Certainty or wisdom?
Absolute certainty seems to be beyond the human range of ability. Everything can be doubted, and has been doubted. I personally studied with people who doubted that we even exist. It can be asserted that the world was created 10 minutes ago, or 10 seconds. How to ‘prove’ that it wasn’t?
‘Proof’ is a difficult concept, and the history of philosophy has really opened my eyes to that fact.
Wisdom, strangely enough, can eventuate in a kind of genuine certainty, while falling short of formal ‘proof’. For instance, a commitment to a Christian worldview will, over time and with experience, ‘prove’ to make the most sense of the world and of human experience, and provide real hope that the God of the Bible is real, and has a glorious future for each and every person, now and forever. That cannot be ‘proved’, but it is a fruit of wisdom. Or should I say, it CAN be.
As GMac’s father told him: “All any man can do is choose what to believe”.
Again, though this is no ‘proof’, but a catalog of Christian believers shows that belief is not a matter of ‘sentiment’, but the serious conviction of smart, real people.
Paul, Clement, Origin, Gregory of Nyssa, Augustine, Aquinas, PASCAL, Kierkegaard, CS Lewis, Tolkien.
Copernicus, Kepler, Galileo, Descartes, Isaac Newton, Robert Boyle, Faraday, Mendel, Kelvin, Max Planck. And a large number of others in every area of human science, art, humanities.
Perhaps the testimony of these and others is not ‘proof’ of the truth of religion; but neither can it be overlooked. And we could list famous atheists as well, of course. Everything can be doubted.
I’ve been atheist and agnostic, and I could tell that story but it would be:
a. Boring
and
b. Very Boring.
Keep an open mind, seek wisdom, look at the world realistically, and humbly ask for help. What else can we do?
Dave, I love the wisdom and humility of your response. I personally think we cannot avoid the need of doing our best to (imperfectly) sort out claims and world views that make the most sense to us. Yet in the end, the most hopeful ones cannot remove the reality that their reasonable convincingness to us falls short of any proof that would eliminate the need for ‘faith’ that rests on what (and/or who) appears truest to us personally.
My goodness, Brother Bob, I truly don’t understand your motive for dismissing my discussion of Psalm 22, which I provided to “tomatohorse,” a skeptic. Your given reason was that Jews before the Christian era did not recognize that particular psalm as messianic; but that assertion does not address my reasoning, let alone serve his needs.
Granted, most religiously informed Jews in Jesus’ day rejected him as messiah, in part because 1) they chose to focus on prophecies of messiah coming as a lion-like conquering king (2nd Coming), and ignored prophecies of messiah coming as a lamb-like suffering servant (1st Coming); and in part because 2) they were jealous of him.
But I pointed out to tomatohorse that Jesus himself quoted the first verse of Psalm 22; and that by doing so, Jesus himself, from the cross, drew people’s attention to the messianic prophetic nature of that psalm—while the crucifixion details mentioned in that psalm were being fulfilled before their very eyes!
Surely you would agree that now, post-cross, for someone like tomatohorse, an honest comparisonbetween crucifixion details provided in the OT Psalm 22:1-21and crucifixion details provided in the NT gospel passages of Matthew 27:27-47 and Mark 15:16-35, written a thousand years later—details of Christ’s literal, historical crucifixion, e.g., the very words of the insults hurled against him, mention of his clothing being gambled away, of his thirst, of his hands and feet being pierced—provides jaw-dropping evidence of the supernatural nature of the Bible, the certain identification of Jesus of Nazareth as messiah, and testimony to God’s omniscience? And that undertaking that comparison would be well worth any skeptic’s time?
Surely you would agree that a calculated rejection today by non-Christians (even scholarly non-Christians) of the clear prophetic fulfillment of Psalm 22 found in Matthew and Mark would be evidence of their spiritual blindness and hardness?
What IF someone applies your own MO of disputing the validity of given texts according to your penchant for ascribing certain passages to be in error because they don’t match your presupposition you bring to certain texts, i.e., you dismiss such words as deceived, delusional aka just plain false — words ascribed to God you say should be ascribed to the devil etc (as per previous posts in other threads).
So what am I saying?
Could it not be the case that the gospel scribes wanting to attribute messianic status to Jesus simply described the historic event of the crucifixion in line with the themes of Psa 22, i.e., embellishment.
Now I DO NOT believe THAT to be the case at all… BUT it IS an issue someone opposing your position could legitimately raise, GIVEN your own MO for doing the same when it suits you — food for thought as per the slippery slope where that MO potentially leads.
I appreciate the “sincere” and “relevant” concern about my “MO” …from someone who blithely dismisses vast portions of Scripture as only applicable and relevant to people living before 70 AD. (Oh, and “LOL,” squinty smiley faces, and all that…)
P.S. on 1 April (no joke intended):
I apologize to Davo/All for my above sarcasm. I won’t delete the comment, so that people can reference what I said; but today I am reminded that “flesh gives birth to flesh.”
I have been consistent in this forum from my very first post (“Fighting For God’s Nonviolence”) to argue that God would never harm anyone, or do anything to someone that was not ultimately in that person’s best long-term interest.
There are many disagreements over the Scriptures seen in this forum. For example,
God is bipolar vs. God is unipolar
Scripture is inerrant vs. Scripture shows progressive revelation (and hence, ‘the prophets were always right about what they recorded’ vs. ‘the prophets were sometimes wrong about what they recorded’)
A six day Creation vs. Evolution
Cessationism vs. Continuationism
Calvinism/Arminianism vs. Evangelical Universalism
Christus Victor vs. Penal Substitution
Preterism vs. Futurism
Trinitarianism vs. Unitarianism
Angels and demons exist vs. they don’t exist
I would suggest that most (or possibly all?) of these doctrinal disputes arise from conflicting viewpoints about the true nature of God. For example, is He a wrathful Judge, or a loving Daddy? Is He changing, or unchanging? Is God equivalent to the Bible, or do the divinely inspired Scriptures only point readers to Jesus (Logos) and sometimes quote the words of God (Rhema)?
Regarding the Scriptures, we have the promise that the Holy Spirit will lead us into all truth (John 16:13)—He is a humble and gentle Spirit. So we must strive to examine the Scriptures led by that gracious Spirit, and not literalistically led by carnal intellectualism and legalism; after all, the letter KILLS, but the Spirit gives LIFE (see 2 Cor. 3:6).
I guess I’ll have to take that as you being stuck for an honest answer… found wanting
The point is… there are swathes of biblical texts attributing words and actions to God that you because of your own interpretive grid go attributing said words or works to Satan or errant humans. THAT being the case it is not unreasonable for any other sceptics to attribute certain gospel words or events to the whims of the writer thereby intimating said words or events didn’t quite occur as recorded — AND they stand on the self-same assumptions as your own MO, i.e., they question, dispute and disbelieve the validity of the biblical text; something you are all free to do.
HF, Again these explanations are a total farce. If the Bible is the infallible word, then God commanded that an animal sacrifice be presented as an atonement for sin and it was then forgiven. Case closed.
It doesn’t say “Make this animal sacrifice, and you’ll be forgiven or cleansed later when a perfect human sacrifices himself for you.”
The solution to sin was ALREADY given.
Deut. 10:16 -20 "Therefore circumcise the foreskin of your heart and be stiff necked no longer.
Isaiah 1:16-17 “Cease to do evil, learn to do good, seek justice, reprove the oppressor, defend the fatherless, plead for the widow.”
As far as the cost of sin goes, they didn’t need an animal sacrifice to remind them. You reap what you sow, death and destruction.
As I mentioned before, if the Bible IS infallible, and it’s all true about God, then anything goes. He demands animal sacrifices, commands the slaughter of men, women and children. He’s a God of war who loves the smell of burnt flesh and incense, etc.etc. take your pick.
If one can’t tell the difference between the commands of a false god, and those of the one true God, then maybe he/ she does not have the wisdom required for discernment and should not be a teacher. This is one of the reasons why the Levitical priesthood and their teachings were thrown out.
You have to have assumptions, to work with. Atheists will claim the Bible isn’t infallible. Christians will claim it is (whether Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, or Protestant) - for the most part… It’s like Plato with his ideal forms. We might understand the idea form (i.e. Bible), but we have different opinions - on what the idea form means.
So let’s assume God wanted to communicate about himself (or herself). And he wants to give us, a plan of salvation. Well, he inspires writers to do this. So what does “infallibility” mean to me? Well, it means he has communicated about himself…and his plan of salvation…through various writers. This is the Platonic idea form. And what infallibility means to me. But where we have differences, is in what the Platonic idea form (AKA bible) means. And whether there are other factors to consider…as the EO and RC churches claim. If you disagree with my definition of infallibility (which is very broad, in my opinion)…then let me know, where you differ.
And my definition is in accordance, with the Wiki definition at
Biblical infallibility is the belief that what the Bible says regarding matters of faith and Christian practice is wholly useful and true. It is the “belief that the Bible is completely trustworthy as a guide to salvation and the life of faith and will not fail to accomplish its purpose. Some equate “inerrancy” and “infallibility”; others do not.”[1]
Even if we accept the Bible is infallible (by the broad definition, I have mentioned)…there are things in the Old Testament especially…that need to be explained and put into perspective. Which is where I look to Jewish, Protestant, Eastern Orthodox and Roman Catholic theologians and scholars - to help me decipher this.
When I was hanging out for years…with the Native American, Two Feathers Medicine Clan…under the leadership of Duke Big Feather, he once remarked to me:
The God of the Old Testament sure is mean!
To which, I thought:
By golly! It certainly appears that way!
But then again…if I try to explain their Ayahuasca and Peyote ceremonies to outsiders…where I can neither confirm nor deny…whether I have even taken part, in either the ceremonies, sacraments or medicines…It would sound just as confusing, as the Old Testament was to Duke.
Folks of other perspectives, help me to sort out what “wisdom” is. Whether that’s the Native American medicine people…or the practitioners of Sukyo Mahikari and Johrei…or those practicing Yoga (i.e. Heartfulness), Mindfulness and Zen. Or hanging out with folks considered, to be Eastern saints…when they visit the area (i.e. Amma and Karunamayi). They help me to get clarity, on what “wisdom” is.
What I try not to do…is get up on a soapbox, and say:
The Bible is infallible
The Bible is NOT infallible.
But given my definition, most Christians can wrap themselves around it.
So my definition - and the Wiki definition of Infallibility - are what most Christians can agree with. NOT whether Genesis - for example - explains a scientific model of creation…that ignores what various modern scientific disciplines, have to say - regarding the “how” of creation.
Here’s another article to ponder:
Let me quote an interesting paragraph:
In the end that’s incredible news for anyone wanting to make a meaningful attempt to engage a skeptical world with the gospel of Christ. We don’t have to get hung up on the six-day creation and the worldwide flood. Just preach Jesus. Preach his death and resurrection. If your skeptical friend can believe that, then salvation is right there. Stick with the four Gospels. The rest of it will come in time.
I want to say a little something about faith as a basis for why a person believes in any given thing. People in general seem to come back to Faith when it really gets right down to it. “I am a Christian because I just have faith,” or “I believe the Bible is the Word of God because of faith.” Or, “you have to believe in something; I choose to believe in the Bible” (HF, this latter one seems similar to something you said in your last post)
But does it not bother you that the method you are using (faith) to determine what to believe, gives different people contradictory results? Did you know that Muslims can and do use the exact same reasoning to affirm their believe in Islam? They just have faith. Did you know that Hindus can and do this as well?
Moreover, if you believe things simply on faith, you would never be able to escape a false belief under that system. Is that not troubling? I assume you believe that Islam is wrong. A Muslim who accepts Islam, and uses faith to justify their belief, would never be able to escape the error of their ways. Because reason and evidence will just get heavily reinterpreted (or rejected) because it doesn’t align with their faith. Faith as an arbiter of truth trumps all.
But here’s the thing: what if you’re wrong? What if you are in the equivalent place to that Muslim, but just don’t realize it yet?
I submit to you that faith is an unreliable path to truth because it leads to many different contradictory results, and shields you from arguments and evidence that indicate that you may yourself be wrong.
What is your more reliable non contradictory path to truth
Faith is simply that groundswell of belief you adhere to and will defend to the hilt… and THAT can apply to anything — take for example the atheist BELIEF.
A mom - now deceased - who was born with the gift of prophesy
And none of these, “charge admission”, “advertise” or “sell tickets”. And they are like the A-Team, of TV and movies. You need an invite, in order to meet - and find - them. But I have seen many “miracles” in my life, I can’t explain away. So what comes first, the chicken (faith) or the egg (miracles)?
And to the outsider
either I’m telling nice stories
there’s a scientific explanation (swamp gas, bad vision, crazy, stage magic tricks, etc.)
There’s a demonic explanation (that’s hard to swallow. As my mom could discern spirits and seen what I have seen - for the most part. But never raised any red flags.
or I’m telling the truth (as I witnessed and observed it).
Now besides the Bible…go and read (via library, Amazon, etc.)
And tell me which of the above categories I mentioned, these works fall into.
Of course, if you are an atheist…you still need a philosophy, to live by (i.e. Ayn Rand, Existentialism, Zen, Etc.).
But I think I offer, a more optimistic and better world view.
Hermano, it’s the nature of fundamentalists in all religions to be completely unable to understand how everyone does not see what they already assume to be true about their literature.
No,I don’t see how believing Jesus applied Psalm 22 to himself on the cross is any evidence at all that that Bible must be seen as infallible. That’s a non-sequitur.
And no one sees Psalm 22 as providing the details of a “crucifixion,” unless they already see the NT as an inspired reliable book. Indeed, when you assert that the NT provides the “literal, historical” confirmation of Psalm 22’s details, you already assume the accuracy of the NT. Others will assume it would be easy for a writer with Psalm 22 in front of him to simply construct a new account that corresponds to it.
In simple terms, your argument is wholly circular, because you are unable to recognize how someone analyses data, who in not already in the same convinced box as you are.
Not yet. I’m usually a very busy guy. Actual on social media (35 K Twitter followers and 2 sizable Linkedin groups - about 15 K folks)…studying about 5 languages…working out in the gym…etc. And did I mentioned, I’m retired?
Well, you can respond all you want. But I’ll say it’s the same, as explaining snow - to a primitive African tribe. Who has no access, to Internet, TV, radio, etc. They would never believe it. And you have not experienced, what I have experienced.
If you are trying to “sell” atheism, then what philosophy do you “sell” - to go along with it? I have studied classical “atheistic” philosophers - both contemporary and historical - in academia. In fact, I do like some of them - like Friedrich Wilhelm Nietzsche and Ayn Rand.
I will attempt to get to your videos…and multitasking with other things. But here’s my proposal to everyone. If you have doubts (agnostic, atheist, etc.)…find they groups on the web and hang out with them. Spend a few months, with all of them. They don’t charge an “admission” fee:
Sukyo Mahikari
Bruno Groening Circle of Friends
Heartfulness
Johrei
And if you want to have, a more “radical” experimental addentium… then join the Native American church at
HF All I’m seeing here is that if one assumes the whole Bible is infallible, they then don’t have to ask which parts are infallible. True, but that’s no argument that any of it is infallible. Hermano at least offered an argument. But my sense is that both of your approaches are manifestly circular and of no value to someone not already in that circle.
I agree with tomatohorse, that if faith is defined as a substitute for reason, it’s a terribly unreliable approach to investigating what is valid. I’d prefer defining it as resting on the evidence, as one believes that is most reasonably done (even though the evidence for most ideas comes short of ‘proof’).
I said the Bible is infallable, when it comes to God, revealing himself to man…and making his plan of salvation known…I didn’t say I endorse inerrancy. As my Genesis example and modern science, alludes to. Yes, I can find all the “great arguments”, to prove infallibility - and present them here. But folks need to come to their own conclusions…as to whether they embrace, liberal or conservative Christianity, Islam, Mormonism, atheism, agnosticism, etc.
See, Bob. I don’t try to “sell” positions. But as a former technology marketer and copywriter, I can easily do so. But i would be utilizing “marketing principles” - not necessarily the “best logical arguments”. Which can get very boring. If you study anything… like the proofs of God - by Thomas Aquinas…
I did reference some books, folks can read. And some groups that folks, can hang out with. So they can get in, with the “in-crowd”…and find out for themselves.
I saw this thread as asking “why” one believes in infallibility (however that is variously defined). I don’t know if you want to repeat it, but I’m afraid I missed your “great argument” from Genesis, and thus didn’t engage it.
Since you like “great arguments”, Bob…I linked to some articles for you, in my last post. Enjoy the gift
What I said about Genesis…is that I (and many scientists, of various disciplines)…see a disconnect, between a literal 6-day creation rendering of Genesis…and the discoveries of modern science.
