspired Word of God?

I believe in Biblical inspiration - in the neo-orthodox perspective i think (I did a "what sort of Biblical Inspiration do you believe in? quiz once!)

The Neo-orthodox doctrine

The Neo-orthodox (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neo-orthodoxy) doctrine of inspiration is summarized by saying that the Bible is "the word of God" but not "the words of God". It is only when one reads the text that it becomes the word of God to him or her. This view is a reaction to the Modernist doctrine, which, Neo-orthodox proponents argue, eroded the value and significance of the Christian faith, and simultaneously a rejection of the idea of textual inerrancy. Karl Barth (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karl_Barth) and Emil Brunner (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emil_Brunner) were primary advocates of this approach.
from

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_inspiration#Protestant_views

This comes out of my work in Reader-Response lit crit in the early 90's and my interest in Kierkegaard I suspect. Inerrant? Well inerrancy is a difficult thing to pin down, but yes I believe in inerrancy, but not textual inerrancy.

That everything written in the Bible is true, and meant to be taken literally?

I am not a literalist. I follow St. Augustine, Aquinas and pretty much every other Christian ever in this surely? Even literalists understand the use of allegory, metaphor, poetry and parable? I can probably do a fairly good pastiche of Hebrew poetry, so my knowledge helps me to understand a little about when the text is not being literal - I find the traditions of Judaism very handy in understanding the Tanakh.

Do you believe that Jesus literally died, and came back to life,

Yes, Resuurection not Resuscitiation or post mortem survival in the SPR/ghosthunters sense though.

...and that everyone who does not accept Jesus Christ as their personal Lord and Savior will suffer for eternity in Hell?

Hell? I believe they will die, and stay dead, as dead things tend to. It's what happens y'know. I won't rulke out a hell - as has been said, "my faith requires me to believe in a hhell: it does not require me ot believe ther eis anyone in it." I am certainly not sure what constitutes accepting Jesus Christ - I think we can include Jews, Muslims, and an awful lot of other folks in that. It comes down to the interpretation of the "No man comes to the Father accept through me" bit. Mind you, I have no real say in this - salvation is a gift of the grace of God, and i can not save anyone from death in the long run (roll onm anagathics and life extension!), so my opinion matter svery little on this score. It's up to God: I won't judge, but I will cheerfully discuss my ideas. I'd love to be a universalist - I'm not sure if i am though!

For that matter...do you believe that women suffer the pain of childbirth as punishment for Eve's sin in eating of the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil?

Nope: usually its down to not getting to a maternity unit in time. Do some people believe pethidine, epidurals etc are sinful then?

Or, if you want to get away from the Old Testament stuff, do you believe the New Testament teachings that women should cover their heads in church, and should not preach?

No more than I believe tat we shoud be baptising the dead. Paul was clearly writing to a church on an issue there - the early church was full f prophetesses, and Jesus seems to have counted women among his very closest followers?

cj x

cj.23

25th November 2008, 06:30 PM

See, I don't understand this at all. Your problem with Christianity had to do with the tenets involved and not with whether or not there was any truth behind it? It sort of reminds me of an argument I had in here with someone who had a problem with the idea that one can only be moral by obeying God's will however offensive it might be to our mortal sensibilities - their problem with Christianity seemed to have to do with its content and not with whether or not it was a factual or even roughly true reflection of reality.

Got you billy. I can see why you are confused by what I said, may I clarify? I hope i made clear in my earlier responses that I don';t regard my theism/agnosticism or atheism as a choice: it was how I saw ultimate reality.

Then we get to the choosing of a specific faith tradition within the range of theism: here having come to a theistic understanding as my idea of what was true, I had to consider what form of theism struck me as closest to my actual set of beliefs. My issue with the Augustinian Theodicy was exactly an issue of it was a "roughly true reflection of reality": my experience of reality is that it is rationally comprehensible in the main, and that logic worked - the problem of God sacrificing Himself to himself to appease Himself made no rational sense to me at the time. It was not alifestyle choice - it was a questionas to whether i felt reality worked this way.

cj x

cj.23

25th November 2008, 06:59 PM

You're definitely making sure not to offend anyone, yes? ;) Low Chapel to High Church? ;) Please pardon my sense of humour.

:D I've offended most of them at some time: and I never mentioned the Charismatics!

Me and the BHA have quite a history --- I once offered to make them free a bulletin board worthy of the 20th century, so did others, the BHA management refused. Ever encounter Sue Lord, BTW? AFAIK, she continues on her trolling unabated on the 18th-century-technology BHA board. I fully agree with you that the BHA's programs of activities are very worthy, I just wish they could actually embrace technology, proactive management and delegation.

Never met Sue - but yes, I sympathize entirely. The BHA has improved communications somewhat, but to be fair, that was not difficult. How I wish they had taken up your offer! Why on earth did they not? Hey, it's the nature of organisations that they seem to delight in inefficiency. TA least you don't have to share the BHA with a large group of homophobic loons and misogynistic maniacs though -- and they may be the more pious part of the Anglican Church! When I look at my bunch I'm minded of Yeats poem The Second Coming -

Turning and turning in the widening gyre
The falcon cannot hear the falconer;
Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold;
Mere anarchy is loosed upon the world,
The blood-dimmed tide is loosed, and everywhere
The ceremony of innocence is drowned;
The best lack all conviction, while the worst
Are full of passionate intensity.

Welcome to the CofE, 2008! :(

I am personally an atheist, and a secular humanist; I have been one now for a very long time. I do enjoy talking about religion, humanism, ethics and atheism (and in fact I run a board to do just that), and since many of my relatives are quite ... (overly) religious (something which unsurprisingly led me to becoming a conscious atheist), ranging from Broad-Church Anglicanism to Roman Catholic to Continuing Presbyterian and then to Closed Plymouth Brethren :boggled:, then I am very aware of much of the broad palette of beliefs and theologies.

Care to share the URL with us? If you are interested oyu might find some very intelligent and interesting people on www.richarddawkins.net/forum (http://www.roicharddawkins.net/forum) - pm and invite those who interest you maybe for your board? Say Jerome says hi too! :)

Again, I am glad you opened this discussion, and I look forward to continuing it for a long while. Do feel free to ask me any questions you would like to pose, by all means. Reciprocality is a Good Thing.
:)

I'd love to hear more about how you came to atheism, given your families religious background. I know a few ex-Exclusive Brethren btw - it all git rather frightening in the 1980s as fr as i can make out, but hopefully it's mellowed a bit now. You clearly now and have experienced a wide range of Christian belief there!

We'll have to have a proper discussion - sadly it approaches 3am here and I need sleep. I will ask one question now though - what do you make of the "New Atheism"?

cj x

Wolfman

25th November 2008, 09:36 PM

Hokulele

25th November 2008, 10:22 PM

...

Then we get to the choosing of a specific faith tradition within the range of theism: here having come to a theistic understanding as my idea of what was true, I had to consider what form of theism struck me as closest to my actual set of beliefs.

...

If the form of Christianity you have chosen best matches your actual set of beliefs, where did that set of beliefs come from?

The reason I ask is that I have found philosophical Taoism best matches my beliefs (although it certainly isn't a perfect fit), but I rarely describe myself as a philosophical Taoist.

Wolfman

25th November 2008, 10:41 PM

If the form of Christianity you have chosen best matches your actual set of beliefs, where did that set of beliefs come from?I sometimes call myself a Zen Atheist :) A lot of my attitude towards life has developed a definite 'zen' flavor since going to China.

Hokulele

25th November 2008, 10:43 PM

Wouldn't that be Chan Atheist then?

quarky

26th November 2008, 06:17 AM

I have a nagging feeling (sub-belief) in a sort of math i can't quite comprehend.

mikeyx

26th November 2008, 07:23 AM

I'm afraid you did no such thing. Atheism is not a set of beliefs. It has no scripture, no revelation, and no authority. You can no more convert from being an atheist than you can convert from being a non-stamp collector.

I disagree, non belief in something as the definition of the essence of the "ism" is a belief in the lack of it.

mikeyx

26th November 2008, 07:33 AM

Thanks for your answer to my question. I hope people see that it is possible to have this kind of discussion here. :)

With patience and mutual tolerance, yes, yes it is

mikeyx

26th November 2008, 07:36 AM

I sometimes call myself a Zen Atheist :) A lot of my attitude towards life has developed a definite 'zen' flavor since going to China.

Whereas like I mentioned in a different thread the other day, I am basically a protestant sufi.

cj.23

26th November 2008, 08:07 AM

I sometimes call myself a Zen Atheist :) A lot of my attitude towards life has developed a definite 'zen' flavor since going to China.

That's really interesting! I read Suzuki years ago, but I must say I'm not up on Zen. :) What does Zen Atheism look like? I'd like ot know more on this -- it sounds thoroughly intriguing!

I looked up Zen practice and found
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zen#Zen_teachings_and_practices
which makes much sense I guess. :)

cj x

cj.23

26th November 2008, 08:08 AM

Whereas like I mentioned in a different thread the other day, I am basically a protestant sufi.

Again, that is fascinating. I do know Sufism (theory) well, and find that an interesting and refreshing perspective. How does it work out? :)

cj x

cj.23

26th November 2008, 08:09 AM

I have a nagging feeling (sub-belief) in a sort of math i can't quite comprehend.

I find the maths I do comprehend deeply mysterious and intriguing. :) There was a great thread on the Philosophy of Mathematics earlier this year, I'll have to try and find it and link it!

cj x

cj.23

26th November 2008, 08:11 AM

New washing machines break when exposed to logic?

Yes, based on my experiences yesterday. New washing machines breaking is a sore point in these parts. And Plumjams whites supremacist joke still makes me smile today!

cj x

Darat

26th November 2008, 08:14 AM

Anglican with Anglo-Catholic, Orthodox and Evangelical and Methodist sympathies, and some vaguely Baptist thinking on necessity of adult conversion. So Church of England/Episcopalian really, or catholic with a small 'c' and orthodox with a small 'o'.

...snip...

I've read your posts about your beliefs and they've left me more confused than usual - in an attempt to help me understand your beliefs and since you say you are an "Anglican Christian" do you believe in the "Articles of Religion/Faith" that are associated with the Anglican churches?

billydkid

26th November 2008, 08:15 AM

Got you billy. I can see why you are confused by what I said, may I clarify? I hope i made clear in my earlier responses that I don';t regard my theism/agnosticism or atheism as a choice: it was how I saw ultimate reality.

Then we get to the choosing of a specific faith tradition within the range of theism: here having come to a theistic understanding as my idea of what was true, I had to consider what form of theism struck me as closest to my actual set of beliefs. My issue with the Augustinian Theodicy was exactly an issue of it was a "roughly true reflection of reality": my experience of reality is that it is rationally comprehensible in the main, and that logic worked - the problem of God sacrificing Himself to himself to appease Himself made no rational sense to me at the time. It was not alifestyle choice - it was a questionas to whether i felt reality worked this way.

cj x
Just so I understand - You originally didn't see a reason to believe there was a God and then you felt there was a reason to believe there was a God? Then, if I understand, you decided there was a reason to believe that God is the Christian God and that Jesus was God's representative on earth? What I am missing is this - there is a tremendous leap of faith involved in this. With what did you bridge that gap? It is one thing to have come to some recognition that there is some intention or purpose or intelligence behind the universe (a debatable proposition at best), but it is something else altogether to decide that some particular existing belief system is an accurate representation of what is really true. Back when I was a born again for a little while as a teen the basis for deciding that Christianity is true was that God came into your heart and told you so. I see no rational way of arriving at the belief that there is any truth to any religion. I can see that a person may interpret their experience of the world as indicating there is a purpose and a meaning, an intention and an intelligence behind the universe, but I don't see how that gets you anything but some generalized sense of something like a God. How do you go from that to deciding that Christianity or Isam or any other religion has any truth to it. It still strikes me as an arbitrary choice based on one's desires about how they want reality to be.

cj.23

26th November 2008, 08:45 AM

Hi Billy,if i may -- I'm still working through the thread responding, but as you have just posted and we are both online, I'll reply immediately to this...

Just so I understand - You originally didn't see a reason to believe there was a God and then you felt there was a reason to believe there was a God?

Yep.

Then, if I understand, you decided there was a reason to believe that God is the Christian God and that Jesus was God's representative on earth? What I am missing is this - there is a tremendous leap of faith involved in this. With what did you bridge that gap? It is one thing to have come to some recognition that there is some intention or purpose or intelligence behind the universe (a debatable proposition at best), but it is something else altogether to decide that some particular existing belief system is an accurate representation of what is really true.

Absolutely. And I'm not saying that "Anglicanism" is really true in an absolute sense (if i did hold exclusivist views like that I would almost certainly not be an Anglican, a denomination which allows for a wide spectrum of beliefs). I came to theism, and then, having studied world religion academically for many years I started to think through which form of religion appeared to me to map well my perception of the truth.

I don't think any religion equates to the truth of ultimate reality: religion is by nature a human response to an ultimate reality. Every single religion on Earth could be falsified without in anyway falsifying the God(s) hypothesis. Let's take Randi as God for a moment: we all have various levels of eperience of James, differing constructs of who and what he is, depending upon our experience, our understanding, our contact. Many of those are dluded, incorrect, and all are less than total understandings of the "divine Randi". Yet even James does not really understand Randi I'm guessing - and so all our attempts to understand him are doomed ot failure. They will be at best partially representative of the truth.

Ditto Christianity and the reality of God. We see through a glass, darkly. Christian theology is a model of the experience of God, one that is refined, debated, and changes as our understanding change. It's a map of ultimate reality, not the ultimate reality in itself. Perhaps because of my instrumentalist bent (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instrumentalism) I'm ok with that - it's how useful the map is that concerns me. IT's not the map that gets us to the cornershop taht matters, it's the getting there, and the journey. So I decided to test the Christian hypothesis, and see how the journey went -- and the first obstacles were the incarnation, and whether it actually referred to an actual set of historical events. I believe it soes as it happens, YMMV. SO I became a Christian. I don't believe the map is the territory, but I do believe that one can test the claim made upon the map as one walks. So I don't have any faith in 2000 year old books descriptions of the geography of Jerusalem - but by walking the streets I can check out the claims, and see if they add up?

Back when I was a born again for a little while as a teen the basis for deciding that Christianity is true was that God came into your heart and told you so.

Yep, that is a fairly common evangelical belief. God never spoke to me in this way, or if he did I was listening to the Dead Kennedys on my walkman at the time. The requirment to have a bells and angels experiential revelation is certainly stressed in some denominations - recently some lovely Mormon missionaries have been doing all they can to try and convince me that God is giving me a sign I should join their faith - but I have few religious experiences. Well I had one. I'll tell you about it actually...

I never have religious experiences, but I had one recently - well in the Summer. I am not sure if I told the story on the forum or not, but briefly - I was walking over to my mate Dave's house to help him with an essay, when a sudden rainstorm caught me and I sought shelter - in the local Charismatic Church, a place I would normally never enter (and never had before I think.) It wa spacked, and there was much singing of choruses and people touched by the Spirit, and i was sitting making mental notes comparing them to people in altered states in various animist religions and rather cynical at the back, when suddenly I saw a dove, or rather what looked like a glowing white dove, come down over the stained glass above where the altar would be if there was one (in fact it had a rather good band whose music put me in mind of the acid fuelled explorations of Jefferson Airplane more than any religious music i knew - the album After Bathing at Baxters sprang to mind.)

Anyway the dove dove (no pun intended) towards the missing altar, in the classic iconography of the Holy Spirit descending, and I instinctively touched my eye to see if I got a double image (ie. were light photons bouncing off it or was it an internally generated hallucination) - too late. I then thought for 15 seconds and rushed back two rows to ask the guy on the mixing desk if he could replay the light projection. Nope, he insisted they had none, and I believed him. A projection on the window would have varied as it passed over the panes of glass and lead framing.

I sat around for a few minutes trying to puzzle it out, and then the sermon began, and I discovered it was Pentecost Sunday - how incredibly appropriate! I'm not exactly in tune with the liturgical year, and had not been to church for maybe a month or two - I'm fairly lax, partly owing to work habits which take me away many weekend, partly because I'm lazy - I know, I'm rubbish. http://www.richarddawkins.net/forum/images/smilies/icon_smile.gif I certainly was not consciously aware it was Pentecost (when the Holy Spirit descended on the apostles etc).

I suppose I should have praised loudly, danced around and been impressed. In fact I was mildly confused, and stepped outside for a cigarette - great thing about "megachurches" with all that talking in tongues and dancing in the aisles - they never notice if you slip out. I noticed the rain had stopped, thought - go back in and see if I feel more, or help Dave with his essay - well I'm afraid I decided Dave's essay took priority, and I wandered off, figuring God would not mind me visiting a sick mate and helping out, and He knew where to find me if he wanted me.

Maybe it's attitudes like that which stop me having profound spiritual encounters - I was pleased, but still wonder if I somehow imagined the dove - but I don't think so. I went back on another occasion, and played with the reflections, trying to see what led to it, but without success! Still, it did not convert me in to a bouncy charismatic - not in the slightest - but I guess that is my testimony. Sorry if i told it before, and bored you by recounting it again! (I cut and pasted this from something I wrote elsewhere...)

I see no rational way of arriving at the belief that there is any truth to any religion.

To me the question has to be "how much truth?" in any religion, as they can never approximate an absolute description of God and ultimate reality. There is no way of fasifying or verifying a whole map. You must test each individual aspect against reality. Some but not all of Christianity, Judiasm, Wicca etc, etc may be true. I will not accept or reject the whole thing wholesale - because i already accept it can not be a 100% accurate model of ultimate reality, but is a description of peoples experiences of ultimate reality - I need to test the claims, each individually. So I test them against Science, Reason, Experience, and for internal consistency. You do this by exploring them, and attacking individual doctrines or beliefs. You can of course simpoly accept the experiential, put on the coat and walk in it, and many do -- but ultimately for a sceptic like me that will be a hazardous endeavour. There are too many coats, and some stink, and i may get very wet before i get to the shops...

I can see that a person may interpret their experience of the world as indicating there is a purpose and a meaning, an intention and an intelligence behind the universe, but I don't see how that gets you anything but some generalized sense of something like a God. How do you go from that to deciding that Christianity or Isam or any other religion has any truth to it. It still strikes me as an arbitrary choice based on one's desires about how they want reality to be.

Yes, the choice of faith is a choice: but like the chouice ot follow say Darwin, Gould, Dawkins, Lamarck, Henry Morris or Chambers on evolution, well not all all evolutionary theories are created equal - and the DArwinian-Mendelian synthesis wheter you understand it in a gradualist sense or as punctuated equilibrium is clearly closer to the truth than say Darwin's mechanism proposed in Origin, or that of Lamarck, Chambers, or Morris the Creationist. Religious truths can be treated with critical thinking in a similar manner to scientific ones?

Dunno if any of this helps. God help me, I'll probably get called a "philosophical Christian" again! I'd actually argue I was fairly typical of most Christians, at least Anglicans?

cj x

cj.23

26th November 2008, 08:48 AM

I've read your posts about your beliefs and they've left me more confused than usual - in an attempt to help me understand your beliefs and since you say you are an "Anglican Christian" do you believe in the "Articles of Religion/Faith" that are associated with the Anglican churches?

The 39 Articles? Yes, which makes me pretty much unique among Anglicans in my experience. Of course I probably interpret some of them differently to the 16th century intent. :)

They are here - If I can find a short list I'll post it directly to screen...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thirty-Nine_Articles

cj x

Ichneumonwasp

26th November 2008, 09:44 AM

More are the names of God and infinite are the forms through which He may be approached. In whatever name and form you worship Him, through them you will realise Him.

Ramakrishna

cj.23

26th November 2008, 09:51 AM

cj,

Sounds like you're what I'd call a philosophical Christian...there are certain aspects of the Christian teachings that appeal to you (primarily New Testament), but you will tend to pick and choose...it'll tend to be more, "I think this is right, and the Bible agrees with me" than "The Bible says this, so it must be right".

Yep, sort of. Firstly I'm not sure if I'm a philosophical Christian - I've been accused of fideism (I agree with Martin Gardner on some things, but I'm no fideist) and deism (I''m not) in the past, but "philosophical Christian" comes up occasionally - well I now very little philosophy, and I think i'm more of a "bog standard Christian" or "mainstream Christian" if you like. Some of my ideas are probably odd, but no more than many held by ordained bishops and clergy!

Now do I agree with bits of the Bible, or do bits of the Bible agree with me? Either way there is agreement - I suspect the latter, because I accepted the Bible after formulating and investigating my beliefs. One could ask the same question of Christianity - does Christianity agree with the Bible?, that is... and then ask to what extent my beliefs correspond with Christianity. Clearly we have to address the sources of the Christian faith, of which the bible is one.

Mainstream Christian theology derives from these sources

1. The Bible, Holy Scripture, understood as the self-revelation of God to humanity
2. Religious experience, being the individual experiences of believers in their (purported) experience of God.
3. Tradition - being the Creeds, Catechisms, doctrines, etc, etc, and traditional understandings of the Bible and other sources on this list, that is the understandings of Christians through the ages
4. Natural Theology - roughly corresponding to what today we would call science.
5. Reason.

Now the idea of choosing which parts of the Bible to believe may seem odd: it is seems odd to me, but there may well be something in it. I could explain how that interpretive process works, and has worked historically, but the suggestion is that if one chooses some bits one rejects others - and I reject that. I'm very pushed for time, but I will cheerfully discuss my beliefs with regard to the inspiration of Scripture (see above) and the truth of the Bible. Specific questions may be more useful here though...

That's more the "religious Humanist" approach...rather than having morality dictated by a higher power, which one accepts uncritically, you instead decide what you feel constitutes a rational moral/ethical system, and then embrace those aspects of your particular religion that promote those values.

Yeah, you look at the evidence, then test the model against it? Actually I have written elsewhere on my (Pauline) approach to morality - I'll link to the post on it on this forum --
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=114739

And I realised i mised out Ichneumonwasp (http://forums.randi.org/member.php?u=7900) from my list of posters who understand religion and Christian theology more than I do -- but I have now at least belatedly corrected that! :)

cj x

cj.23

26th November 2008, 09:54 AM

More are the names of God and infinite are the forms through which He may be approached. In whatever name and form you worship Him, through them you will realise Him.

Ramakrishna

Ah, you've shown up! I just typed your name, "speak of the Ichneumonwasp (http://forums.randi.org/member.php?u=7900) ..." :) Yes I'm in agreement with Ramakrishna here -- but will add the caveat that to me while all religions and no religion at all can provide a way to understanding of the divine, not all paths are equally useful - and that without getting in to Manichean dualism, there may be paths which lead away from the truth! I think Ramakrishna might have agreed on that. :)

cj x

billydkid

26th November 2008, 10:18 AM

Hi Billy,if i may -- I'm still working through the thread responding, but as you have just posted and we are both online, I'll reply immediately to this...

Yep.

Absolutely. And I'm not saying that "Anglicanism" is really true in an absolute sense (if i did hold exclusivist views like that I would almost certainly not be an Anglican, a denomination which allows for a wide spectrum of beliefs). I came to theism, and then, having studied world religion academically for many years I started to think through which form of religion appeared to me to map well my perception of the truth.

I don't think any religion equates to the truth of ultimate reality: religion is by nature a human response to an ultimate reality. Every single religion on Earth could be falsified without in anyway falsifying the God(s) hypothesis. Let's take Randi as God for a moment: we all have various levels of eperience of James, differing constructs of who and what he is, depending upon our experience, our understanding, our contact. Many of those are dluded, incorrect, and all are less than total understandings of the "divine Randi". Yet even James does not really understand Randi I'm guessing - and so all our attempts to understand him are doomed ot failure. They will be at best partially representative of the truth.

Ditto Christianity and the reality of God. We see through a glass, darkly. Christian theology is a model of the experience of God, one that is refined, debated, and changes as our understanding change. It's a map of ultimate reality, not the ultimate reality in itself. Perhaps because of my instrumentalist bent (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instrumentalism) I'm ok with that - it's how useful the map is that concerns me. IT's not the map that gets us to the cornershop taht matters, it's the getting there, and the journey. So I decided to test the Christian hypothesis, and see how the journey went -- and the first obstacles were the incarnation, and whether it actually referred to an actual set of historical events. I believe it soes as it happens, YMMV. SO I became a Christian. I don't believe the map is the territory, but I do believe that one can test the claim made upon the map as one walks. So I don't have any faith in 2000 year old books descriptions of the geography of Jerusalem - but by walking the streets I can check out the claims, and see if they add up?

Yep, that is a fairly common evangelical belief. God never spoke to me in this way, or if he did I was listening to the Dead Kennedys on my walkman at the time. The requirment to have a bells and angels experiential revelation is certainly stressed in some denominations - recently some lovely Mormon missionaries have been doing all they can to try and convince me that God is giving me a sign I should join their faith - but I have few religious experiences. Well I had one. I'll tell you about it actually...

I never have religious experiences, but I had one recently - well in the Summer. I am not sure if I told the story on the forum or not, but briefly - I was walking over to my mate Dave's house to help him with an essay, when a sudden rainstorm caught me and I sought shelter - in the local Charismatic Church, a place I would normally never enter (and never had before I think.) It wa spacked, and there was much singing of choruses and people touched by the Spirit, and i was sitting making mental notes comparing them to people in altered states in various animist religions and rather cynical at the back, when suddenly I saw a dove, or rather what looked like a glowing white dove, come down over the stained glass above where the altar would be if there was one (in fact it had a rather good band whose music put me in mind of the acid fuelled explorations of Jefferson Airplane more than any religious music i knew - the album After Bathing at Baxters sprang to mind.)

Anyway the dove dove (no pun intended) towards the missing altar, in the classic iconography of the Holy Spirit descending, and I instinctively touched my eye to see if I got a double image (ie. were light photons bouncing off it or was it an internally generated hallucination) - too late. I then thought for 15 seconds and rushed back two rows to ask the guy on the mixing desk if he could replay the light projection. Nope, he insisted they had none, and I believed him. A projection on the window would have varied as it passed over the panes of glass and lead framing.

I sat around for a few minutes trying to puzzle it out, and then the sermon began, and I discovered it was Pentecost Sunday - how incredibly appropriate! I'm not exactly in tune with the liturgical year, and had not been to church for maybe a month or two - I'm fairly lax, partly owing to work habits which take me away many weekend, partly because I'm lazy - I know, I'm rubbish. http://www.richarddawkins.net/forum/images/smilies/icon_smile.gif I certainly was not consciously aware it was Pentecost (when the Holy Spirit descended on the apostles etc).

I suppose I should have praised loudly, danced around and been impressed. In fact I was mildly confused, and stepped outside for a cigarette - great thing about "megachurches" with all that talking in tongues and dancing in the aisles - they never notice if you slip out. I noticed the rain had stopped, thought - go back in and see if I feel more, or help Dave with his essay - well I'm afraid I decided Dave's essay took priority, and I wandered off, figuring God would not mind me visiting a sick mate and helping out, and He knew where to find me if he wanted me.

Maybe it's attitudes like that which stop me having profound spiritual encounters - I was pleased, but still wonder if I somehow imagined the dove - but I don't think so. I went back on another occasion, and played with the reflections, trying to see what led to it, but without success! Still, it did not convert me in to a bouncy charismatic - not in the slightest - but I guess that is my testimony. Sorry if i told it before, and bored you by recounting it again! (I cut and pasted this from something I wrote elsewhere...)

To me the question has to be "how much truth?" in any religion, as they can never approximate an absolute description of God and ultimate reality. There is no way of fasifying or verifying a whole map. You must test each individual aspect against reality. Some but not all of Christianity, Judiasm, Wicca etc, etc may be true. I will not accept or reject the whole thing wholesale - because i already accept it can not be a 100% accurate model of ultimate reality, but is a description of peoples experiences of ultimate reality - I need to test the claims, each individually. So I test them against Science, Reason, Experience, and for internal consistency. You do this by exploring them, and attacking individual doctrines or beliefs. You can of course simpoly accept the experiential, put on the coat and walk in it, and many do -- but ultimately for a sceptic like me that will be a hazardous endeavour. There are too many coats, and some stink, and i may get very wet before i get to the shops...

Yes, the choice of faith is a choice: but like the chouice ot follow say Darwin, Gould, Dawkins, Lamarck, Henry Morris or Chambers on evolution, well not all all evolutionary theories are created equal - and the DArwinian-Mendelian synthesis wheter you understand it in a gradualist sense or as punctuated equilibrium is clearly closer to the truth than say Darwin's mechanism proposed in Origin, or that of Lamarck, Chambers, or Morris the Creationist. Religious truths can be treated with critical thinking in a similar manner to scientific ones?

Dunno if any of this helps. God help me, I'll probably get called a "philosophical Christian" again! I'd actually argue I was fairly typical of most Christians, at least Anglicans?

cj x
thanks for your thoughtful response.

Nick227

26th November 2008, 10:25 AM

cj.23

26th November 2008, 10:27 AM

I'm caught up in a couple of debates elsewhere and trying hard to do some work, but Darat expressed quite understandably confusion about my beliefs. I just glanced through what I have written, and i figure th most likely candidates are the references I made to salvation and death and my comment on ghosts. I'll handle the first now, then return to the second later if I have time.. I still have to respond to Hokukele to...

Whenit comes to understanding what the bible teaches on salvation etc I decided along time ago to attempt the old adage RTFM, without any of my actual theological knowledge getting in the way, and see what it says we are saved from...

I am pushed for time as so often, but let's start with this. What does salvation mean?

"All have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God"

So all humans sin. Yep, by omission, or by being human. None of us are perfect. No problem because logically if all humans are sinners, sin is just a synonym for the human condition?

Now in Christian theology, Sin results in death. And we all die, which is also clearly part of the human condition.

So when we talk about salvation, we talk about defeating bodily death - the result of sin??? Dunno, but it's how I'm thinking. It's death we are being saved from, our mortality. We have probably all heard

"For God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him shall not perish but have everlasting life"

This implies to me conditional immortality, an annihilationism, but I could be going to far. Still it seems we are saved from DEATH by grace, and can expect to live again. If we are not saved we die, and go to the grave (sheol), and are well, dead!

"Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin: and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned"

"For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord."

"Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into his death? Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death: that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life. For if we have been planted together in the likeness of his death, we shall be also in the likeness of his resurrection:"

"And if Christ be not raised, our faith is vain: ye are yet in your sins. Then they also which are fallen asleep in Christ are perished. If in this life only we have hope in Christ, we are of all men most miserable. But now is Christ risen from the dead and become the firstfruits of them that slept. For since by man came death, by man came also the resurrection of the dead. For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive. But every man in his own order: Christ the firstfruits: afterward they that are Christ’s at his coming. Then cometh the end, when he shall have delivered up the kingdom to God, even the Father; when he shall have put down all rule and all authority and power. For he must reign, till he hath put all enemies under his feet. The last enemy that shall be destroyed is death."

The idea is that God can forgive us our sins, and hence we can be brought back to life through Jesus, as Jesus rose from the grave. Often this appears to be understood as a physical resurrection, like that of Jesus.

Yet it appears clear to me that the human default is death, and the salvation that is offered is the chance of life after death, immortality in a new body, and life in the new Heaven or New Earth. Mind you, I may well have strayed in to heresy, but it seems pretty plain to me?

We are not dealing with a cosmic Santa, keeping careful accounts of who is naughty and nice. The reality of death in this world is clearly, well death. It is death we are saved from --extinction I guess. The bible seems to me to teach that we will all die, but can hope to be rebooted in the world to come by the grace of the Creator, who is supernatural.

I've made a number of other assertions here which clearly need explaining, and I'm not offering any evidence or justification of the beliefs note - I'm currently just describing the content. I hope this clarifies some of the possible confusion about my beliefs in this area though!

cj x

Hokulele

26th November 2008, 10:33 AM

I still have to respond to Hokukele to...

Don't rush on my account. If there is one thing I have learned over the years, it is patience.

quarky

26th November 2008, 11:03 AM

One of the things I loved about Castanada's books, especially the last few, was how the old boys would laugh uproariously when one of their students would prostrate himself before some holy image they would encounter on their journey in altered space.

One of them, if memory serves, was "the form of man" and it was very Jesus looking, and glowing and stuff...but it could offer nothing. It was just a form.

Anyway, certain religions and philosophies 'engulf' others. They don't negate them; they take them in and digest them. They study science. We don't hear from them much.

Ichneumonwasp

26th November 2008, 11:06 AM

Ah, you've shown up! I just typed your name, "speak of the Ichneumonwasp (http://forums.randi.org/member.php?u=7900) ..." :) Yes I'm in agreement with Ramakrishna here -- but will add the caveat that to me while all religions and no religion at all can provide a way to understanding of the divine, not all paths are equally useful - and that without getting in to Manichean dualism, there may be paths which lead away from the truth! I think Ramakrishna might have agreed on that. :)

cj x

You are too kind. I seriously doubt I know more religion or Christian theology than you, but that was a nice thought.

As to Ramakrishna, I would certainly agree that not all paths are useful to you or me, and I surely don't want to be involved with any that use human sacrifice:(, it's always possible that each of the different paths are merely different ways for different folks to reach the divine, whatever that is.

And I agree with Nick as well. They are all paths away from the truth, especially when we focus too closely on the details.

I like your approach, but I think you already know that, or at least hope you do. Another person who used to post here but sadly no longer seems to is Stamenflicker, who I also thought took a very good, very mature approach to his religious convictions (much like DR and Beth). He once wrote that, even if he knew that the Christian story -- the death and resurrection -- was wrong (or even a fabrication), he would still believe. Because that story made sense to him, and that is the path that he chose. Some may want to jump in and say, "That's stupid"; but I respect it.

Ichneumonwasp

26th November 2008, 12:12 PM

cj.23

26th November 2008, 01:21 PM

Sorry was not meaning to be rude, I was elsewhere...

cj,
I do have a question for you, though, if you would like to discuss it. This is something that has bothered me for some time.

I don't understand the idea of life after death as being comprised of a "disembodied soul", which may not be one of your beliefs though it is very common.

Not my belief, so not really able to defend it. In fact I'm on record as saying that I don't have much time for the whole notion of a soul - will discuss cheerfully - but to keep to the point now

It would seem to me that if that occurred, we would be in a position much like how the Greeks portray it -- a terrible state of semi-non-existence. The reason I think so is because continuing life would be desirable only if it had value. We seem to assign or create value based on emotion or feeling. Emotion and feeling seem to be embodied experiences -- they seem only possible with bodies. I'm not sure how value could arise in a disembodied "mind". I also don't see how, if "mind" is devoid of dimensionality (not extended in space), there could ever be any distinction amongst minds that do not have bodies. Wouldn't they all run together?

I'm not sure either - Anthony Flew wrote an excellent book on this, but I forget the title, critiquing notions of disembodied consciousness. Your questions make perfect sense, but I am unable ot give an answer, because unfortunately my belief system does not embrace disembodied minds, and therefore i have not spent too much time on th issue. I think I still have Flew's book, and some critiques thereof, so I'll see what i can find and report back!

I have mentioned to Christians before that materialism might be the best possibility for making sense of the religion in one way -- it would require that an afterlife be embodied, so that implies a resurrection of the body (if that is possible), which is what Paul and the author of Luke seem to imply. Pity that it doesn't leave much room for the traditional God.

Well I thought it was the traditional depiction? If the Resurrected Christ is as Paul claims the protype of all resurrected bodies, it is, as reading the gospel accounts show a far weirder thing than most Christians usually acknowledge. The claims are not really compatible with a resuscitation, but they are also keen to avoid the Docetic claim that the resurrection body was pure spirit..

Anyway. I'm a reconstructionist. Not in the modern sense of "Christian Reconstructionism" - the political movement, but in the sense that I see resurrection in terms of a new resurrection body - differing from the old in some qualities, but essentially the same - and comprised of matter. If you look at this universe as Universe 1.0, the perfected Universe 2.0 of the next run of the simulation has me "uploaded" in to it.

On my maybe odd views on death, let's start with the Book of Psalms

For there is no mention of Thee in death; In Sheol who will give Thee thanks?

The dead praise not the LORD, neither any that go down into silence.

His breath goeth forth, he returneth to his earth; in that very day his thoughts perish.

These are poetry, and we should not read to much in to them, butthey are compatible with Old Testament materialism and both forms of Christian and Jewish Eschatology.

We can move on to
But as touching the resurrection of the dead, have ye not read that which was spoken unto you by God, saying, I am the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob? God is not the God of the dead, but of the living.

So these folks were living still? This can be read as a full acceptance of life after death - whether immediate or delayed matters not much I think.

"But I would not have you to be ignorant, brethren, concerning them which are asleep, that ye sorrow not, even as others which have no hope. For if we believe that Jesus died and rose again, even so them also which sleep in Jesus will God bring with him. For this we say unto you by the word of the Lord, that we which are alive and remain unto the coming of the Lord shall not prevent them which are asleep. For the Lord himself shall descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the trump of God: and the dead in Christ shall rise first".

Paul gets quite in to all this...

35 But someone may ask, “How are the dead raised? With what kind of body will they come?” 36 How foolish! What you sow does not come to life unless it dies. 37 When you sow, you do not plant the body that will be, but just a seed, perhaps of wheat or of something else. 38 But God gives it a body as he has determined, and to each kind of seed he gives its own body. 39 All flesh is not the same: Men have one kind of flesh, animals have another, birds another and fish another. 40 There are also heavenly bodies and there are earthly bodies; but the splendor of the heavenly bodies is one kind, and the splendor of the earthly bodies is another. 41 The sun has one kind of splendor, the moon another and the stars another; and star differs from star in splendor.
42 So will it be with the resurrection of the dead. The body that is sown is perishable, it is raised imperishable; 43 it is sown in dishonor, it is raised in glory; it is sown in weakness, it is raised in power; 44 it is sown a natural body, it is raised a spiritual body.
If there is a natural body, there is also a spiritual body. 45 So it is written: “The first man Adam became a living being”a (http://forums.randi.org/"#ref=Ge); the last Adam, a life-giving spirit. 46 The spiritual did not come first, but the natural, and after that the spiritual. 47 The first man was of the dust of the earth, the second man from heaven. 48 As was the earthly man, so are those who are of the earth; and as is the man from heaven, so also are those who are of heaven. 49 And just as we have borne the likeness of the earthly man, so shall web bear the likeness of the man from heaven.
50 I declare to you, brothers, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God, nor does the perishable inherit the imperishable. 51 Listen, I tell you a mystery: We will not all sleep, but we will all be changed— 52 in a flash, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet. For the trumpet will sound, the dead will be raised imperishable, and we will be changed. 53 For the perishable must clothe itself with the imperishable, and the mortal with immortality. 54 When the perishable has been clothed with the imperishable, and the mortal with immortality, then the saying that is written will come true: “Death has been swallowed up in victory.”
55 “Where, O death, is your victory?
Where, O death, is your sting?”
56 The sting of death is sin, and the power of sin is the law. 57 But thanks be to God! He gives us the victory through our Lord Jesus Christ.

The vision of John deals with the traditional Christian End of things

Then I saw a new Heaven and a new Earth, for the first Heaven and the first Earth had passed away, and there was no longer any sea.

Say what you want about Christianity, it's not petty in its conception of reality!. It claims this universe will end, and another, perfected (by our standards) will arise, modeled upon but differing from what went before. And there in Earth 2.0 the dead will be reconstructed, with bodies. We just have the misfortune to currently live in the flawed beta version - seriously...

I'm pushed for time, but I hope at least I have made my beliefs a little clearer. :)

cj x

mikeyx

26th November 2008, 01:57 PM

Again, that is fascinating. I do know Sufism (theory) well, and find that an interesting and refreshing perspective. How does it work out? :)

cj x

well........... the sufi side is universal sufism, which draws upon the common goodness of all monotheistic ie, abrahamic faiths, so it for me is not so much a conflict as a broader perspective. The poster above referencing zen leads me to the observation that the current Pir of the tariqa I belong to wasa s tudent of buddhism is his learnings and it shows in his teachings, so along with an islamic influence there's a budhist one to.

Ichneumonwasp

26th November 2008, 03:04 PM

cj,

Makes good sense to me. As I said, I think the appeal of materialism, or at least a material explanation of mind for Christians, should be that it absolutely requires resurrection in the body (and that's what the doctrine teaches anyway). I think if the whole idea of "soul" were stripped from the religion, it would make much more sense.

I still have problems with the inherent dualism -- that's my biggest hang up -- but that's a whole other issue. That we all need redemption I think goes without saying.

Thanks for the quick reply and keep up the good work.

Soapy Sam

26th November 2008, 03:26 PM

The only career ambition I ever had was to be a minister.
I was about five at the time this first occurred to me.
The girlfriend's dad ( I was a precocious kid in some ways) was a minister and seemed an OK sort. But it was the one at our church who impressed. Church of Scotland. Mainstream. No spooky stuff. If the holy ghost had showed up, they would have called the police. Anyone using incense would have been burned at the stake.
The bit with everyone standing up when the minister came in- and the beadle opening his book for him at the right page- impressed me . Wasn't much of a book as it turned out. No pictures, for one thing.

I got prizes for perfect attendance . The love affair ended when they gave me an ABC book. I had been reading for nearly two years and was righteously mortified. The Sunday school teacher responsible sat in the pew behind ours, yet had failed to notice that her pupil was reading the words in the hymn book. Of course the reason she hadn't noticed was that I wasn't singing them. I was thinking about them. I was thinking it didn't seem to make sense...
(Though I loved some of the words-"Immortal, Invisible, God only wise...)
By the time I was seven, I was a hardened unbeliever, though I had never heard of atheism . I remember wondering if the adults believed it all. They seemed to. They were there by choice after all, not because their mum & dad were keeping his mother company.
I believed in Santa Claus. I had seen the evidence. God never seemed to have the same level of reality.

And so it went. One question often asked here is "When did you lose your faith?"
I didn't. Never had any. (I lost my faith in Santa at about the same age, but only after my sister showed me where the pressies were hidden.)

Because of family schedules, I continued attending church/ Sunday school / bible class till I was about 12-13 and old enough to be left alone, or to make my way on my own to my gran's (our usual post-church destination. I thought Sunday lunch was part of religion, thought the comics didn't quite fit.) , but nothing I saw or heard shifted my basic disbelief. I did lots of other irrational stuff, dabbling in Von Daniken and Velikovsky among others , but my religious views (Don't know. Don't greatly care, but it all seems incredibly unlikely) have never wavered.

My parents "went to church". This was a matter of social conformity. My mother was interested in biblical history and attended years of evening classes on the subject. My father never showed much sign of believing in anything spiritual. If he ever met a god, there would have been a discussion about Anzio and a couple of other incidents. I think he felt he was owed some explanation.
I wonder how differently my ideas might have turned out had they been devout?
Probably not very, but it's hard to say.

I don't know how common / typical stories like this are.

So what do I believe?
I believe if I had never heard of gods or churches, I'd be pretty much the same person I am. I believe if humanity as a whole had never heard of either, we might be a bit more real. I believe eventually we'll drop all such stuff and wonder what the blue blazes we were doing. I don't believe it will be this year.

westprog

28th November 2008, 09:02 AM

cj,

I do have a question for you, though, if you would like to discuss it. This is something that has bothered me for some time.

I don't understand the idea of life after death as being comprised of a "disembodied soul", which may not be one of your beliefs though it is very common. It would seem to me that if that occurred, we would be in a position much like how the Greeks portray it -- a terrible state of semi-non-existence. The reason I think so is because continuing life would be desirable only if it had value. We seem to assign or create value based on emotion or feeling. Emotion and feeling seem to be embodied experiences -- they seem only possible with bodies. I'm not sure how value could arise in a disembodied "mind". I also don't see how, if "mind" is devoid of dimensionality (not extended in space), there could ever be any distinction amongst minds that do not have bodies. Wouldn't they all run together?

I have mentioned to Christians before that materialism might be the best possibility for making sense of the religion in one way -- it would require that an afterlife be embodied, so that implies a resurrection of the body (if that is possible), which is what Paul and the author of Luke seem to imply. Pity that it doesn't leave much room for the traditional God.

I think that the problem with the "soul" as seperate from the body is that it is considered as equivalent to "mind" - i.e. just the thought processes detached. Possibly there'd be a transparent "ghost" body which can't touch anything.

I certainly find this a very unsatisfying form of afterlife - and I'd agree with Achilles that it would be better to be a slave on a farm than king of the dead.

However, I think that the idea behind the concept of the resurrection of the body is that people develop into something more real, more solid. I don't know what theologians or philosophers have done with this concept, but both C.S. Lewis in The Last Battle and Gene Wolfe in The Wizard Knight have portrayed such different levels of existence.

Ichneumonwasp

28th November 2008, 09:57 AM

I think that the problem with the "soul" as seperate from the body is that it is considered as equivalent to "mind" - i.e. just the thought processes detached. Possibly there'd be a transparent "ghost" body which can't touch anything.

Invisible, but material? Or immaterial? It's generally assumed or outright stated to be a "spiritual" body. What in the world does that mean? I still have no idea what they are talking about. I see the words on the page, but it makes no sense. I suppose this could just be one of those "mysteries"?

However, I think that the idea behind the concept of the resurrection of the body is that people develop into something more real, more solid. I don't know what theologians or philosophers have done with this concept, but both C.S. Lewis in The Last Battle and Gene Wolfe in The Wizard Knight have portrayed such different levels of existence.

To which the obvious rejoinder would be, again, what in the world does that mean? More real, more solid? But, regardless, it is still a material sort of existence, one that follows rules. Mind being an action, it would seem necessary for there to be a material substrate on which the action can occur.

cj.23

28th November 2008, 01:34 PM

On another site I have been involved with a debate on life after death. My opponent, the excellent Dr P kept insisting that we go on about souls -- I mentioned i "had no need of that hypothesis", and that I actually felt it very unhelpful to do do. Just in case it's of any interest (dubious) here is an extract -- I'm the person writing here

"If you want to call that a soul, fair enough. The term soul is so loaded with metaphysical implications, and the notion of “a ghost in the machine” that I am loathe to employ it though. I prefer to talk about the self surviving post mortem. There are three main reasons why...

Firstly, probably the majority of afterlife believers on the planet believe in reincarnation (I'm not sure on the exact figures.) May forms of Hinduism and Buddhism share this notion, as do many other religions including some indigenous North American ones to my certain knowledge. Now if a “soul” is reborn there is not normally any continuity of sense of self in most reincarnationist beliefs -- and all of the things Dr P offers as identical with the notion of a soul, that is Memory, personality, sense of self, sense of bodily identity are lost. Yet the soul is believed to continue, and in some sense one might argue that “you” survive death – that is certainly how reincarnation views it. Now I agree with Dr P's definitions, and feel if you do not have a sense of the self and continuity you are not the same self – so therefore the term soul fails as a synonym for self.

Secondly, many Christians based on the Bible believe that the death of the body means the cessation of self. At the End, God remembers and reconstitutes the body exactly as before, and the self is therefore recreated from the pattern of material and your conciousness reborn. Such a view, completely compatible with reductionist materialist beliefs was entirely orthodox in Early Christianity, and derives from the Jewish notion – this is what I refer to as “Reconstitutionalism”. It denies the possibility of a soul apart from a body, and indeed finds the idea impossible. Such Christians point to the development of the notion of the “ghost in the machine” as a pagan development from Greek and Persian thinking. Self here is dependent upon a pattern of matter, and conciousness entirely a by product of a highly sophisticated arrangement of atoms. I suspect DrP would have few issues with that – but would balk at the idea of this resurrection by Divine fiat. Yet Judaism, Christianity and Islam as far as I understand all teach bodily resurrection? If there is a God we might clearly hope for future existence even on a completely materialist reductionist level – if there is not, then death is permanent. Nonetheless this is far from the dualist notion of soul and body as somehow independent – on the contrary, this position means soul is but the epiphenomena of bodily activity. So again, soul fails as a synonym.

Thirdly, to those of us in the west soul does not merely signify “life after death”, but “immortality”. Saturated in our religious culture, we often assume the two are synonymous – yet in fact looking at the purported evidence in the late 19th and early 20th centuries, many psychical researchers developed an alternative and deeply pessimistic theory – that indeed consciousness may briefly survive in SOME cases bodily death, but then rapidly disintegrates and dissipates, and ceases to function. Death was they believed merely the first stage in the ultimate death of non-existence. It's not a very happy thought, but we must consider the possibility that life after death may be both conditional (it only applies to some individuals, for whatever reason) and temporary (though how long is unknown.) Once again I suggest the religiously loaded term “soul” is unhelpful.

I hope I have made my case plain. There is a pragmatic reason as well. While theologians and philosophers may endlessly debate the nature and purpose of this “soul”, we all experience all the time what it is to be ourselves. That is what I suggest survives death – this “soul” notion is pretty nebulous, as neither you nor I have ever seen one.
Never? Ah, but I hear you object, you claim to have seen a ghost! Yes I have. Yet that in no way means “ghost” and “soul” are synonymous, as you seem to suggest in your post – perhaps I misread you though. Many researchers believe ghosts are not sentient in any way, but recordings of past events, somehow perceived by our nervous systems, and there are many many other explanations from hallucination to daemonic beasties. Let it suffice to say that an uncritical acceptance of apparition and “dead guy” would get laughed at in pretty much any psychical research community – even the Spiritualists committed to the notion of personal survival have their idea of “residual energy”, that is a memory or recording or earlier events, but not a spirit or “soul”.

We don't know what a soul is, and the concept may be meaningless or misleading, but we know what our sense of self is, because we all experience it. Ironically perhaps I'm far happier to stick with the empirically observable and evidentially demonstrable but wander off in to spooky metaphysical reflections on things like “souls”. "

I know this may seem an odd perspective for a Christian, but by soul when I do employ it i just mean Memory, personality, sense of self, sense of bodily identity - the bits I regard as "me".

cj x