I analyzed the claim of my daughter's 18-year-old skating coach against the things that I've learned over the course of my life about physics and anatomy, and I came to the firm conclusion that safety knees is bullshit. I mean I guess there's a chance that it could work. But my experience and reasoning brought me to the conclusion that she was full of crap.
Putting your hands on your knees changes nothing about the fact that ice is slippery. It changes nothing about your speed or momentum. It changes nothing about the fact that two kinfe blades are your only points of contact with a frictionless sheet of pain. If you're about to fall, putting your hands on your knees should only change your ability to catch yourself because your hands are on your damn knees.
But when you try it, it works.
I don't know how, but it does. I've skated with Kylee, and she's reminded me about safety knees, and I've used safety knees, and it works. I don't get it, and I can't explain it. It runs contrary to how I thought the universe worked.
Speaking of ice skating, you know what I hate? Tax research. By which I mean I f***ing hate tax research. I haven't had to do it much for work, but I had to do some in school, and I F***ING HATED it.
I would spend hours looking through tax cases and finally dig one up that was nearly identical to the case I was working on. The precedent set in that case determines the outcome of my case. So I'd write up what I found and turn it in, completely confident that I nailed it.
And I would be totally wrong.
There would be an appeal that I was unaware of; or the case I found was in a different circuit, and there was a similar case with a different ruling in the circuit that had jurisdiction over my case; or subsequent legislation was passed or IRS regulations were imposed that completely reversed the outcome of the case at hand.
There have been way too many times when something looked right on paper but didn't work out in the real world.
So I have to take that into consideration regarding my trilemma - the argument that led me to the conclusion that Christianity (and Islam and any religion with a hell) isn't true. I'm convinced that God can't be (1) good and (2) hidden and (3) send people to hell for wrong belief. He can be any two of the three, but he can't be all three. That looks real good on paper.
I don't know crap about physics or anatomy, but I know tons more about them than I know about what it's like to be God. I was wrong about safety knees until I experienced it first hand. There's a really good chance I'm wrong about my trilemma, but I won't know I'm wroing until I'm burning in a lake of fire.
I'm acutely aware of my intellectual limitations; however, this epistemological uncertainty is also further evidence against a God who wants us to have a relationship with him.
If God exists, then he chose to create a world where he is not obvious - where his existence and identity are in doubt. He also chose to create a world where everyone is subject to epistemological uncertainty, where everyone has intellectual limitations, where everyone has thought things would turn out a certain way and were dead wrong.
The assertion of western religions (Judaism, Christianity, Islam) is that God wants a relationship with humans. But the way he's structured the world - his hiddenness, intellectual uncertainty, and even the existence of the devil - make it seem like he's not even interested in us knowing that he's there at all.
But there's a decent chance I'm totally wrong.
Maybe a different point of view might be necessary?
ReplyDeleteWhat God has ever spoken and recorded his words for all to read? What God has revealed his nature in creation? What God took a people who would worship as best as they saw fit and say "No, this is how I am to be worshipped"? What God communes with his church today and is active in the world he creates? What God not only left us with his written words but came himself into that world and took on flesh and became part of his own creation? What God was raised from the dead, showed himself to his doubting followers, and sent his Spirit to bring to their recollection everything he told them while he was here so they could record it for future generations?
And further, what people walked with God in the garden of Eden, yet decided it was better to do things their own way than know him face to face? What people decided that God's recorded way of sacrifice and worship wasn't good enough, and made for themselves visible images of false gods because they preferred gods who were visible-but-dead over veiled-but-real? What people decided that the traditions of their fathers and their birthright was more important than what those fathers continuously pointed to?
Seems to me that the God of Christianity has revealed himself more than any other gods in human history. What he says about himself is true. What he says about history is true. What he says about your own heart is true. What he did is true. That's a lot, for a God who "is not even interesting in us knowing that he's there at all."
What do you need, Greg? God to show up in front of you and say "Worship me"? That wasn't enough for many people recorded in scripture, who saw truth face-to-face and walked away, what leads you to believe you would be any different? If God spoke to you, would you listen? Why would you, if others didn't? If you had no epistemological uncertainty, would that make you a believer? God reveals himself, and he says that revelation itself is foolishness to Greeks, who valued wisdom above everything else and could not worship a God who valued faith in Christ's work only, and never merit from intellectual attainment or enlightenment. He said himself that those who exalt their own understanding would not humble themselves enough to see his truth. Again, it's not due to a lack of understanding - my five year old has enough understanding of God to know she wants to be with him - it's sin. Those who have eyes do not see, those who have ears, do not hear. We do exactly what he says we would all do, yet his understanding of your own heart is still not enough?
Barrett - Yes. I need God to show up in front of me and say, "Worship me," and then I need him to stick around in case I start to worry that I was tripping when God showed up and said, "Worship me."
DeleteYes. If I had epistemological certainty, I would believe.
The Bible says God revealed himself to people like Adam and Eve and the Israelites, and they still didn’t believe. A simpler explanation is that they didn't believe because God never revealed himself to them.
Christianity does not make sense to me. If it makes sense to you because God's cleared it up for you, then God likes you better than me.
Or maybe I'm a counterexample to the assertions of the Bible. I accepted Jesus Christ as my savior, and for about 20 years, the "foolishness" was never replaced with the understanding that comes through the Holy Spirit.
My Christianity couldn't defend itself against my own experience. That guy from Mark who said "I do believe; help thou my unbelief," that was my guy. Thomas, to whom Jesus said "blessed are those who have not seen and yet believe," he was my guy.
So, yes. I believe I'm different that any stupid fucker who after hanging out with God still makes a golden calf instead. But I don't think I'm different than you. I followed the same path, I had no hope unless Christ had mercy on me, and I acknowledged my need for him. I have sin, and I know that what you said wasn't a claim that you don’t sin. I'm just like you. Then why would God reveal himself to you in a convincing way that he doesn't reveal himself to me? He wouldn’t. So he doesn’t exist.
My unbelief is something I work through all the time Greg. There is never a day that I wake up certain that he loves me and I'm good to go. He doesn't say there will be. "I believe, help my unbelief" isn't a prayer you pray once, or even during one period of your life. It's something I continue to pray, and will continue till I die. That being said, some days I'm more certain than others. But until that day that I see him face to face and my faith shall be sight, he will remain veiled and my certainty will fluctuate.
DeleteWhat did it for me, when I was struggling through this, was this clear idea that God doesn't merely want to be known, he wants to be worshiped. I was in seminary to gain knowledge of God. If I just had more knowledge, then I could worship him rightly. But the knowledge wasn't leading me toward more worship, it was leading me toward more pride. I'd start to look down at more "foolish" Christians, who worshiped what they truly didn't understand. In truth, their humble submission was greater than my prideful understanding.
Since then, I've spent three years coming back to where I was when I started seminary, but instead, with worship as my first stance, understanding as my second. As I worship, I understand more. That is the right order... worship what you understand, and be content with that. Then, he will reveal himself more and more.
I've been fighting this fight for 20+ years also Greg. Some days, it's like breathing. Other days, it's like breathing underwater. But even you, in your "Thomas" days, certainly had good days where you saw him as worthy. When I discuss him with others, he's more clear. When I lead others in worshiping him, he's more clear. When I see his love in others, he's more clear. You're focusing on the underwater days, and are tired of fighting. I get that, that's why the word from Scripture is to persevere to the end. Hebrews says that it's a "striving to rest". Was there never a day you believed? What was it about Jesus that you trusted in?
Barrett, I think you're awesome, I'm glad you can share the road you traveled and I think your comments have been well stated.
DeleteGreg, whether or not God reveals himself in different ways to different people, He has revealed Himself in one way to us all - through conquering death. The Resurrection is God's most powerful demonstration of who He is. But it is also important to notice that Jesus doesn't just tell us who He is - He shows us. Therefore, He has revealed Himself in a convincing way to us all. One of your favorite guys, Thomas, had the same skepticism until he realized Jesus had truly risen from the dead - and he understood that it clearly meant Jesus was God Himself. I'm sure this is something Barrett holds onto as well at times when his skeptical side rises up, and that is the beauty of the Resurrection - that only God can conquer death - and if that's true then everything else Jesus did makes sense.
I think there is a little BS dropping when you say: "Christianity does not make sense." Maybe you would restate that, but the reason I'm skeptical is because you have been given many answers from many people regarding how to better understand the issues you have raised. You may not be convinced of the answers as of yet, but I'm sure you can understand how those answers make sense. One example is your tri-lemma you have referred to again. It is agreed that your tri-lemma is difficult as stated, but what is not agreed is that the premises you assert are true. Two are in question, and we have tackled the fact that God is not "Sending" people to Hell for wrong belief - by which sending means 'wanting and then bringing about that scenario.' We have chosen against God in virtue of our sin and that has caused our situation, God isn't pissed off about what people believe and holding it against them. He requires justice for sin - and if He didn't you would point out that He must not be Good. Also, God has chosen not to be hidden by coming to live with us, to mentor the disciples and most importantly to conquer death. I'm also sure you can understand how significant a Resurrection would be. You pick out a couple things that seem to mean God isn't "interested in us knowing if He's there at all," but you reject the things that others point out which suggest that He is interested... like dying for us. This doesn't make sense to me because it seems like you aren't taking the answers into account, and also you are rejecting some things Christians don't accept either. I am hoping to hear your reflection on Barrett's questions at the end of his last response as well.
Barrett, I lifted the main points out of your comment and replied to each individually.
Delete"’I believe, help my unbelief’ isn't a prayer you pray once, or even during one period of your life. It's something I continue to pray, and will continue till I die.“
But when no help comes, you start to wonder if God can’t help you or if he won’t help you. Either way creates a huge problem. You talked about this being like breathing underwater. It’s a good analogy because if you’re under too long, you die. My faith in God died because either (A) he wouldn’t help me, (B) he couldn’t help me, or (C) he doesn’t exist. I went with answer C.
“God doesn't merely want to be known, he wants to be worshiped.”
By choosing to be hidden and by allowing deception and epistemological uncertainty, he risks not being known or worshiped. Additionally since the heart cannot embrace what the mind rejects as false, worship is contingent upon knowledge.
“As I worship, I understand more. That is the right order... worship what you understand, and be content with that. Then, he will reveal himself more and more.”
I did that, and he became more and more obscure.
“Was there never a day you believed? What was it about Jesus that you trusted in?”
There were 20 years where I chose to believe. I believed and worshiped and found meaning and purpose in my relationship with Christ. During most of those 20 years, my belief was based on the logic of Pascal’s Wager plus the fact that there are people who are smarter than me who are Christians, Muslims, Hindus, Buddhist and atheists. (No Unitarians are smarter than me.) That much uncertainty allowed me to choose what to believe, and Pascal’s Wager showed me the right choice. When I doubted, I could quickly review the logic of uncertainty plus Pascal’s Wager, and reaffirm my decision to choose to believe Christianity. I was never certain. There were mini-miracles and personal spiritual experiences, but I eventually realized that those were weak foundations for faith. So I guess there was nothing “about Jesus” that I trusted in. Things other than Jesus made me arrive at the Christianity as the “right answer,” and I chose to believe in Jesus as a result.
Duane, I lifted some blurbs from your comment above to respond to.
DeleteYou said, "I think there is a little BS dropping when you say: 'Christianity does not make sense.' … You may not be convinced of the answers as of yet, but I'm sure you can understand how those answers make sense."
My first thought when you called me out on my "Christianity doesn't make sense" BS was anxiety that I allowed myself to engage in inflammatory discourse on the blog. I don't want that at all. However, after doing some soul searching, I can't retract the statement because I think it's true. By "doesn't make sense" I mean it's logically inconsistent, per the trilemma. I have heard - and have loved - your rebuttal of the trilemma. If you are correct that God is not hidden, then the trilemma becomes an invalid argument, my main logical inconsistency evaporates, and Christianity makes sense. If God does not send people to hell for wrong belief, but rather people choose hell by committing sin, and the remedy for this pre-existing condition is proper belief, this may invalidate the trilemma as well, rendering Christianity sensical. But until I become convinced of these answers, I can't say Christianity makes sense to me while maintaining my integrity.
You said, "Whether or not God reveals himself in different ways to different people, He has revealed Himself in one way to us all - through conquering death. The Resurrection is God's most powerful demonstration of who He is. ... Only God can conquer death."
God did not reveal himself to us all through the person and resurrection of Jesus Christ. If Christianity is true, then God revealed himself through the person of Jesus Christ to many of the inhabitants of Palestine 2000 years ago, he revealed himself through the resurrection of Jesus Christ to less than 1,000, and he reveals himself to us all through the Bible which is prone to significant scholarly criticism.
Greg, I appreciate the thoughtful responses. Regarding your comment: "But until I become convinced of these answers, I can't say Christianity makes sense to me while maintaining my integrity." I fully accept that and no longer think you are dropping BS. I think I read your initial comment the wrong way. I get that it still doesn't fly with you because things still seem inconsistent, but I also think it is evident that you see that it can make sense - as demonstrated by your last comment.
DeleteI love your response to Barrett, especially the final paragraph where what you say there ties a lot together. You said: "So I guess there was nothing “about Jesus” that I trusted in. Things other than Jesus made me arrive at the Christianity as the “right answer,” and I chose to believe in Jesus as a result." As you admit, you had weak foundations for Faith, and I have concurred with you when you have pointed out the weak reasons many people rely on. Greg, that comment makes sense of everything you have shared about this whole process for you. Jesus is the only foundation that isn't weak when it comes to Christianity. There are different reasons for God in general, but Christianity is entirely based on Jesus. Our primary reason for believing that Jesus is truly the Savior is because of the Resurrection. From your comments regarding that claim, it seems clear to me that you haven't researched it historically - I don't mean Biblically or even Scholars opinions, I mean a pure historical assessment.
It is because of the available historical evidence that I don't think God only revealed Himself to some inhabitants of Palestine a long time ago. You seem to think God can only reveal Himself in a physical way and other things aren't legit, but many things have been revealed to us by historical assessment - for our entire lives. There is no reason to limit God's options to a physical appearance. The beauty of the Resurrection being the foundation is that if it is true then God has revealed Himself to us all in the same way, and continues to do so, which seems to be what you would expect. Even the Bible states that without the Resurrection the rest of it doesn't make sense. You are right that without it, much of Christianity is inconsistent. You have to assess the Resurrection claim for itself, otherwise nothing else anyone has explained will "make sense" to You.
Duane,
DeleteWhen you say, "Jesus is the only foundation that isn't weak when it comes to Christianity," that doesn't seem to line up with your other statements. "Available historical evidence" is the foundation for your belief in Jesus. Jesus isn't the foundation for your belief in Jesus. Uncertainty plus Pascal's Wager was the foundation for my belief in Jesus. Jesus wasn't the foundation for my belief in Jesus. I need some clarification.
Also your comment also begs the question, What historical evidence exists making it more likely than not that Jesus was God and rose from the dead?
Fair enough, I'll clarify that now since I'm up with a sick kid. The claims about Jesus must be true or Christianity is just plain false (there might be a god, but it wouldn't be Jesus). So only if I conclude Jesus is God should I believe Christianity. Pascal's Wager, fear of hell, or the desire for life after death or the fact that someone else believes it are all "weak reasons." You have to get to belief in Jesus to get to Christianity then - no one in the beginning of the church believed the Christian message for any other reason. Historically, no one believed the Bible and then believed in Jesus, it was the other way around because the New testament didn't exist at the beginning. This was never pointed out for me until Seminary, so I know many don't think about it. Also, Pascal's wager didn't come about for a long time (1800) and it was only intended to address God, not Jesus, it would allow someone to move on to considering Jesus.
DeleteBut how do we get to the belief in Jesus? Of course "Jesus isn't the reason for my belief in Jesus," that would be circular. This requires the Resurrection to be real, otherwise Jesus is just a dead guy - a smart one, but a dead one just like Buddha. On the other hand, if He Rose from the Dead, then the claim that He is God makes sense and we ought to believe it.
I didn't mean to beg the question, it just would be a lot to say in these comments. I was simply trying to emphasize that the the Resurrection is the issue - I realize I haven't argued for it. To say that I believe in the Resurrection because the Bible says it happened is also weak, we need historical evidence at this point and there is an abundance of it available. The books on it are plentiful. I do a 2-hour lecture on it and the topic would require a full essay... But what I am saying here is this: only because of Jesus do I believe Christianity, but only because of the Resurrection do I believe in Jesus. It goes like this: 1. Historical Evidence - 2. Resurrection - 3. Jesus is God - 4. Therefore, the Bible and Christianity are correct.
Brilliant post Greg. Loved it.
ReplyDeleteGreg, you have just expressed why I am a libertarian.
ReplyDeleteBottom line: I don't know shit!
I certainly do not know what is right for me most of the time, how can I possibly know what is right for you or anyone else.
What I find very... telling about Christianity is how stories written by men somehow can be called the "Word of God". I can't access my Natural Gas bill because they don't believe it is me, but a dude with some parchment and a church title is in no way authenticated?
ReplyDeleteSometimes I write something and I am pretty proud of it, but "God told me"?
I have a hard time believing that a series of authors in a certain time, of a certain culture, and of a certain belief wrote the "perfect and unadulterated" words of God. This is where I call bullshit.
I do love stories, and I love how powerful they can be. A well crafted story makes a person think and ask questions. A good story sticks with you. A well written and compelling story can change your life. I think constantly asking and evolving into a better version than you were yesterday is the point.
You gave me an idea for a future post with the gas bill anecdote. I don't want to give anything away, but stay tuned!
DeleteThe things written by men are called "The Word of God" because many are convinced they wrote about Jesus who is God. Thus it would rightly be called "The Word of God," because it is about Him and thus from Him. Now you might not be so sure about that part, and that is why the Resurrection is essential. If He didn't conquer death then Jesus is not God - He is just dead - but if He did rise from the dead, then He is God and the Biblical texts are right - meaning God DID tell them and they would be telling us HIS words.
Delete