Why do some people find it hard to believe in God? Part 2

[notfluffyatall]

I don't think we've quite finished yet

Tbh Grimma, I honestly can't see the validity of applying scientific mehodology to all knowledge
I didn't say it should be. You don't apply scientific methodology to the interpretation of a historical text or an archaological dig but they expand our knowledge.

It should be applied where its applicable. If there was a God who interacted with the material world, there would be something applicable. Mainstream christians believe in intercessory prayer; this should be amenable to scientific investigation, shouldn't it?

Holo - you are rooted in the Judeo-Christian tradition. That's the God you believe in, correct? The God who has revealed himself to you.

Now a thought experiment for you (which unfortunately doesn't involve baked goods).

If you had been born in a Muslim country, what is the probability that you would believe in the J/C god? Isn't it far more likely you would believe in Allah and think the Nicene Creed was barking up the wrong tree?

If you had been born in India to a Hindu family, what is the probability that you would believe in the J/C god versus the Hindu Pantheon?

If you'd been born in Tibet, do you think it probable that you would believe in the J/C god, or indeed any God at all (though still being a 'spiritual' person).

These considerations, which are external to what either of us personally believes about God at this moment, support my explanation for the aquisition of a religious belief. Where do they leave yours?

Grimma -

Actually I do think we apply scientific knowledge and thinking to all fields of human knowledge (...apart from theology).

Not in terms of running experiments obviously, but more broadly in assuming that the laws of nature, time etc.. are the same everywhere and that evidence counts more than feelings or tradition, and that rules of logic, and ockam's razor work all over.

So for example if the way a historian related a bunch of different historic documents together made it seem like a person lived to be 300, or was born before their father, or died and then lived again, or was in two places at the same time etc... they wouldn't say "that's a mysterious historical fact that science just can't explain (and shouldn't even try because history had a different way of knowing) they'd say "oops somethings wrong here let's look for some more evidence/reassess our assumptions"

... I really don't think there are lots of different ways of knowing.

Himalaya - indeed. I'd perhaps term your example 'rational thinking' rather than 'scientific' - and not 'scientific methodology but yes - most fields of human knowledge go about things as you described. Except theologians and some philosophers.

Holo - " I honestly can't see the validity of applying scientific mehodology to all knowledge - I really, really can't - any more than I could justify saying that because saucepans are useful and good, all food preparation must be done in saucepans."

...I see it more in terms of applying scientific knowledge, and expecting consistency between different spheres of study. (like my example with Grimma - if a historical document indicates that someone lived to be 300 there is good reason to think that that historical document might not be reliable)

So for example we now know that human beings have 23 pairs of chromosomes - half from their mother and half from their father and that these 23 are pretty much essential to human life (give or take some anomalous conditions) and they determine a large ammount of what people look like, how they develop, their sex and some of their character.

So that leads me to wonder about Jesus's chromosomes - if he was fully god and fully human how did that happen? Did he get half his chromosomes from Mary and half from god? or all from Mary (he was a clone?) with holy spirit breathed in (and some odd fiddling around with the y chromosome?) or all from god and Mary was a surogate?

....and if he got any genetic material from god (for height, and hair and eye colour and blood type etc...) how did that work if god has none of those things?

...or if he didn't have chromosomes at all, and which just created from whole cloth in some mystical way, how could he be fully human?

I'd be genuinely interested to know how people of faith/ theologians square this circle. But I don't think it cuts it to just say all talk of chromosomes and of Jesus are completely NOMA/the wrong kind of cooking implement.

Himalaya - yes - shame we're never likely to find any real DNA (but surely there are vials of True Blood knocking around in shrines? ) but thats a good thought experiment. Hope someone takes up the challenge.

Grimma - that reminds me of a very funny but also thought-provoking novel I read many years ago: Honk if you are Jesus. It starts with the idea that there are so many 'relics' of Jesus (Turin shroud, fragments of the cross etc) that it must be possible to extract some of his DNA. And extrapolates that to its logical conclusion... The author is a well-known Australian novelist, but also a doctor.

Hello again!

Aww, a thought experiment with no baked goods! I onlyt think in terms of food...

Yes Grimma, I fully accept, and rejoice in being rooted in the J-C tradition. I also accept that I'd probably be a Muslim, Hindu or gawd knows what else if I'd been born somewhere else. This doesn't present me with a huge sense of extistential dread, tbh - personally, I have issues with the idea of trying to convert members of other faiths to Christianity. I'd rather honour the faith they've already got. Barth (who has hugely influenced me) said that it's the CHristian's duty to hope that all may be saved, although we can't even say how we are saved as Christians - so we can't presume to say how members of other faiths may be be saved.

Him, re. Jesus and his DNA (which has been mentioned already here):the thing about the incarnation is that Jesus is believed to be fully God and fully man. Your 'squaring the circle' line there is not without precedent; in 1979 John Hick said that to be fully God and fully man is like saying something is both a square and a circle. To which Herbert McCabe answered, ?can it be that being divine is related to being human in the same way as being circular is related to being square?? In other words, humans and God are different - as squares an circles are different. Squares and circles don't occupy the same space on a page; humanity and divinity do not occupy the same ontological space in the universe. Because, as I have quoted, 'God is not an item in the universe' (McCabe). So the humanity of Jesus is scientifically verifiable, yes, but the divinity of Jesus cannot logically be so, if Jesus is truly incarnate - because as I keep on saying, the J-C God is transcendent - beyond the material cosmos and therefore beyond science. So Jesus' DNA would be 100% human - because the idea of 'divine DNA' simply does not work within the J-C tradition. Therefore (McCabe again), ?the doctrine of the incarnation...is not conveying any information [of a scientific kind], it is pointing to a mystery in Jesus.?

Right, I'm going to read Joan's post carefully and try and work out why scientific methodology is the best one for knowing everything...

Imagine the shock and horror though when the Jesus clone didn't have blond hair and blue eyes.

I have to admit, Holofernes, that your last post just made me think of the bit in Alice in Wonderland where the Red Queen tries to convince Alice of something ridiculously impossible:
"Alice laughed: "There's no use trying," she said; "one can't believe impossible things."
"I daresay you haven't had much practice," said the Queen. "When I was younger, I always did it for half an hour a day. Why, sometimes I've believed as many as six impossible things before breakfast."

If you try hard enough, and are convinced enough from the start, you can square any circle and twist yourself in enough intellectual knots to prove that black is white, and something is two mutually contradictory things at once - but anyone watching you do it from outside the circle of belief just sees someone performing fantastic contortions for no real purpose.

Joan, just read your posts. I'm quite fascinated by visionaries, and am completely weirded out by speaking in tongues . I don't think I;d dare to pass judgement on those issues other than to say that the Pentecost account in Acts 2 is v. v. different indeed to the modern phenomenon of speaking in tongues, which tbh I can't see much warrant for either in the Bible, or in the mainstream Christian tradition.

Yes, the Bible is....how did you put it?..... radioactively difficult. Bits of aren't, but bits are. That's what motivated me to want to stuy it properly.

Still can't see why the 'scientific method' should mediate all knowledge, though....

Grimma, intercessory prayer. Right - you can decide that scince mediates all knowledge, therefore only that which is scientifically verifiable is true, thus you can say that 'answered prayer' is not scientifically verifiable, therefore not true - QED.

I say that God is transcendent, and that all of life is gift. I say that God is utterly free - dependent on nothing and no-one but perfectly complete within the Trinity. Instead we are utterly dependent on God for life - Schliermacher's 'sense of absolute dependence on God.' So how on earth can I, as a contingent being, presume to say whether, when or how God answers prayer? I can't tell God what to do - otherwise I'd be making myself god and the true God an idol. (I keep saying this but it is central). Yes, God may, and IME does give us gracious gifts of peace, healing, forgiveness, reconciliation etc - but these are gifts which God does not owe us. We can only receive what he gives us, we can only meet him where he has already been waiting for us. God's 'interactions' must entirely be on his terms, not ours. Also there's the element of time and eternity- we can't say if God has answered prayer in such a way that we can scientifically analyse, because we are contingent creatures of time, and God is the absolute Free Creator of Eternity.

This is why the 'master discourse' / metanarrative etc thing is so crucial here - because your scientific - materlistic metanarrative frames things in one way , the J-C tradition in completely another.

I'm not sure what you were expecting exex

Exex, read it again slowly and follow the logic. It does work.

Did you mean to sound rather patronising, Holofernes?

The 'logic' only works if you accept some of your mutually contradictory premises to start with, eg that God exists but at the same time is 'not an item in the universe'. Or any of the other assertions you present as fact, like, "We can't say if God has answered prayer in such a way that we can scientifically analyse, because we are contingent creatures of time, and God is the absolute Free Creator of Eternity."

Of course once you start accepting assertions like that, you can then build whatever other complicated theories and justifications you like on top. All of which is just so much nonsense from a non-Christian perspective.

Holo - 'So Jesus' DNA would be 100% human' - yes(I'm quite sure if we could find some it would be!) but whose? That has nothing to do with all that squaring circles stuff - its a simple question. 23 pairs of chromosomes. Half from the Virgin Mary. The other half from - whom?

Pity we weren't all born in Tibet, then we wouldn't be having to debate the existence of God because you wouldn't believe it either. Buddhists, incidentally, seem to be rather open to scientific methods being applied to them - monks meditating in MRI machines to probe what is actually happening in their physical mind.

I think what you said re intercessory prayer was that it doesn't work the way a lot of Christians think it does. Just you've got a far more complicated explanation than mine. Don't suppose you care for Occam as a tie-breaker?

Reading this thread with interest. Holofernes, it strikes me as a deep shame that someone like you is not investing considerable intellect in one of the many real humanitarian issues facing the world; instead of playing with fossilized words to support decrepit social power structures. So much talent wasted in this hydra we call religion.

Holo - ok - so 100% human DNA- is that cloned from Mary with some genetic modification to switch the x to a y? Or where did the other half come from (...not asking for the definitive answer of course ...just wondering what you or others think. )

On a personal level I understand your discomfort with the idea of telling other people they have the wrong faith. But surely that is what follows if there is truth in Christianity and this is the way god has revealed himself? The others must be mistaken? Why would god communicate in such a localised way to just one group of people, and stay silent to others?

Because God Loves America!! (I'm sure if America, as we know it today, had existed 2000 years ago Jesus would be wearing chapps and a stetson and have a beautiful southern drawl).

"Why would god communicate in such a localised way to just one group of people, and stay silent to others?"

I suspect one of the more standard answers from a Christian viewpoint would be 'ours is not to question God's methods since we have no idea and God manifests himself in ways we cannot understand' - but what makes you think that this is the correct answer? That way of thinking has to have arisen entirely from NON-supernatural beings, surely, otherwise God's followers would have a better idea? Which again calls into question what the point of it all is?

Sorry, probably not explained my point very clearly - not enough coffee yet...

"Why would god communicate in such a localised way to just one group of people, and stay silent to others?"

Not just stay silent, but tell them a whole set of incompatible stories. There really is no good way of reconciling them all - especially Christianity and Islam. If you are convinced Christianity is the definitive revelation of God, what's the deal with a later, conflicting 'revelation'?

Asking why he would comminicate in such a localised way is also relevant, I think, to asking why he waited a few billion years to be arsed communicating at all.

Put it this way. God created the universe 4.5 billion years ago, left the place lifeless for maybe another billion years, then created life, left that pretty much unattended for a while (maybe waiting for humans to evolve, I think he slept in that Ma). Then decided to show himself to some desert dwelling, illiterates.

You would have thought that China would have been a better bet.

hello all
I can't type much, as I've had an accident with my right hand which is now in a sling...(oowwwwwwww....)

NF, the conept of eternity is important - God is outside time so does not experience time like we do (except in the incarnation).

Grimma, re. prayer - what I said in about 140 words can be summed up in 4 - 'your will be done.'

right, enough typing - I'm in too much pain! I can't even write today, as it's my right hand....

Sorry to hear that. Hope it's better soon.

Sorry you're hors de combat.

Hey holo hope you get better soon, poor you

"NF, the conept of eternity is important - God is outside time so does not experience time like we do (except in the incarnation)."

And I knew you'd say something like that. I guess Jesus had 'special' dispensation when it came to his DNA too, like he is outside our understanding of DNA?