Pastelland Forum

I've been thinking too much about this, and can't come up with a none essay length way to dive into this other than to just start throwing out bits and seeing where the conversation goes. So, to reawaken the religion conversation we've been having (tempting to make that its own topic, but then I'm also afraid of that topic drawing the wrong kind of attention...) I want to come at this from the direction of how we believe things first.

I became a "Christian" (for lack of a better term... perhaps Mostly Rational Christian, or MrC for short... because it sounds like Mr T! Foo!) because for as far back as I can remember, I've always believed their has to be a God. I've always thought that is a good enough reason to "experiment" with the idea, so I have. It took somewhere between the ages of 7 and 16 to finally decide that I 1. knew enough about God to approach him, and 2. had a rich enough experience of his presence to feel my trust in him was justified. In other words, my reason for being a MrC is first and foremost, because I believe I've experienced him. This, one could argue, though I wouldn't, is the first of the reasons I would have to say Mostly Rational, because many would argue they need more than a feeling to believe in something as unobservable and thus not scientifically confirm-able as God. Secondly, and this is not something I'm necessarily comfortable with, this direction means that when details of my beliefs are challenged, be they the historicity of the bible, or the philosophical soundness of my beliefs, these things don't shake the core of my faith (I prefer the term "trust" as it means the same thing but has less blind dogmatic baggage), but the shape of my faith (the particulars of HOW I believe in God, not THAT I believe in God. Having said that, they definitely effect me: Isobel, your comments about the sources of the biblical stories was a direction I've somehow missed, and it was a bit daunting and disturbing at first. So thanks for the shake up... I have to go to work now, but I'll try to get some form of response up to you later. For now, this is a good time to pause and see how the comments comment.

because for as far back as I can remember, I've always believed their has to be a God.

Do you remember if this belief started before or after you were first told about the Christian God (or other gods or the concept of gods in general)?

Redafro wrote:I've been thinking too much about this, and can't come up with a none essay length way to dive into this other than to just start throwing out bits and seeing where the conversation goes. So, to reawaken the religion conversation we've been having (tempting to make that its own topic, but then I'm also afraid of that topic drawing the wrong kind of attention...) I want to come at this from the direction of how we believe things first.

I agree, besides it is not like there is some other meditation going on, this will do nicely.

Redafro wrote: Secondly, and this is not something I'm necessarily comfortable with, this direction means that when details of my beliefs are challenged, be they the historicity of the bible, or the philosophical soundness of my beliefs, these things don't shake the core of my faith (I prefer the term "trust" as it means the same thing but has less blind dogmatic baggage), but the shape of my faith (the particulars of HOW I believe in God, not THAT I believe in God.

I'm going to sound outright rude, am I not? I guess it cannot be helped. Is that not a bit dishonest (not to mention a God of the Gaps argument)? You have basically just said you will believe with or without evidence and no contrary evidence will assure you of being wrong! I know that is what faith means by definition but faith by itself is not a rational argument. Is this by any chance the part you're not comfortable with?

I tried very hard to experience God,and I failed.
It became cruel if you were the only kid who wasn't crying or feeling anything at some of the more "spiritual" church camps ,as though I was the only one He didn't want to talk to .
So I gave up.

The Kakama wrote: It became cruel if you were the only kid who wasn't crying or feeling anything at some of the more "spiritual" church camps ,as though I was the only one He didn't want to talk to .

the only kid who wasn't crying or feeling anything at some of the more "spiritual" church camps

the only kid who wasn't crying

crying

This camp of yours sounds utterly horrifying. Of course there is the possibility they cried because they couldn't feel God either, and were similarly devastated because of it. Be it either way, to make children cry or feel bad for no particular reason is inexcusable in my honest opinion.

Do you remember if this belief started before or after you were first told about the Christian God (or other gods or the concept of gods in general)?

Right? Yeah, raised in the church, though my parents were not strong believers and divorced when I was 5. I'm not sure why I emphasize the "always believed their was a God" thing, as if starting with a belief is somehow a proof. I think it is more an explanation... let me answer a few of these others then get back to this...

I'm going to sound outright rude, am I not? I guess it cannot be helped. Is that not a bit dishonest (not to mention a God of the Gaps argument)? You have basically just said you will believe with or without evidence and no contrary evidence will assure you of being wrong! I know that is what faith means by definition but faith by itself is not a rational argument. Is this by any chance the part you're not comfortable with?

I expected this kind of response, so you don't offend me. But your both right and wrong. Right that this is something that makes me a bit uncomfortable, because I can't prove it to anyone, but wrong in that I do have evidence, just not universally confirm-able evidence. The evidence of a daily encounter with God is not something I can dismiss nor do I have a reason to be skeptical of it. Which brings me to...

I tried very hard to experience God,and I failed.
It became cruel if you were the only kid who wasn't crying or feeling anything at some of the more "spiritual" church camps ,as though I was the only one He didn't want to talk to .
So I gave up.

That sounds like a horrible experience, and I feel like apologizing that you went through that, though I suppose I can only do so through a distant organizational relationship. It actually sounds somewhat similar to some of my experiences, and I don't know what makes one person experience God and not all people. All I can say is that I never gave up. I spent, as I said, from around the age of 7 to 16 seeking God and feeling like I was getting slowly closer, but not being satisfied with what I found. I went to a few cry fests, and did cry, but that didn't make me feel any closer to God. The first thing that made me begin to feel God was a group of guys that so far as I could tell unconditionally loved me. But I kept wanting deeper "proofs" and when I was baptized at 15 I expected to see visions or something, because if God is real, surely he can do that. I've experienced several instances I think were miraculous, though they all could have alternate "naturalistic" explanations. What has emerged instead is a relationship, an often times intellectual process and sometimes something more supernatural. I interact with God, I ask him questions, and I listen. I don't hear audible voices, but I get impressions, and they almost always turn out to be useful for my life. What is more, I ask others to pray with me and I pray with them, and we corroborate each others experiences.

I'm the first to admit that none of that should convince anyone... unless they are the one experiencing it. I'm actually excited that no one has the power to prove this stuff, as if they had some special power. I kind of despise organized religion, or at least I despise it when it tries to manipulate instead of just offer their view.

I'm not sure which direction to take this next... One fantastic direction is an NPR did a program called "Is this your brain on god?" Here:
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/stor ... =110997741 The closing idea is something like, "sure it is in your head, but why on earth should that mean it isn't real?"

So that perhaps brings me to the other direction I see this going, the idea of skepticism. I'm often skeptical of my beliefs in the sense of knowing I could be wrong, and I try to abandon any idea that is irrational or contradictory. That is where the "Rational" part of MrC comes in: I test what I believe against reason and science. At least one of the places where I may fail to be rational (though I don't think I fail here) is that I refuse to be skeptical that there is a God without a very good reason, and I've not found a good reason yet. So, I don't think I have a blind faith, because I see the effects of God on my life and those around me, and I don't have a blind skepticism either, though I am as skeptical as I can be and spend a great deal of time looking for problems in my beliefs.

So just to clarify, I think that believing in God without reason or being skeptical that there is a God without a reason are both irrational. But on the other hand, the question of God's existence is outside of the scope of science, unless God decides to show up and say "Ok, here I am, run your tests if you want." So, we have to begin this belief in or in not God with whatever we have and confirm it with whatever experiences we can corroborate with others. If it is a desire for God that is possibly taught by parents and culture, fine so long as you are being rational and actually find some kind of evidence. On the other hand, if you don't experience God, who am I to say how long you should continue to search before you give up? I don't have an answer to that problem other than my own continuous encounter.

Redafro wrote: I expected this kind of response, so you don't offend me. But your both right and wrong. Right that this is something that makes me a bit uncomfortable, because I can't prove it to anyone, but wrong in that I do have evidence, just not universally confirm-able evidence. The evidence of a daily encounter with God is not something I can dismiss nor do I have a reason to be skeptical of it. Which brings me to...

I have previously said that personal experience is a (relatively) valid reason for believing in God. I wonder what your experience of God is like? I ask because the feeling you describe seems completisely alien to me.

The closing idea is something like, "sure it is in your head, but why on earth should that mean it isn't real?"

Why shouldn't it? That makes God sound like some sort of mental illness and, indeed, indiscernible from one. I don't know if I want to go down this route though, human psyche is not my forte. Then there's the whole slim line between genius and lunatic topic I get what the phrase is trying to convey but it is not very well put IMHO.

So that perhaps brings me to the other direction I see this going, the idea of skepticism. I'm often skeptical of my beliefs in the sense of knowing I could be wrong, and I try to abandon any idea that is irrational or contradictory.

So it is a God of the Gaps then?

That is where the "Rational" part of MrC comes in: I test what I believe against reason and science. At least one of the places where I may fail to be rational (though I don't think I fail here) is that I refuse to be skeptical that there is a God without a very good reason, and I've not found a good reason yet. So, I don't think I have a blind faith, because I see the effects of God on my life and those around me, and I don't have a blind skepticism either, though I am as skeptical as I can be and spend a great deal of time looking for problems in my beliefs.

But skepticism isn't merely about questioning everything, it is looking and measuring evidence as well. So basically you should be skeptical about everything until the proof is substantial enough for you, which it admittedly seems to be, and for most people the threshold for accepting stuff is low (not saying that is you though). Refusing to be skeptical about anything is quite antithetical to that notion.

I have previously said that personal experience is a (relatively) valid reason for believing in God. I wonder what your experience of God is like? I ask because the feeling you describe seems completisely alien to me.

Well, that is hard to describe. The Holy Spirit is called a "counselor" and it is kind of like that. Granted, I forget to be counseled quite often, but the idea is that I seek God to help me through life and to understand the problems I'm facing. Sometimes I get nothing, sometimes I get peace, sometimes I get a strong impression of a word or image that gives me ideas of what the next solution is. But that is just one dimension of it. A big part of it has been dealing with my own selfishness and bad habits. God has never intervened and just stopped me from doing something wrong, even if I beg, yet I've learned I can claim the "truths" of how he has described my relationship with him in the Bible, and in claiming it I find I have a peace and strength I never had before.

And that probably sounded weird and preachy. Oh well. XD

Why shouldn't it? That makes God sound like some sort of mental illness and, indeed, indiscernible from one.

Well, and that is what led me to that article actually. I've heard hard core atheists basically tell Christians they are insane if they think they are hearing from God because (I kid you not) there is no God! So, you must be hearing voices! Now, after I calmed down and stopped simply being ticked off, I took the time to consider what it would mean if all my impressions of God were simply a very advanced type of self delusion. And I guess I have to say, "how would I know I'm crazy?" Especially when there are millions like me.

So it is a God of the Gaps then?

Sorry I didn't answer that earlier. No, not at all. God of the gaps is a terrible argument in any situation. Your basically saying "here is a gap in our knowledge, and THAT IS EVIDENCE OF GOD AT WORK! HAHAHAHA!" And then you are in the position of back peddling every time a new discovery is made. No, I look at it more as God is the ultimate end of all knowledge.

But skepticism isn't merely about questioning everything, it is looking and measuring evidence as well.

This I agree with...

So basically you should be skeptical about everything until the proof is substantial enough for you

But depending how you mean this, I would have to disagree. There are things we simply can't prove substantially. I can't scientifically prove my wife loves me. I can't even prove she is not what is called a philosophical zombie, someone who acts as if they are aware and thinking, but are actually an unaware mechanism running off of programing. These are things we can't substantially prove. We just have to "trust" that our senses, and our experiences of similar things, are accurate.

Refusing to be skeptical about anything is quite antithetical to that notion.

I refuse to be skeptical that you are a human. I refuse to be skeptical that I am a person sitting on a couch typing on a laptop. In other words, though I can't absolutely prove it, I do not believe I am a brain hooked to a computer simulation. I will consider the possibility I suppose, but I won't take it seriously unless I started seeing the world behave as if it was a computer simulation. This is what I mean by blind skepticism, being skeptical without reason.

When you say, "I do not believe I am a brain hooked up to a computer simulation", do you mean "I believe that I am not a brain hooked up to a computer simulation"?

The first sentence is passive and the second one is active,eg. denial of wrong and confirmation of right.
So your point is...