That said, my Google Reader had a daunting number of unread items waiting for me when I returned, and I thought I may just do a quick round-up of items that interested me from around the great webby way.
First, as a segue from the debate between Loathsome and Professor that continued in my absence, I thought The Acton Institute had a timely piece on reason and faith:
God intends for us to exercise our reason and seek to know reality. Jesus says that He is the Truth, and He promises His followers that “the truth will set you free.” The truth that Jesus speaks of is not, of course, purely scientific and rationalistic. It is the truth of the universe and of humanity.
The Questioning Christian does a book review of Robert Wright's The Evolution of God that quotes the following passage from the book's Afterword:
Though we can no more conceive of God than we can conceive of an electron, believers can ascribe properties to God, somewhat as physicists ascribe properties to electrons. One of the more plausible such properties is love.
And maybe, in this light, the argument for God is strengthened by love’s organic association with truth — by the fact, indeed, that at times these two properties almost blend into one.
You might say that love and truth are the two primary manifestations of divinity in which we can partake, and that by partaking in them we become truer manifestations of the divine.
Then again, you might not say that.
The point is just that you wouldn’t have to be crazy to say it.
Also timely to recent comments is Vox Day's blog entry of the myth of a flat Earth:
Christian theologians, almost without exception, likewise accepted the fact that the earth is a sphere. The only two Christian writers known to have advocated a flat earth were a 4th-century heretic, Lactantius, and an obscure 6th-century Egyptian Monk, Cosmas Indicopleustes. Later, these two obscure and uninfluential writers were used as the prime evidence to prove that the flat-earth view was accepted by the Church as a whole—or at least by large parts of it.
Human nature loves a good echo chamber, regardless of (non)belief.
In addition to the stories above concerning faith, I have others on politics, health care and race (Gates vs. Crowley) that I would like to get to soon, but I have to go earn a paycheck.
8 comments:
Yep, I disagree.
I want to hear your response to what he said about the flat earth theory, Professor...not just a simple we disagree. Seems to me that the Professor is guilty of quoting "lies" written by people trying to disprove or discredit Christianity. I seem to remember something about the Professor getting quite heated about misleading quotes in respect to his philosophy.
HMMMM...Interesting...careful professor:)
To be fair, I dont think the Professor quoted lies...only propogated them. Jumping on the bandwagon. Or joining the "collective" should I say, of the detractors of Christianity.
Lumbee,
You misunderstood what I meant when I said "I disagree." It seems to me that the main debate, that is, FAITH, is what we are focusing on here. Faith is not a means of cognition, it never has been, therefore, I assert that reason is a higher value than faith. Reason, for me, is the ultimate and only way for humans to have knowledge about anything. Faith is just a strong belief mostly based on feelings, and in certain highly irrational cases, it is simply an allegiance to something. Justus' entries about faith is what I was disagreeing to, Lumbee. And I didn't want to repeat my arguments given that I've spelled them out in a previous message.
As for the flat earth hypothesis (it doesn't even merit to be a theory), which is completely and utterly false, is proposed by a few ignorant church leaders as Justus pointed out. There is no real way of knowing how the majority of the illiterate public felt about that. Perhaps they didn't think about it at all. Want to talk about Heliocentrism and how church leaders wanted to forbid such theory taught in the churches? (By the way, what "lies" are you talking about?)
I am not discrediting Christianity, I am discrediting the irrational. Those who claim knowledge yet show no evidential proof whatsoever is irrational. That is my biggest enemy.
Justus is correct in stating that the majority of the educated Christians/Muslims of the Middle Ages believed that the Earth was a sphere. Thank you, GREEKS!
However, since you have shared with the group some of your personal story in the past, I will do the same, and in the process give my response to your question on salvation:
I grew up with a religious mother and non-religious father until I was in middle school, at which point my father became a Christian. He went from one extreme lifestyle to another, in a way that both helped and damaged his relationships and my family. His journey led quickly to a fervent fundamentalism, and as head of the house, that meant the rest of the family, including me, was subjected to harsh, judgmental, out of context, and often political lecturing about 'proper' Christianity.
Once I escaped to college (and I do mean escaped), I rejected and ran away from the hypocrisy and harsh judgementalism I experienced in the church, but could never fully reject my personal spiritual experience. This led to years of wandering through numerous eastern and western philosophies, ideas on spirituality, and faith traditions.
After years of search, I never found a better ideal or path to salvation and fulfilled life than Jesus, and I returned to Christ. Lumbee and Loathsome have talked of faith, but to me, following Jesus Christ was also a reasonable (even if not scientifically testable) decision.
If one takes the Bible seriously, not only is Jesus the perfect template of humanity by which all men and women should model their lives, Christ also offers redemption to all who would fall short of his perfection should they put faith in his divinity and grace.
I "came back" to belief in these basic tenants for a host of (personally) valid reasons, including:
-Christ is unequivocally the best model of a perfect human available anywhere in documented history. He is worthy of modeling.
-Jesus was either the divine savior he claimed to be or a complete lunatic. There is really no room for a middle ground if you take his words and actions as recorded. Given my first point above, and accepting the witness accounts and fidelity of the Biblical record of Jesus, I am comfortable believing his claims.
-My spirituality is real to me. I experience it, and trust its existence. For me, Christ's teachings resonate strongly with my spirit.
-Pascal's wager - Following the example of Christ challenges me to become a better person. If I strive to follow Christ, and there is no deeper spiritual existence or afterlife, I am still a better person in the end, and would have lived a better, fuller, and deeper life, and lose nothing of substance that an un-Christian life could offer.
-Christ above all. His offering of a personal relationship means that I put faith in Christ alone, not on any group or persons who claim to speak for him.
-Faith. After all these reasons, the only way to cross over to a life (and salvation) in Christ is by the bridge of faith. I have felt the call of the Holy Spirit to believe in the truth, way, and life Christ offers, and I responded with a faith that I am secure in.
---
Finally, one small note about faith and action: On the whole, belief/understanding drives action. Would you agree with this statement? If so, and faith in Christ is the truth, way, and life, then those who believe must work to act accordingly. Though never perfect, a person's actions are a good indicator of underlying knowledge/beliefs, but action can never stand on their own because action is never perfect.
Hmmm, I cannot say I fully agree with that statement because I do not have complete knowledge about the person who is acting. He simply is just acting. I need to know about the way he thinks, his premises, his philosophy, his view on life, his intentions, his virtues, his values, his politics. For all I know, he may not know much but to parrot everything everyone else around him does. And I've met people like that.
Given the minimal amount of information I have about this person--I only know about his actions--then I cannot fully conclude that he is driven by his beliefs. I have no known evidence about his beliefs in your example.
Not everyone acts complementing their beliefs. Look at those politicians who cheat on their taxes and wives. They "believed" they had to pay taxes, they "understood" what being monogamous means, but they CHOSE different. That is what we Objectivists call someone who intentionally evades reality. Or simply put, a liar.
Fair enough.
Post a Comment