Religion and Verification

Parent Cafe
21

<p>My friend’s point is we don’t know what is going on now–much less what went on 2000 years ago. Yet, people believe.</p>

<p>Why is there no verification from other sources if the “Son of God” walked the earth? Suetonius may have written one paragraph about Jesus in 120 AD. One paragraph. Maybe. Nobody knows. Probably not. You really have to stretch to think he did. And like you wrote-- no resurrection. He sure wrote a lot more about a lot of other people who weren’t the “Son of God”.</p>

<p>I added the Chinese part. That has always bothered me since I was little. Where are they?</p>

22

<p>There isn’t much doubt that the man we know as Jesus of Nazareth actually lived. No serious history scholar doubts it. Only strident atheists with an axe to grind attempt to twist and torture the evidence to the point to try to dismiss it all. Whether Jesus was devine or not is another question - one that cannot be proved by reading ancient documents.</p>

<p>The authenticity of Suetonius’ work is also not in doubt among Classics scholars. And again Suetonius doesn’t make any supernatural claims for Jesus, only that his followers created disturbances and got kicked out of Rome for it. </p>

<p>As for other sources, Tacitus also mentions Jesus. But clearly neither Tacitus nor Suetonius is a Christian. They both mention Jesus in passing when talking about other things. They are both writing from a pagan Roman point of view. That they fail to acknowledge Jesus as the Son of God should hardly be surprising. I don’t see where this proves anything one way or the other.</p>

23

<p>“I think God is very busy and I don’t think choosing the right religion is going to make a difference.”</p>

<p>“The size difference between a person and the universe is probably larger than the relationship between one cell and a human being.” </p>

<p>“We really don’t take up much space.”</p>

<p>The Christian religion teaches that God has unlimited power and is all-knowing. He created everything. But he also wants to have a relationship with each individual person on earth. Your first quote above implies that God is too busy doing other things to worry about you. If God were FINITE, this might make sense. For an infinite God, this is not a problem. According to the Bible, God is powerful enough to simultaneously know every detail about you and every other person who ever existed (e.g. “Even the hairs on your head are numbered.”)</p>

<p>It may be true that you do not find enough historical evidence alone to convince you of the deity of Jesus Christ. But you will find very, very few scholars who believe that Jesus never lived. To determine what is true about the world, you still need to make sure that your world view (be it atheism, evangelical Christianity, Quakerism, Islam, New Age spiritism, etc.) is consistent not only with history but also can explain people’s behavior, why good and bad things happen, how the world was created, how and why “miraculous” things occur, why EVERYONE falls short of even his/her own morals, etc. History is only one very small part of it.</p>

24

<p>Emeradlkitty, you said,</p>

<p>“I don’t BELIEVE he is “the” one- frankly- but he is the one I married and he is the one I have the commitment to.”</p>

<p>BELIEVING:
This is the difference between believing and thinking, to me; anyone can intellectually think to be true whatever they want to think, depending on their interests; that there is or is not a god, for instance; that this or that way of knowing god is the best way (remember Descartes’ dictum: there is no idea too absurd that there is not an intellectual somewhere who will adopt it). </p>

<p>But as I understand it, you can only actually and sincerely believe one thing is in fact true at any one time. You cannot simultaneously believe the opposite thing is also true (the law of non-contradiction, perhaps). For instance, as you say, you “don’t believe he is the one” but rather he is the one you “married and he is the one I have the commitment to.” Not belief.</p>

<p>“sexual attraction” made me THINK that I was in love”</p>

<p>THINKING:
I know nothing about your marriage or love life, and I have nothing but respect for it, but you do write that you “don’t believe he is he one” but that “sexual attraction” made me think that I was in love.” This is accordingly the difference between “believing,” which relies on an inner intuitive sense of truth, and “thinking,” which involves a weighing of interests.</p>

<p>“I don’t really see how this relates to religion”</p>

<p>FAITH:
To me, it relates in this way: religion relies on belief, not the better of different options or choices or theories of thought. If someone is a Baptist, by faith, it is extremely unlikely that I will be able to show them what I believe to be the beauty of Sufism and have them BELIEVE Sufism is the TRUTH inasmuch as they will actually BELIEVE it. They may find it fascinating, even beautiful at an intellectual/romantic level but it is highly unlikely that they will be able to rationally alter their belief to the degree that they will no longer be Baptist and become a believing Sufi. If it happens, it will involve other and deeper feelings.</p>

<p>Although belief in a religion is not the same as belief in God, I don’t really believe in my religion per se, I participate in my religion in order to better understand the God I’m drawn to through love.</p>

<p>I believe True-Love is the same way. Whether the love of another Human being or the Love of God. Belief is too powerful to be considered an opinion or a choice; it certainly involves thinking but it neither begins nor ends there.
I know it is uncommon, but the first time my father saw my mother he turned to his best friend and said “I hope to marry her” referring to my mother. Obviously they married and I’ve never seen two people more in love than my parents…7:30 AM lambada in the backyard…after all these years;) It would probably be difficult for either of my parents to say that there ‘lover’ is the objectively best of all ‘lovers’ in the world, but I think they have faith and an abiding belief that there’s is the best in all the world.</p>

<p>Love=faith=belief</p>

<p>All three are necessary for a glimpse of the transcendent in the Beloved…even if only in art.</p>

25

<p>Great post, Pafather.</p>

<p>I would add that there is more historical proof, from a wider array of sources, for the historical life of Jesus than for the historical life of Socrates, and yet few doubt the existence of Socrates. Why is that?</p>

<p>Socrates’ life and writings are more or less only chronicled by his closest follower and the one who would have most to gain from him as a literary-philosophical device: Plato. Of course there are other references to Socrates, but it really just comes down to a handful of people.</p>

<p>Obviously both Socrates and Jesus are real historical figures accurately described by their contemporaries. Only those motivated by things other than truth doubt it.</p>

26

<p>“Either there is something supernatural in the world or there is not. If you believe that there is not, then you are required to have faith in science to explain away the many amazing coincidences, miraculous healings, and unexplained phenomena that have ever occurred in the world. You may be able to convince yourself, for example, that 100 percent of all miraculous healings that have ever occurred can be explained by modern science or will at least some day be able to be explained away. I personally have a hard time believing this (and I certainly understand science better than most, with a PhD in engineering from MIT).”</p>

<p>I disagree.</p>

<p>I agree that much of what was once thought to be supernatural, or the stuff of miracles (comets, earthquakes, tsunamis, thunder, sunshine, eclipses) has, with the passage of time and the progress of science, revealed itself to have a natural explanation. The domain of the “miraculous” continues to shrink.</p>

<p>Two million years ago, there was no one on the planet earth capable of comprehending any of the phenomena I mentioned in the last paragraph. That doesn’t mean that the principles responsible for them did not exist, or that they were not natural.</p>

<p>Logic does not compell me to believe in either (a) the supernatural, or (b) the infinite capacity of the human mind to deduce the natural causes of every physical phenomena. The inability of ameobas, or dinosaurs, or neanderthals to understand why it gets dark at night says nothing about whether that phenomenon is natural, or supernatural. The failure of homo sapiens, today or in some unknown future, to explain other phenomena likewise says nothing about the existence of the supernatural.</p>

27

<p>since we are splitting hairs here let me elaborate</p>

<p>For instance, as you say, you “don’t believe he is the one” but rather he is the one you “married and he is the one I have the commitment to.” Not belief</p>

<p>“THE ONE” the person to whom you are best physically, emotionally, spiritually suited- I accept as truth that my current husband is not the one.
However- when I married- I hoped that it would work out-
I behave as if he IS the one- but that isn’t what I believe - Happy?</p>

<p>I agree that much of what was once thought to be supernatural, or the stuff of miracles (comets, earthquakes, tsunamis, thunder, sunshine, eclipses) has, with the passage of time and the progress of science, revealed itself to have a natural explanation. The domain of the “miraculous” continues to shrink.</p>

<p>I have had supernatural experiences- espcially regarding healing- know that there is a force of energy that can be tapped into and that crosses species . I can’t really explain it- and I don’t know if it can be ( it may have been) replicated in research- but I beleive that it will be.</p>

<p>

</li>
</ol>

28

<p>“I agree that much of what was once thought to be supernatural, or the stuff of miracles (comets, earthquakes, tsunamis, thunder, sunshine, eclipses) has, with the passage of time and the progress of science, revealed itself to have a natural explanation. The domain of the “miraculous” continues to shrink.”</p>

<p>But is this the point? That this or that event may be explained or beyond current explanation has no bearing on the metaphysics of the supernatural, which is in fact a condition of our thoughts and metaphysics per se. As Jesus said, reiterating a verse in Habakkuk, if need be, god could make the stones cry out. Could, that is. </p>

<p>Proof, or verification, is not a necessary condition of faith or love, in fact it is in some way a diminishing of the essence of love; this is true in either a love of God or a love on earth…though, perhaps not a know-it-all love of proof;)</p>

<p>Rabia, a 10th cent woman and Sufi Saint once prayed,</p>

<p>God if I call on you out of a hope for heaven, deny me heaven
And if I call on you for fear of Hell, let me burn in its flames,
But if I want you for the love of you, don’t deny me your presence. </p>

<p>That is to say, for the deep lover of God, if your belief is premised on things like miracles—even the miracle of heaven—you have more need, than love. It is like loving another human being in order that you may combine your assets rather than to lose yourself like a wave diving back into that which gives a wave life, the ocean of love.</p>

29

<p>“Happy?”</p>

<p>Emeraldkitty, </p>

<p>Either I did not communicate my thoughts very well or there is some other failure on my part involved. I certainly did not mean to criticize you in any way. I respect your remaining committed to your family even if you did not come to believe that any particular person was the one for you. </p>

<p>I always enjoy reading about your experiences in your posts because they always seem brutally honest…that is quite an ability to have. I don’t know that I could be as forthright as that.</p>

<p>I was strictly trying to draw the distinction between thinking and believing. It seems certain that no one can believe what they do not believe, and conversely that anyone can think anything and even defend it as a force of will.</p>

<p>Therefore, to me, belief is sacred and thinking profane. One is beyond our control, the other, thinking, is completely within our control. To me, morality, for instance, is a function of belief, and politics is a function of thought.</p>

<p>Love is also a matter of belief/faith and is not subject to the sort of interrogation that thoughts or opinions are.</p>

<p>That’s all I meant to say</p>

<p>Sorry if it wasn’t clear.</p>

30

<p>I apologize for being snarky- with my happy comment- I get frustrated when I have to explain my language.
To me thinking and beleiving are the same thing
In English it can mean the same thing
however I acknowledge that having “faith” can be different than thinking/believing and that faith encompasses something beyond what we can prove or even explain- however faith can also mean set of principles or beliefs ( perhaps obtained by thinking?)
I don’t take much on faith- I want to be shown how something works- I admit that some I do take on faith - mainly because I don’t understand completely how something works- but if I can understand part of it- I will assume that the logic for the first part holds up for the 2nd part.
I don’t consider myself “religous” because I want to see for myself- hey my grandparents are from Missouri ( the show-me state)
there hasn’t been any religion that didn’t have huge gaps in what made sense and what I could “believe” that I have seen.
But that doesn’t mean I don’t have a code of ethics that guide me in day to day life. I actually find this much more helpful than adhering to a religion which may change their dogma when the leader gets a “sign” from Heaven.
I would find that pretty confusing.</p>