[Akoue]

But what makes people even think that whatever god exists is so personal and concerned about us and has human attributes? Like the ability to reveal himself, or the desire to communicate with us? Sometimes I feel like we project all of these human characteristics on whatever higher power exists and assume that that higher power has desires, wants, emotions... but where do we get that notion? Why think that there is a higher power that we can talk to like we can talk to another human being, when we acknowledge that that higher power is not human, but supernatural?

This strikes me as an especially good way of getting at your initial question: Whether there is a god or not, why suppose that we can have any commerce with something so radically other?

Of course, there isn't likely to be any answer that will satisfy the skeptic. Justifying one's belief in God isn't like justifying one's belief that, say, tables and chairs exist, or that two plus two equals four. Justifying one's belief in God is a lot more like trying to justify loving the things you do. A person can, for instance, give you reasons for loving their spouse, listing attributes that they find especially attractive, etc. but none of these reasons is going to cause you to love their spouse as they do.

Now this isn't to say that loving someone or something isn't rational. It is rather to say that the sorts of justifications that are in play are of a very different epistemic character from the sorts of justifications we give for believing in the existence of tables and chairs. I don't see belief in God as something that is irrational or supra-rational. But I am convinced that there is no knock-down argument that can be adduced to compel the skeptic or atheist on rational grounds to accept belief in God's existence. Atheism is perfectly rational. And there are forms of theism--or ways of being a theist--that are, it seems to me, perfectly rational.

That said, I agree with you that it is irrational--and vaguely defeatist--for a theist to attempt to justify his or her belief in God's existence by appealing to the Bible. That's just a way of announcing to the world that one hasn't the vaguest idea what counts as a good, and what a bad, reason for believing in something. This is where the Christian notion of "witness" becomes important: A Christian cannot, as I see it, rationally compel you by means of logical demonstrations to believe in the existence of God. The most she can do is to share with you, to the best of her ability, what her experience of believing is like. In doing so, she may help you to encounter a reality to which you had hitherto been insensible. Or she may not. That's the best that can be done. And so those theists who attempt to argue on the strength of supposed evidence that disbelief is irrational are themselves deeply confused. Their supposed evidence only counts as evidence for God's existence once you already believe. This is to say that such evidence may fortify those who have already come to believe in God, but it has no rational or epistemic force by which to persuade the non-believer. It has been my experience that most of the people who have come to believe on the strength of such supposed evidence are themselves deeply confused and typically believe for very bad reasons. (But, again, this isn't to say that there aren't good reasons for believing. It's just to say that lots of people are very very sloppy thinkers. No surprise there. Just go to the political discussion forum and you'll be confronted by basic logical blunders that will make your hair stand on end.)

[Athos]

I am wondering, though... without citing the Bible as a source of proof, what compells people toward Christianity as opposed to other religions?

A lot of times, I've asked people this question, or tried searching for answers online... but the Bible is typically utilized as a main point of reference in proving why they believe in the Bible... and that just seems to me like cyclical reasoning. It usually goes something like:"I am Christian because I believe that Jesus is God"..."I believe in Jesus because the Bible says x, y, z about him"..."I believe what the Bible says because I believe the Bible is the Word of God"..."I believe the Bible is the word of God because I am a Christian"

What gives the Bible it's validity as a reference? Is there any reasoning outside of citing scripture that can be given as support for Christianity?

Please respond with as much information as possible--- links to external websites are welcome, as I really do want to research this and try to understand it better.

Thanks!

People are not compelled to Christianity as opposed to other religions. People take the religion of their parents or their culture. Each religion tries to answer the fundamental question: Why are we here? The question is never answered scientifically (proof without a doubt) because it can't be.

Religious belief is primarily a function of whatever society one finds his or herself living in. It is a way to bind society together - "religio" means "to bind". Over time, religions tend to see themselves as an absolute truth, which is when the trouble starts.

The Bible has no validity as a reference proving a religion. It has great validity as an historical document describing a mid-Eastern tribe coming to understand themselves and how to live ethically. It also has some the most beautiful literature ever written, but it is not a proof of any religion.

You are perfectly correct in seeing arguments from the Bible as circular reasoning. That's precisely what those arguments are. Religion (or the lack of) can be summed up in the following phrases:

"I believe in order to understand". OR, "I understand in order to believe". These are two diametrically opposed points of view. Ultimately, one chooses between them.

[arcura]

I agree with Akoue.
That is what I do not spend much time at the discussion forum.
Peace and kindness,
Fred

[cadillac59]

This strikes me as an especially good way of getting at your initial question: Whether there is a god or not, why suppose that we can have any commerce with something so radically other?

Of course, there isn't likely to be any answer that will satisfy the skeptic. Justifying one's belief in God isn't like justifying one's belief that, say, tables and chairs exist, or that two plus two equals four. Justifying one's belief in God is a lot more like trying to justify loving the things you do. A person can, for instance, give you reasons for loving their spouse, listing attributes that they find especially attractive, etc., but none of these reasons is going to cause you to love their spouse as they do.

Now this isn't to say that loving someone or something isn't rational. It is rather to say that the sorts of justifications that are in play are of a very different epistemic character from the sorts of justifications we give for believing in the existence of tables and chairs. I don't see belief in God as something that is irrational or supra-rational. But I am convinced that there is no knock-down argument that can be adduced to compel the skeptic or atheist on rational grounds to accept belief in God's existence. Atheism is perfectly rational. And there are forms of theism--or ways of being a theist--that are, it seems to me, perfectly rational.

That said, I agree with you that it is irrational--and vaguely defeatist--for a theist to attempt to justify his or her belief in God's existence by appealing to the Bible. That's just a way of announcing to the world that one hasn't the vaguest idea what counts as a good, and what a bad, reason for believing in something. This is where the Christian notion of "witness" becomes important: A Christian cannot, as I see it, rationally compel you by means of logical demonstrations to believe in the existence of God. The most she can do is to share with you, to the best of her ability, what her experience of believing is like. In doing so, she may help you to encounter a reality to which you had hitherto been insensible. Or she may not. That's the best that can be done. And so those theists who attempt to argue on the strength of supposed evidence that disbelief is irrational are themselves deeply confused. Their supposed evidence only counts as evidence for God's existence once you already believe. This is to say that such evidence may fortify those who have already come to believe in God, but it has no rational or epistemic force by which to persuade the non-believer. It has been my experience that most of the people who have come to believe on the strength of such supposed evidence are themselves deeply confused and typically believe for very bad reasons. (But, again, this isn't to say that there aren't good reasons for believing. It's just to say that lots of people are very very sloppy thinkers. No surprise there. Just go to the political discussion forum and you'll be confronted by basic logical blunders that will make your hair stand on end.)

Good comments. I think you can make some arguments suggesting that a god or gods could have been responsible for the creation of the universe, but that only gets you to deism. To make the jump to theism, or any particular brand of theism, is where I say no thanks.

[arcura]

cadillac59,
OK, To each his own.
I'm both a deist and a theist and I like it that way.
I can talk to God and He can do so with me if He so wants to.
I can pray to Him and He listens and does answer my prayers.
I like it that way.
Peace and kindness,
Fred

[cadillac59]

cadillac59,
OK, To each his own.
I'm both a deist and a theist and I like it that way.
I can talk to God and He can do so with me if He so wants to.
I can pray to Him and He listens and does answer my prayers.
I like it that way.
Peace and kindness,
Fred

You can't be both a deist and a theist. That's oxymoronic. One says god intervenes the other says he or it doesn't.

[arcura]

OK,
I'm an oxymoronic person.
I believe God and do anything He wants to or not do anything He does not want to.
As the bible tells us, With God all things are possible.
Peace and kindness,
Fred

[cadillac59]

OK,
I'm an oxymoronic person.
I believe God and do anything He wants to or not do anything He does not want to.
As the bible tells us, With God all things are possible.
Peace and kindness,
Fred

All things are possible, like flaming snowballs?

[arcura]

cadillac59,
LOL, LOL.
I see you have a sense of humor like mine.
It's bed time for me now and I'll chuckle all the way to the pillow.
Sleep well,
Fred

[paraclete]

cadillac59,
OK, To each his own.
I'm both a deist and a theist and I like it that way.
I can talk to God and He can do so with me if He so wants to.
I can pray to Him and He listens and does answer my prayers.
I like it that way.
Peace and kindness,
Fred

Fred for along time I have thought you might be a little confused, you have just confirmed my suspicion. Your relationship is a one to one relationship

[inthebox]

This strikes me as an especially good way of getting at your initial question: Whether there is a god or not, why suppose that we can have any commerce with something so radically other?

Of course, there isn't likely to be any answer that will satisfy the skeptic. Justifying one's belief in God isn't like justifying one's belief that, say, tables and chairs exist, or that two plus two equals four. Justifying one's belief in God is a lot more like trying to justify loving the things you do. A person can, for instance, give you reasons for loving their spouse, listing attributes that they find especially attractive, etc., but none of these reasons is going to cause you to love their spouse as they do.

Now this isn't to say that loving someone or something isn't rational. It is rather to say that the sorts of justifications that are in play are of a very different epistemic character from the sorts of justifications we give for believing in the existence of tables and chairs. I don't see belief in God as something that is irrational or supra-rational. But I am convinced that there is no knock-down argument that can be adduced to compel the skeptic or atheist on rational grounds to accept belief in God's existence. Atheism is perfectly rational. And there are forms of theism--or ways of being a theist--that are, it seems to me, perfectly rational.

That said, I agree with you that it is irrational--and vaguely defeatist--for a theist to attempt to justify his or her belief in God's existence by appealing to the Bible. That's just a way of announcing to the world that one hasn't the vaguest idea what counts as a good, and what a bad, reason for believing in something. This is where the Christian notion of "witness" becomes important: A Christian cannot, as I see it, rationally compel you by means of logical demonstrations to believe in the existence of God. The most she can do is to share with you, to the best of her ability, what her experience of believing is like. In doing so, she may help you to encounter a reality to which you had hitherto been insensible. Or she may not. That's the best that can be done. And so those theists who attempt to argue on the strength of supposed evidence that disbelief is irrational are themselves deeply confused. Their supposed evidence only counts as evidence for God's existence once you already believe. This is to say that such evidence may fortify those who have already come to believe in God, but it has no rational or epistemic force by which to persuade the non-believer. It has been my experience that most of the people who have come to believe on the strength of such supposed evidence are themselves deeply confused and typically believe for very bad reasons. (But, again, this isn't to say that there aren't good reasons for believing. It's just to say that lots of people are very very sloppy thinkers. No surprise there. Just go to the political discussion forum and you'll be confronted by basic logical blunders that will make your hair stand on end.)

I'm not rational.

I can't make God fit in the box or preconceived notions that I HAVE or that any human has.

IF there is an almighty, all powerful, holy, perfect, righteous, just God, why oh why would God even care about us? Why oh why would this being care whether we were righteous or not? Why oh why would this being show it's love for us by sacrificing its self for us? Why oh why would this being even try to relate to us, feel temptation, pain and all the emotions and feelings that we humans have? WHY?


No these are not logical or rational: who the heck would even come up with these ideas of right and wrong, love, justice, eternity, forgiveness, grace, mercy? We certainly don't see this in our fellow human beings, Christian or not, all the time. So if we are just random bio, physical, chemical reactions, the result of millions of mutations where the heck do we come up with these ideas?







G&P

[arcura]

paraclete,
I think not.
But your opinion does make me think about it.
Fred

[paraclete]

I'm not rational.

I can't make God fit in the box or preconceived notions that I HAVE or that any human has.

IF there is an almighty, all powerful, holy, perfect, righteous, just God, why oh why would God even care about us? Why oh why would this being care whether we were righteous or not? Why oh why would this being show it's love for us by sacrificing its self for us? Why oh why would this being even try to relate to us, feel temptation, pain and all the emotions and feelings that we humans have? WHY?


No these are not logical or rational: who the heck would even come up with these ideas of right and wrong, love, justice, eternity, forgiveness, grace, mercy? We certainly don't see this in our fellow human beings, Christian or not, all the time. So if we are just random bio, physical, chemical reactions, the result of millions of mutations where the heck do we come up with these ideas?

G&P

Your right, these are not the ideas of man and left to our own devices we would become utterly corrupt like the nazi's or pol pot. But God has a stake in us because he created us. He doesn't want his creation to be like that because it is not the way he made us. This is what we have made of ourselves and it isn't pretty or good. God selected some men to tell us about him and his plan and he sent Jesus to build a bridge between God and man. The sad part is most men still don't want to listen. We are more than the physical but we ignore that aspect of our existence. God has experienced everything we feel through Jesus and in a far worse manner than most of us can even contemplate, so don't say he doesn't know, he knows but he suffers the rejection of millions every day

[cadillac59]

your right, these are not the ideas of man and left to our own devices we would become utterly corrupt like the nazi's or pol pot. But God has a stake in us because he created us. He doesn't want his creation to be like that because it is not the way he made us. This is what we have made of ourselves and it isn't pretty or good. God selected some men to tell us about him and his plan and he sent Jesus to build a bridge between God and man. the sad part is most men still don't want to listen. We are more than the physical but we ignore that aspect of our existence. God has experienced everything we feel through Jesus and in a far worse manner than most of us can even contemplate, so don't say he doesn't know, he knows but he suffers the rejection of millions every day

It's ridiculous to say that we'd be like the Nazis or Pol Pot were it not for religion. Quite the contrary. Sweden is a great county and society IN SPITE of the influence of religion on it not because of it (it's probably one of the most atheist and non-religious countries in the world). In fact the same could be said of most all European countries-- they function very well and have the highest regard for human rights yet are the least religious, and least Christian, in the world.

Hey, and kudos to Australia in this regard as well (Sidney has an awesome gay scene by the way).

[paraclete]

It's ridiculous to say that we'd be like the Nazis or Pol Pot were it not for religion. Quite the contrary. Sweden is a great county and society IN SPITE of the influence of religion on it not because of it (it's probably one of the most atheist and non-religious countries in the world). In fact the same could be said of most all European countries-- they function very well and have the highest regard for human rights yet are the least religious, and least Christian, in the world.

Hey, and kudos to Australia in this regard as well (Sidney has an awesome gay scene by the way).

You miss the point entirely, Europe has a Christian background which laid the base of it's society, just because there is decline doesn't mean it would have developed without Christianity. The ancient Germans had a few odd practices and Romans were very rough on their neighbours and you only have to look at Islam to see how even a slight twist can get out of hand even in our modern age.

And yes there is a vocal minority in eastern Sydney

[cadillac59]

You miss the point entirely, Europe has a Christian background which laid the base of it's society, just because there is decline doesn't mean it would have developed without Christianity. The ancient Germans had a few odd practices and Romans were very rough on their neighbours and you only have to look at Islam to see how even a slight twist can get out of hand even in our modern age.

and yes there is a vocal minority in eastern Sydney

I fail to see the connection between this so-called Christian background and where Europe is today (Germany had that same Christian background before the Nazis, so I don't see the point you are making-- Russia did too before Stalin, etc). Everybody likes to point this out, as if the significance were self-evident. It's not.

[paraclete]

I fail to see the connection between this so-called Christian background and where Europe is today (Germany had that same Christian background before the Nazis, so I don't see the point you are making-- Russia did too before Stalin, etc). Everybody likes to point this out, as if the significance were self-evident. It's not.

One nut case does not a summer make, so you think you can cite madmen as a reason why Christianity doesn't work. Hitler was mad, Stalin was mad. Christianity cannot change that, but they were opposed to Christianity anyway. Europe had almost two thousand year of Christianity, Russia one thousand. It must have changed something for the better, because before that what did you have? :D

[arcura]

paraclete,
Good point.
Fred

[cadillac59]

One nut case does not a summer make, so you think you can cite madmen as a reason why Christianity doesn't work. Hitler was mad, Stalin was mad. Christianity cannot change that, but they were opposed to Christianity anyway. Europe had almost two thousand year of Christianity, Russia one thousand. It must have changed something for the better, because before that what did you have? :D

Morality evolves with time. It's got nothing to do with Christianity.

Besides, what's so moral about Christianity or any religion? Frankly, and by way of example, the only way I'd even consider going back to my former Lutheran church would be when they agree to recognize and accept same sex marriage because by not recognizing it and treating us (gay people) as equals it's acting immorally. The reason I left the church was because it had not come out against the anti-same sex marriage initiative (Proposition 8) here in California at the end of 2008. So I thought that if that's the way they want to be, I'll wash my hands of them for good. It's like the old saying that all it takes for evil (homophobia) to triumph is for good men to do nothing.