Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site cbscc.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!cmcl2!floyd!vax135!houxz!houxm!ihnp4!cbosgd!cbscc!pmd
From: pmd@cbscc.UUCP (Paul Dubuc)
Newsgroups: net.religion
Subject: Re: Failure of the Christians
Message-ID: <2790@cbscc.UUCP>
Date: Thu, 31-May-84 19:11:41 EDT
Article-I.D.: cbscc.2790
Posted: Thu May 31 19:11:41 1984
Date-Received: Sat, 2-Jun-84 11:51:14 EDT
References: <134@ssc-vax.UUCP>, <1700020@iuvax.UUCP>
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories <SCCS>, Columbus
Lines: 206


Forgive me for butting in on a discussion that I haven't been following
from the begining.  I haven't seen Daryel's original "Challenge" article
or David's response to it, but the two points made by Daryel seem open
to all Christians.  Seeing also that we have been accused of failure and
being the cause of disappointment, I guess I should at least offer my bit
before the disheartening we have wrought is considered complete.

To restate the two points:

}First, I think it is obvious that the question I posed has not been met by
}the Christians.  The question is
}
}>>>  1. The objective evidence for Christianity is not strong.  It is 
}certainly not stronger than the evidence for some other religions.
}     2. The subjective evidence for Christianity is very much the same as the
}subjective evidence for other religions.  Certainly, it is not stronger.
}     So, how do you Christians justify your belief?
}
}What I am asking for here is how you Christians deal in your own minds 
}with points 1 & 2.  Come on, David, none of the Christians, including you, 
}has answered this question.  

First off, I don't think Daryel can expect much more than disappointment
in a demand for an "answer" to a question stated in such a way;
not just from Christians, but from the adherents of any belief.  I think
the the two statements above, along with the question, will bring equally
disappointing results when rephrased and directed toward anyone.
Just subsitute the name of the belief in the place of "Christianity"
and "beliefs" (to make it more general) in the place of "religions".
I think there is little shame in not being able to answer such questions.
I do think that there are some cases of inquiry where more problem is
to be found in the question than in the lack of a definite answer.

My parents have a dog that likes to chase a Frisbee.  When the Frisbee
lands flat on a concrete surface the dog can't pick it up.  She can
only push it around because there is no way for her to get a hold of it.
That is how I feel in trying to handle this question.  There's no
way to pick it up, let alone answer it.  So I'm going to stop trying
and concentrate on pushing it around.  Sorry if this disappoints you,
Daryel, but I don't feel bad about it.

The two statements are vague.  Taking the first I would have to ask, what
to you mean by the *objective* evidence *for* Christianity?  You  say that
it is certainly not stronger than that for other religions.  Which evidence
for what religions? This assertion seems to suppose that you are objective
and have a comprehensive understanding of the all the "evidence" in existence
to support the different religions.  I would like to know how you obtained 
this point of view.  

Secondly, the statement seems to make the assumption that all religion is
the same stuff.  Do you think you can measure "evidence" (objective or
otherwise) to support the different religions on a linear scale? 
Is measuring the evidence for different religions like the evidence for
the viscosity of different kinds of oil?  Some religions plainly require no
objective evidence to support their validity.  i.e. they are purely mystical.
Others that are grounded in our history will depend on the historical
events being accurate.  I think Christianity relys most heavily on historical
events.  If all religions claimed to be equally grounded in "objectively
verifiable" historical events, then you might be able to compare the evidence
accurately.

Even ignoring the implied comparison of evidence between religions, I
still disagree with you that the historicity of Christianity is weak.

}When I wrote "Surely, you Christians feel challenged by points 1 and 2",
}I wasn't calling you to do verbal battle with me.  I was using "challenged" 
}in the sense of "personally challenged".  I meant that you must wonder about 
}how such things can be, that you must try to explain them.  As an example, 
}I was expecting some replies to say that the subjective evidences experienced
}by followers of non-christian religions were caused by the devil.  
}

I'm glad your not baiting Christians here.  I too have no intent on being
drawn into a verbal battle.  Given that such baiting goes on often in this
newsgroup I don't see how you can blame anyone for seeing your questions
as just another attempt to make Christians look bad by trying to answer
questions that ask nothing specific.

}If I was a Christian, I would certainly feel challenged by, say, the spiritual
}experiences of an ardent Muslim.  I can imagine asking myself: 
}"How it can be that he has such experiences?  His beliefs are false.  How can 
}he have these inward experiences of spiritual growth and confirmation of his 
}beliefs?  Do they come from God?  Or do they come from the devil?  Or is he 
}just deluded?"
}
Why would you have to be a Christian to feel such  a challenge?  The Muslim's
experience is different from yours also (assuming you're not one).  How
do yor justify not being a Muslim?

Do you really think you have a handle on the subjective experiences of devoted
members of the different religions just by listening to them relate those
experiences?  If not, how can you imply a comparison by saying that the
subjective evidence for one is not stronger than that for another?  The only
plausible basis for comparison that I can see is to become a devoted member
of each of these religions yourself and open yourself up to these experiences
first hand.  I know some whose exprience encompasses sincere devotion to
one or more major religions (Buddism, Judaism, Hinduism, Islam, Taoism as well
as Atheism and Agnosticism) who think Christianity is true and their former
beliefs false.  Some will tell you their former experiences were Satanic in
origin, some will say they were delusions.  I am only comparing people who were
strongly devoted to these beliefs and by "Christianity" I mean Bible-governed
belief, not cultural Christianity.  (If you have read Lewis' "Mere
Christianity" you know what I mean.)  So I would exclude the conversions
of those who came from nominal religious backgrounds from consideration.

}
}[Dave] asked me a question.
}>As an aside, what measuring stick you use to examine and compare subjective
}>evidence; i.e., A's subjective evidence is better than B's?
}
}I expect that you are referring to my point 2.  I expanded on this point in 
}the latter part of my note, but I will try to rephrase things here.
}What I meant was that the subjective experiences reported by Christians as 
}confirming their beliefs (the feeling of spiritual growth, their life coming 
}together, and so forth) are very much like the subjective experiences reported
}by followers of non-christian religions.  (Only the details vary according to 
}the beliefs of the believers.)  Now, if Christians were the only ones who had 
}these experiences, and the followers of other religions had to report that 
}they had none or only very minor experiences (like feeling happier), then the 
}subjective evidence for Christianity would be stronger than for these other 
}religions. 
}

There is still no measuring stick.  Suppose a Christian and a Muslim both
tell you that their religion is the greatest thing that ever happend to them,
yet each has never been devoted to the other's religion?  Is there any
real basis for comparison?  Even if the beliefs have achieved similar
changes in a person's life, we are still talking about two *different*
people and, of course, it is many times possible to achive the same
results though deception as through genuine belief.  Also, your comparison
cannot take into account the eternal ramifications of subjective religious
experience.  That is the main focus of Christianity, the worldly benefits
of the belief being consequential.  So what if both a Muslim and a Christian
are  both delivered from severe problems as a result of their beliefs?
(For many, e.g. the Apostle Paul, circumstances only got worse.)  What does
such improvement say about the condition of the soul or where it ends up after
death?

Comparing subjective experiences is only valid when one has actually
had those experiences.  So how do those whose subjective experience is
only through one religion justify their belief?  Justify to whom?  You?
Why is that necessary for them to hold their own beliefs?  Such a person
is justified in himself and also justified in offering his beliefs to
you if you want to consider them.  He is not justified, however, in
insisting his beliefs are true and another's false when that other
person feels no need and is convinced his are better.  Also, the limits
of his experience or lack of knowledge of the evidence does not mean
the person is wrong in his choice of belief.  It is possible to be
correct in one's choice the first time and fully benefit from the fact of
its correctness without being able to explain it fully.

For others justification is a continuing process.  One has to stand
somewhere in evaluating his own beliefs against those of others.  For
me Christianity has never run out of answers.  I only run out of time
to find them :-).  We all stand where we do by faith.  None of us knows
all the facts, or has enough time in life to know them.  The
faith we have in our own positions is either justified or weakened by
our examination of them in light of opposing positions.  Of course,
the personal relationship one has with his God is included.  I think
Christianity has this advantage over other religions.  As an example,
the Jehovah Witnesses I have talked with can really test you with their
theology, but when you ask them what God is like they fall apart.  A
god with a personality isn't included in their religion.

In your points above why didn't you include one for comparing sets of
beliefs philosophically or theologically?  I think the best comparisons
can be made in those areas.

}[Dave] replied to one of my statements by writing
}>I do not think that the evidence [that Jesus existed] is so weak.  
}>See Josh McDowell's "Evidence >that demands a verdict".  Albright has some 
}>good stuff for archeology-oriented people.
}
}I find this sort of reply really disheartening because you ignored the rest of
}the paragraph within which my statement occurred.  The paragraph was
}
}>>>Christians point to certain historical evidence that Jesus actually 
} existed.  That evidence is weak.  Besides, the evidence that, say, Mohammed 
} existed is an awful lot stronger.  BTW, there is even better evidence for the
} existence of the Rev. Moon.  That doesn't make the Moonies' claims for him 
} true.
}
}You see, David, suppose the historical evidence for the existence of Jesus
}was just as strong as the evidence today for the existence of the Rev. Moon.
}That would not make Christians' claims about Jesus' divine nature true.

Are you playing with words here, Daryel?  I don't think the point is proving
the mere existence of Jesus, Moon, or anyone else.  Take a look at Mc Dowell's
"Evidence" books.  They are an anthology of references from the work of
many others.  The issue is not only the existence of Jesus (which I think
is more than adaquate) but also *who* he was.


Well I guess I can rest now and accept the label of failure with respect
to the answer to Daryel's question.  Failure is not always fatal, or even 
harmful.  When is it going to be your turn to justify your beliefs on the 
same basis?  And what will you do if you fail?

--


Paul Dubuc 		{cbosgd, ihnp4} !cbscc!pmd

  "The true light that enlightens every man was coming
   into the world..."		(John 1:9)