Questions about the current state of the church

[Tom]

[Tom]

[bloop]

(Southern-Baptist/non-denom/Third-Wave Christian) evangelism?

I'm sure your answer was pretty insightful, but I'm not sure I'm part of this "we" (if I recall, I was a bit turned off by them), so I'm not certain I can fairly answer the question.

[Vlad!]

I don't really identify myself with this group either. However, one observation I have is that the church tends to be very church-centric. This makes sense in some ways, but the church is an organization with a purpose. A lot of churches feel more like a club, something introspective and dedicated to themselves. The church is not an end in itself but a means to an end, and many churches have forgotten this, as you mention.

I think worship needs to become less of a performance, churches need to become less caught up in 'church things', and Christians as a whole should be more concerned with entering into meaningful, mutual relationships with non-Christians for the sake of sharing love (and thus the gospel) than with introspection and ingrowth.

[danny316]

Good thoughts, Tom. I have a recurring problem with Internet Monk - I want to hate him because he's part of that "we" group, and I don't like that movement, but I also want to love him because he has some great insight, and he definitely stands apart as being one of the people in that group who's working to improve it.

As much as I'm not a part of that group, iMonk and Tom have some great insights that need to be heard. I'd argue that most of them apply to the church in a larger sense - most American churches have some elements of these issues. It's tempting to say most "evangelical" churches, but it's not exclusively their problem even though they're the most likely to be pegged (probably because so many churches identify themselves that way, and the average person can't figure out what churches are or are not). Perhaps if we focused more on being "good" as the body of Christ instead of being "good" churches, we'd be able to fix all of these problems.  

[MJanke]

[BennieM]

I think, not being an Evangelical but having grown up in one such church, that the Evangelical churches should recognise that not everyone has the position and talents/skills to actually evangelise. As a result it is not, strictly speaking, everyone's job. (All Evangelicals I know seem to think we all have this duty to evangelise, because they interpret the Great Commission as everyone's job--even though it was given to the small group of people who have become known for planting churches. Perhaps not all Evangelicals think this.) Things would get on a lot better if people only evangelised when they had the talent.

Just because I'm a Christian does not mean I have the social and technical skills necessary to explain my faith. In writing, I know I do. In speaking, I know I don't. Anyone who tells me I do, I honestly have to laugh at. God wants us to do well those things that we do. I can't speak well, so it would be silly for me to think that God wants me to do anything but be silent when he's put on trial in word. I'll stick my foot in my mouth. I always do. There's no help in that. And it's a direct refusal to do well those things that we do.

At least that's how it seems to me, someone who has never believed Evangelical doctrine. :shrug:

[bloop]

Just because I'm a Christian does not mean I have the social and technical skills necessary to explain my faith. In writing,

"They will know we are Christians by our love for one another".  I think everyone is to evangelize, at least in the way they lead their lives.  I'm not sure about the more direct way more associated with evangelism, but I consider being exemplary in how you care for others is a form of evangelism.

[BennieM]

"They will know we are Christians by our love for one another".  I think everyone is to evangelize, at least in the way they lead their lives.  I'm not sure about the more direct way more associated with evangelism, but I consider being exemplary in how you care for others is a form of evangelism.

I just call that being a Christian. I don't know why I'd use a secondary term for it.

[BecauseEdwardISEdward]

(dang, this got long, sorry!)

I'm also a fan of the IMonk, and have been for a number of years now. I really appreciate his honesty as well as his even-handed insights into scriptural issues and church issues. It probably doesn't hurt that we both have a similar church mindset (reluctantly Evangelical, semi-Reformed, quasi-Calvinist).

Still, I'm looking all over his sight for the question in question. Do you have direct link?

Anyway, what are "We" getting wrong? I'll try not to rant and point fingers, but focus on the major issues I see.

1) We're gimmicky. The world is used to seeing an asterisk after the word "FREE." Stores have a legalized version of bait and switch (rebates that never work out, limited supply, fine print, ignorant salesmen) that has made of a cynical group of people. When we try to trap people into hearing the gospel through a movie, a song, or famous person we fall into the same rut as ad writers. Christians can come very close to the Amway salesmen who befriend you and then drops out when you are no longer interested in their sales pitch.

In the same vein, we tend to put our hopes into strange things. Remember the whole "If only Madonna would get saved" craze a few years back (Metallica was also a major target)? The thought was that, if Madonna became a Christian, she'd have a better platform than the average person to share the gospel. Not only does this objectify a person and make them a tool, it assumes that people will follow Christ because someone famous does. Having said that, we should rejoice in Alice Cooper, Steve Baldwin, Brian Welch, and Joshua Brown's salvation. We should do it because they are people, not because they are famous people.

Likewise, we have to love. Love as Christ loved us. When Jesus was asked which commandment was the greatest, he responded by telling people to Love. Love the Lord with your being, and Love neighbor.

2) We are overly pragmatic, and often short-sighted. I can get over 20 Christian TV channels on the satellite, with more likely on the way. Mind you, I don't think this is inherently bad. However, it reminds me of Steve Taylor's view of the future where evangelism is reduced to using "satellites by the tower-full." The stations are then given money under the guise of ministry at best (greed at worst), and this is considered by many to be the most effective evangelism.

What is often missed is that the view of Christ on a 30" screen is going to be different than the view of Christ who is written about in Scripture. The view of Christ on the radio will be the same, same as the Internet, the Ipod, and the CD. This is simply a limitation of media. The use of a media will have its drawbacks, and I feel the church sometimes forgets this. I work in "Christian Media" and see it often - the desire to entertain the listeners will present a Jesus that asks for the same commitment as one's girlfriend. (Or, if you tune the dial to a station that seeks to entertain the legalist, the view of Jesus will be one that is grace-free, a Christ that worries more about the amount of wine you drink than the amount of love you show your neighbor.)

When it comes to The Church, our services can be a reminder of this limitation. Rock music is great for entertaining and working a crowd, but its use for a communal worship service may be different. This is not to say rock music has no place in a service --far from it-- but we need to think of the natural consequences of this type of music before launching into the latest worship hit. Rock music is high-energy, highly emotional, youth centered, and based on instant gratification. Again, this is not necessarily bad. However, when these things become unbalanced, what message is the music itself sending? That we burn through so many worship songs in a contemporary church concerns me. That a song like "As The Deer" is considered an oldie after 15 years shows that maybe we are retaining kids in church at the expense of the churches' attention span. If someone we to show up with an organ and hymnals --or no music at all-- would we still view the service as a time of worship?

3) We don't know what to do with the Bible. I could be shot by every pastor reading this (and a few who heard second hand), but I'm not sure that verse memorization is the most important part of learning the Bible. Verse and chapter breaks were added centuries later as a helpful tool. However, we tend to forget that verses and stories do not exist in a vacuum. I've meet tons of people who have verses memorized that I would have never have thought of, but seem to have no idea of context, relevance, or even their meaning. We all know people who can prove anything they want from the Bible -- drinking is bad, going to a bar is bad, going to a movie is bad, dancing is bad, bikinis are bad, slavery is Biblical, abortion is Biblical, abortion is unBiblical, those that didn't "accept Christ" as their "personal saviour" are going to hell, Catholics are going to hell, Orthodox are going to hell, Protestants are going to purgatory, etc, etc etc....

I'm not going to pretend to know exactly how the Bible is to be read, except that my professors always said the three most important words about Biblical interpretation were context, context, and context. The Church is good at knowing verses, less good at knowing the meaning of the Bible. When this happens, the focus on Christ's sacrifice is lost. Christ's work on the Cross tends to get obscured by whether Jesus would approve of  boys with earrings.

I believe this gets into another problem:

a) We don't know how to say "I don't know." In Evangelicalism, there seems to be a fear of admitting that we don't have all the answers. There's a fear of the questions, notably questions when there are no easy answers. We're good at giving verses, bad at giving answers.

4) We must focus on the Cross.

This is a human thing, and I do it as much as anyone else. I believe the point of the Bible is Jesus. His Lordship, his humanity, His death, his resurrection, his judgment, his grace...all of it. In short, if anything is wrong with The Church that needs the most attention, it is that we continually feel the need to pay for our own sins by what we do or do not do. We try to make our own holiness about our actions instead of His.

For a Christian who is called to be an Evangelist (and the rest of us who believe that we are told to have an answer for the joy within us), they should never lose sight of Christ's death and resurrection. We should remember that Christ's work on the Cross, and his love that allowed his death to happen for our sake.

Likewise, we should remember that the Christ's sacrifice is the focus of it all. Not how we feel about it, not how Jesus makes us feel, and not a tool to get out hell.
 

[BecauseEdwardISEdward]

[PaulDA]

This is what I feel is wrong with the church in general:

.....1. We don't mention who Jesus is enough in a loving way (or any way for that matter).
.....2. We don't help disadvantaged people enough (personally, one on one, just giving to charity is a cop out imo).
.....3. We don't really trust in Jesus in the tough times, ie when calamity falls most of us fold up like a cheap camera and moan and bitch about our problems.
.....4. We don't show the world enough of the Jesus in us so that even if we don't mention Jesus they will know that there is something different about us, a peace and happiness they don't have.
.....5. The churches dwell on giving them money (ie: mandatory tithing) too much.
.....6. The TV Christian ministries are mostly whacky. Everything is tied into "give a donation and we'll send you this prayer cloth as a point of contact" garbage.
.....7. People with certain problems will not be accepted readily. Oh yes, drug and alcohol abuse is fine to bring up in an overcoming testimony or telling of their current struggle in front of the congrgation, but I'll bet few people would dare get up and say they are struggling with a sexual attraction to children or are homosexual. The church is supposed to welcome people with open arms and pray for them, but instead the church has many back stabbing gossipping leeches.

[Brenden]

.....1. We don't mention who Jesus is enough in a loving way (or any way for that matter).

Agreed, I don't think a lot of the church really understands what Jesus taught.

.....2. We don't help disadvantaged people enough (personally, one on one, just giving to charity is a cop out imo).

In some cases, yes, but if someone gives to a charity it's still helping those in need. That may be all they're physically able to do, though yes, some do to make themselves feel better.

.....3. We don't really trust in Jesus in the tough times, ie when calamity falls most of us fold up like a cheap camera and moan and bitch about our problems.

Even David "moaned and bitched" about his problems. Or so Psalms would indicate. But yes, lack of trust is a problem.

.....4. We don't show the world enough of the Jesus in us so that even if we don't mention Jesus they will know that there is something different about us, a peace and happiness they don't have.

Yes, totally agree here.

.....5. The churches dwell on giving them money (ie: mandatory tithing) too much.

I think so, but it's not a big deal to me. Unless they put tons of emphasis on money and gains, and not enough emphasis on the heart of the giver. Giving because you want something seems a bit selfish to me.

.....6. The TV Christian ministries are mostly whacky. Everything is tied into "give a donation and we'll send you this prayer cloth as a point of contact" garbage.

Haven't seen many TV preachers, but a lot are goofy.

.....7. People with certain problems will not be accepted readily. Oh yes, drug and alcohol abuse is fine to bring up in an overcoming testimony or telling of their current struggle in front of the congrgation, but I'll bet few people would dare get up and say they are struggling with a sexual attraction to children or are homosexual. The church is supposed to welcome people with open arms and pray for them, but instead the church has many back stabbing gossipping leeches.

Don't forget, a struggling christian will also be cast out. I agree totally here.

[Tom]

MJanke: in retrospect indeed i should have put a qualifier on my response to the original question. i should have said, "my response is based on what i have seen in churches in Arkansas."

in my life i have been to services at quite possibly 100 different churches in Arkansas of many differing persuasions doctrinally. and my response was reactionary to what i have seen as the problems occuring most often in this particular micro-cosm of the evangelical world.

as far as the word evangelical goes, any professing Christian should be to some extent "evangelical" by default, because the root word "evangel" literally means good news / Gospel. don't all Christians have good news? however the tag "evangelical" has proved to be less than flattering of late because a  lot of rather odd people have absconded the term evangelical. this is just a case of needing to clarify what the word means in light of social distortions.

the very reason C. S. Lewis wrote "Mere Christianity" was to adress the encroaching ambiguity that the word "Christian" was gathering. honestly, i feel that we're in need of someone with Biblical discernment to write a "Mere Christianity" for the 21st century. "Christian" has become a very vague and ambiguous term that people rarely probe to make sure it is used Biblically when someone says, "Oh yes, I'm a Christian."

my own theological views lean: mostly reformed, late-blooming reluctant Calvinist, evangelical in the literal not socially distorted sense, Baptist.

[BennieM]

honestly, i feel that we're in need of someone with Biblical discernment to write a "Mere Christianity" for the 21st century.

Why would we need that? The book is still spot-on, and it's still very widely read.

If they won't listen to a book they can already get, they won't listen to one that rises from the dead.

the very reason C. S. Lewis wrote "Mere Christianity" was to adress the encroaching ambiguity that the word "Christian" was gathering.

No, it wasn't. He wrote it because he was asked to give a series of broadcast talks on what Christianity is. He didn't do it with a motive of clearing up a word.

[Tom]

"Why would we need that? The book is still spot-on, and it's still very widely read."

because new heresies have emerged since the book was written. but perhaps it would only need to be a booklet addressing new wackiness to be used in conjunction with MC. because you're right, MC is spot on.

"No, it wasn't. He wrote it because he was asked to give a series of broadcast talks on what Christianity is. He didn't do it with a motive of clearing up a word."

you have a good point there. but the book is remarkably adept at debunking heresy even if that was not the sole intent.

[BennieM]

new heresies have emerged since the book was written.

Not one. All possible Christian heresies were invented and debunked hundreds of years ago. They only tend to change the masks they're wearing. It's only a matter of being enough of an historian to recognise the new forms of Arianism, etc. But trust me, as far as heresies go, 'there's nothing new under the sun'. It's all been tried before--usually before Christianity even came on the scene.

Different heresies have become the more popular ones, though. That is true.

the book is remarkably adept at debunking heresy even if that was not the sole intent.

I'll definitely agree to that.  =) In general, Lewis does very well at debunking--but especially when he doesn't set out to (such as in An Experiment in Criticism).

[MJanke]

Not one. All possible Christian heresies were invented and debunked hundreds of years ago. They only tend to change the masks they're wearing. It's only a matter of being enough of an historian to recognise the new forms of Arianism, etc. But trust me, as far as heresies go, 'there's nothing new under the sun'. It's all been tried before--usually before Christianity even came on the scene.

Gotta agree with Bennie here.

[PaulDA]

^I don't agree because I don't believe the church even has all the basics down properly.
For instance, just because we believe God is a Trinity or that Jesus is God doesn't make it a fact.
Those two things may be factual and I believe they are, but no one will really know for sure until they die. We just have to believe by faith ebcause everything is based on interoretations of the Bible, and just because something is believed by the majority of Christians or just because the majority of Christians interpret the Bible a certain way doesn't make it automatically correct.

[BennieM]

For instance, just because we believe God is a Trinity or that Jesus is God doesn't make it a fact.
Those two things may be factual and I believe they are, but no one will really know for sure until they die.

I'm completely sure that the Trinity is true. I accepted it because I've tried pretty much all the heresies on the market, but only the Athanasian Creed (the exposition of the Trinity to which all Christians actually do subscribe, whether they like the idea of creeds or not) makes sense.

I believe in the Trinity not on faith, but because it lets me see everything else clearly. It is certainly a mystery. But so are a lot of other things that I believe in: how eyesight gets to my brain, how I can take experience and write a book. It's a mystery because it's so familiar to us. It's not a mystery because it's 'out there' and incomprehensible. That is not what a Christian mystery is. The mysterious is held close and, if not yet understood, at least accepted as wholly usward.

[PaulDA]

For instance, just because we believe God is a Trinity or that Jesus is God doesn't make it a fact.
Those two things may be factual and I believe they are, but no one will really know for sure until they die.

I'm completely sure that the Trinity is true. I accepted it because I've tried pretty much all the heresies on the market, but only the Athanasian Creed (the exposition of the Trinity to which all Christians actually do subscribe, whether they like the idea of creeds or not) makes sense.

I believe in the Trinity not on faith, but because it lets me see everything else clearly. It is certainly a mystery. But so are a lot of other things that I believe in: how eyesight gets to my brain, how I can take experience and write a book. It's a mystery because it's so familiar to us. It's not a mystery because it's 'out there' and incomprehensible. That is not what a Christian mystery is. The mysterious is held close and, if not yet understood, at least accepted as wholly usward.

That is all well and good, but it is still your opinion of how to interet the nature of God.
Just as it is my opinion also that God is a Trinity.
Just as we believe Jesus is God.
It is our opinion based on what we feel the Bible teaches.
As sure as we may be, we will not know any of this for sure until we die.

[BennieM]

As sure as we may be, we will not know any of this for sure until we die.

   

[PaulDA]

Well, it's true. We can believe with all out heart that Jesus is God and that we are going to be saved, but we really won't know absolutely until we die.
Or, if the dead stay dead until the resurrectiuon, as many Christians believe, we won't know until the resurrection if it is true.

[Aaron]

Well, it's true. We can believe with all out heart that Jesus is God and that we are going to be saved, but we really won't know absolutely until we die.
Or, if the dead stay dead until the resurrectiuon, as many Christians believe, we won't know until the resurrection if it is true.

so you have no faith?

[PaulDA]

Well, it's true. We can believe with all out heart that Jesus is God and that we are going to be saved, but we really won't know absolutely until we die.
Or, if the dead stay dead until the resurrectiuon, as many Christians believe, we won't know until the resurrection if it is true.

so you have no faith?

No, that doesn't mean that.
It's good to have faith but no good to have faith in something that isn't true.
Millions of Christians have faith that we go to Heaven the moment we die.
Millions of other Christians have faith that we lay in the grave until the resuurection, then go to Heaven.
We can have faith all we want to, but if the thing we have faith about is false, then our faith in that false thing is also false.
We all believe Jesus is God and that we will be saved, but I don't care how sure anyone says they are in THIS life, they simply do not know for sure, and won't know until they die and /or the resurrection.

[BennieM]

We all believe Jesus is God and that we will be saved, but I don't care how sure anyone says they are in THIS life, they simply do not know for sure, and won't know until they die and /or the resurrection.

I know that Jesus is God and the Trinity is true, as well as I know things fall by gravity. How's that for an answer?

[danny316]

I know that Jesus is God and the Trinity is true, as well as I know things fall by gravity. How's that for an answer?

It's lacking in respect to empiricism. You can absolutely prove gravity through science. The only way to prove our faith is to put it to the test, and yes, dying would be a way of testing our "I'll go to heaven if I die a Christian" theory.

Not to rail against faith here, since that has it's place, but ultimately, absolute proof does reside in testable facts. Faith allows us to believe in Christian ideas before we can test them, and there's nothing inherently wrong with that - it's just that you can't respect them in the same way you can respect provable facts. Until a belief can be tested, it can't be respected that way.

(Before anyone shoots, I know I'm being heretical and that in the bible the apostle Paul recommends having an attitude of only knowing Christ and Him crucified. Deal with it.)

[BennieM]

You can absolutely prove gravity through science.

No, you can't. That's not how science works.

The only way to prove our faith is to put it to the test, and yes, dying would be a way of testing our "I'll go to heaven if I die a Christian" theory.

I think your idea of the word 'proof' needs serious work. Nothing, by your definition, can be proved. 'The only way to prove your scientific theory is to put it to the test. The only way to prove your test's method is to put it to the test. The only way to prove the test that proved the test's method is to put it to the test.' ... keep going ... 'The only way to prove that the gauge was read right is to prove that your eye was functioning properly at the time. The only way to prove that your eye was functioning properly is to invent time travel and watch yourself with new eyes. Now, the only way to prove that in this new experiment, wherein your new eyes watch the old ones...'

It isn't viable. It isn't even reasonable. No scientist is as hard-assed as that.

Until a belief can be tested, it can't be respected that way.

Test the hypothesis that your thinking is logical, then.

Faith allows us to believe in Christian ideas before we can test them, and there's nothing inherently wrong with that - it's just that you can't respect them in the same way you can respect provable facts.

Gravity is a theory, not a fact. 'This ball fell' is a fact. 'This ball is drawn at a particular acceleration, by this mechanism' is a theory.

I don't recommend you deify the work of us research scientists. You may be disappointed one day. What we do isn't all so 'factual' and, if you were to actually sit in on our jobs, I think you'd find we (by your definition) prove nothing. But I also think you'd find we make great progress and do good science.

[PaulDA]

I know that Jesus is God and the Trinity is true, as well as I know things fall by gravity. How's that for an answer?

You simply cannot know for sure that Jesus is God except by having faith.
You can physically test gravity, you cannot physically test to see if Jesus is God.

[Brenden]

You simply cannot know for sure that Jesus is God except by having faith.

Also, I would think that if I could be sure, then I would never hve a doubt, because I would say "but this, this, and this prove that Jesus is God beyond all question".

[BennieM]

[danny316]

No, you can't. That's not how science works.

I suppose that scientists would be unlikely to label anything as absolutely true, but there really isn't much reason to doubt gravity.

I think your idea of the word 'proof' needs serious work. Nothing, by your definition, can be proved. 'The only way to prove your scientific theory is to put it to the test. The only way to prove your test's method is to put it to the test. The only way to prove the test that proved the test's method is to put it to the test.' ... keep going ... 'The only way to prove that the gauge was read right is to prove that your eye was functioning properly at the time. The only way to prove that your eye was functioning properly is to invent time travel and watch yourself with new eyes. Now, the only way to prove that in this new experiment, wherein your new eyes watch the old ones...'

I can not shake the idea that you're just trying to be funny here. Do you really mean to completely dismiss the only mechanism we have for finding things out?

It isn't viable. It isn't even reasonable. No scientist is as hard-assed as that.

Yes, and debating is for children. Why, seriously, should we not trust this method?

Test the hypothesis that your thinking is logical, then.

We already had a thread on that, and nobody was interested in it. I doubt there'd be any interest in a retread of that thread either, and I think I've made more than a few enemies here who'd enjoy a chance to poke at my thinking too.

Gravity is a theory, not a fact. 'This ball fell' is a fact. 'This ball is drawn at a particular acceleration, by this mechanism' is a theory.

Well, yeah, if measuring things is as good as some idea that a moron came up with about literal creationism.

I don't recommend you deify the work of us research scientists.

Straw man! I never did anything to deify science here. I'd be a fool to pick anything that I knew wasn't God and decide to deify it.

You may be disappointed one day. What we do isn't all so 'factual' and, if you were to actually sit in on our jobs, I think you'd find we (by your definition) prove nothing. But I also think you'd find we make great progress and do good science.

I take it you're some sort of scientist? That's scary, considering that you trust gravity as much as you trust a God you've never seen.

I'd be interested in seeing what definition you use for proof. If we can never trust anything we observe, then I'm guessing you're going by some abstract philosophical method?

[MJanke]

I take it you're some sort of scientist? That's scary, considering that you trust gravity as much as you trust a God you've never seen.

1 Corinthians 1:18: For the message of the cross is foolisness to those who are perishing but to us who are being saved it is the power of God.

1 Cor 1:25: For the foolisness of God is wiser than man's wisdom and the weakness of God is stronger than man's strength.

1 Cor 2:14: The man without the Spirit does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him and he cannot understand them because they are spiritually discerned.... For who has known the mind of the Lord that he may instruct him? But we have the mind of Christ.

Scientists have, over the centuries, re-thought theories and facts that previously seemed to be fully known and trusted. That is why a good scientist will never balk at a competing theory - because if what he believes in already is true then he has nothing to be afraid of; if it is not true then as a scientist he should want that disproven so he can grasp the real truth.

It is not a scary thing to trust in God. And while I appreciate and respect science and believe that God reveals himself to us not only through his Word but through his creation (nature) - which is why I do not believe in a young universe - I will gladly say that I ultimately trust God just as much as the law of gravity or anything else one might care to mention.

Ultimately, matters of faith can never be proven, otherwise there would be no need for faith. One can reason themself very close to god but in the end at least some small step of faith will be required. But having faith is not weak or ignorant or something to be looked down upon - it is not purely foolish. Without faith it is impossible to please God. The man who refuses to believe anything without firm, incontrovertable proof, is ultimately putting himself at the center of creation and making himself the god of all things - his lack of faith will not in the end be something to be commended but something to be saddened about because in his pride he has missed the key to our existence.

[BennieM]

No, you can't. That's not how science works.

I suppose that scientists would be unlikely to label anything as absolutely true, but there really isn't much reason to doubt gravity.

No, there isn't. It has strong intellectual arguments in its favour. I believe in gravity as absolutely as anything. You'll notice I started this conversation out of my certainty in the truth of gravity, not out of my doubt.

I believe in gravitational theory like I believe in the sun; its best support isn't that I can look at it; its best support is that by it I can see everything else. It makes sense out of things that are otherwise nonsense--not merely out of itself and some evidence we get.

I think your idea of the word 'proof' needs serious work. Nothing, by your definition, can be proved. 'The only way to prove your scientific theory is to put it to the test. The only way to prove your test's method is to put it to the test. The only way to prove the test that proved the test's method is to put it to the test.' ... keep going ... 'The only way to prove that the gauge was read right is to prove that your eye was functioning properly at the time. The only way to prove that your eye was functioning properly is to invent time travel and watch yourself with new eyes. Now, the only way to prove that in this new experiment, wherein your new eyes watch the old ones...'

I can not shake the idea that you're just trying to be funny here. Do you really mean to completely dismiss the only mechanism we have for finding things out?

Well, I wasn't really trying to be incredibly serious, no. But that is the logical result of your argument: trust nothing.

It's not the only mechanism we have for finding things out. Even within science the greatest force for theories is not observation but logical argument: 'first principles', conservation laws derived with special assumptions, etc. The best accepted theories start with logical argument. You then write a paper with some computer simulations. You then hope an experimentalist goes, "Ooh, how nifty!" and tries to check it out. You then see what the actual results are. You then review your assumptions.

Based upon your responses, I don't think you actually know how the scientific community works. But I really can't blame you. High school and undergrad give you really, really distorted views of it, even if you're in a technical discipline. Until a couple years ago, I had no idea! But I think this makes far more sense.

It isn't viable. It isn't even reasonable. No scientist is as hard-assed as that.

Yes, and debating is for children. Why, seriously, should we not trust this method?

I trust the scientific method as much as I trust anything. (Again, this detour started because I expressed by conviction of its truth and its accuracy, not my doubt in its methods.) But what you are championing isn't it.

Gravity is a theory, not a fact. 'This ball fell' is a fact. 'This ball is drawn at a particular acceleration, by this mechanism' is a theory.

Well, yeah, if measuring things is as good as some idea that a moron came up with about literal creationism.

First of all, 'measuring things' has practically nothing to do with gravitational theory, except at the very last stages.

Second of all, not all theories are equally valid or believable. But still none of them are 'facts' either. That is all I said.

Straw man! I never did anything to deify science here. I'd be a fool to pick anything that I knew wasn't God and decide to deify it.

Perhaps 'deify' was too strong. 'Trust to give you something they don't promise' might be better.

I take it you're some sort of scientist?

A chemical engineer in research/computation.

I take it you're some sort of scientist? That's scary, considering that you trust gravity as much as you trust a God you've never seen.

Why is that scary? My conviction is based, as I have said from the beginning of this detour, on my certainty in both--not in my faith or doubt in either. My certainty in God is derived from argument (I was convinced of Christianity intellectually first) as much as my certainty in gravity--but in a slightly different way. But in both cases I believe in them as I believe in the sun.

I have no idea where you're getting this idea that I doubt gravitational theory even one sip.

I'd be interested in seeing what definition you use for proof. If we can never trust anything we observe, then I'm guessing you're going by some abstract philosophical method?

I use the plain man's (and the scientist's) understanding. Develop a logical argument with certain assumptions. 'Scientific proof' is in whether the model stacks up to some trials in the real (not computational) world--or in whether, from other experiements, the assumptions are already known to be accurate. But since perfect agreement is never likely, your 'proof' could involve some bad assumptions to be cleared away later.

[danny316]

1 Corinthians 1:18: For the message of the cross is foolisness to those who are perishing but to us who are being saved it is the power of God.

1 Cor 1:25: For the foolisness of God is wiser than man's wisdom and the weakness of God is stronger than man's strength.

1 Cor 2:14: The man without the Spirit does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him and he cannot understand them because they are spiritually discerned.... For who has known the mind of the Lord that he may instruct him? But we have the mind of Christ.

Yeah, from a purely religious perspective. Didn't I acknowledge being heretical here earlier? I'm trying to be realistic instead of religious here.

Scientists have, over the centuries, re-thought theories and facts that previously seemed to be fully known and trusted. That is why a good scientist will never balk at a competing theory - because if what he believes in already is true then he has nothing to be afraid of; if it is not true then as a scientist he should want that disproven so he can grasp the real truth.

All true.

It is not a scary thing to trust in God. And while I appreciate and respect science and believe that God reveals himself to us not only through his Word but through his creation (nature) - which is why I do not believe in a young universe - I will gladly say that I ultimately trust God just as much as the law of gravity or anything else one might care to mention.

I'd have to disagree. Knowing what I do about you though, I imagine it's far easier for you to believe than it is for me. It's been quite scary for me to believe in God the way I have....a truly omnipotent, omniscient, loving diety that doesn't rely on frail humans for his existance? That's hard for anyone to wrap their head around (for good biblical reasons you've mentioned), but it's much harder when you see nearly everyone else who claims your religion painting a very different looking God than you're used to.

I think that you, having a much more common evangelical idea of God, have a much easier time believing in Him. Other people reinforce your beliefs, and intentionally or not, they give you reasons to believe that don't have much meat behind them. It's understandable. I (thinking your beliefs are beyond heretical), really don't have any popular support for my beliefs. Imagine, for a moment, trusting in one God, while everyone else believes a God that seems heretical to you who wants them to do things that you think are crazy and even hurtful. It leads to quite a bit of doubt, and makes you wonder if your beliefs are incorrect (for the curious, I do still think that most of my more off-kilter beliefs are correct, and I believe in a God that humbles himself enough to let heresy become more common, even though that seems bizarre).

So I must say I think it is scary to trust God, but I can see completely why you'd disagree. I'm glad that we agree that God does reveal himself in nature, and that we can learn more truths by exploring it, but I have to disagree that beliefs on what's God's like are completely trustworthy. Sorry, but it just seems way too easy for someone to trust a heretical belief (again, since you don't refer to people as heretics as often as I do, I'm guessing you can't relate much here).

Ultimately, matters of faith can never be proven, otherwise there would be no need for faith.

Generally agreed, but like I said, we could prove our faith in Jesus' promise of heaven by dying a Christian in good faith and seeing what happens. We just don't have a way of communicating the result of that back to other humans.

One can reason themself very close to god but in the end at least some small step of faith will be required.

As much as I hate that answer, you're correct as far as I can see here. I'm not the strongest in the faith department, so I generally prefer facts and reasoning to it when I can have it, and I'm more than a bit annoyed that Christianity doesn't work without faith. That's just me though, to the best of my current knowledge, what you said here holds.

 But having faith is not weak or ignorant or something to be looked down upon - it is not purely foolish.

I never said it was, and I acknowledge that from a biblical perspective, it's not foolish at all to have faith. Although, in a greater sense, I do think that faith in some things can be foolish (Say I had faith in the idea that gravity would make things fly upward).

 Without faith it is impossible to please God. The man who refuses to believe anything without firm, incontrovertable proof, is ultimately putting himself at the center of creation and making himself the god of all things - his lack of faith will not in the end be something to be commended but something to be saddened about because in his pride he has missed the key to our existence.

I think you're making an unreasonable jump here. Saying "I don't believe in God" doesn't make me God at all. I also don't think that pride is the only reason for disbelief - as we've both acknowledged, there is no certain reason to believe, there is a step of faith involved. I see no reason to look at a skeptic as being prideful.

Plus, of course, there is that possibility that the man without faith could be right, and then the joke is most definitely on those of us who spend our lives trying to please the God of the bible.

[danny316]

I believe in gravitational theory like I believe in the sun; its best support isn't that I can look at it; its best support is that by it I can see everything else. It makes sense out of things that are otherwise nonsense--not merely out of itself and some evidence we get.

Heh, you took that one from C.S. Lewis. Cute, and again, a very good analysis from a Christian perspective. It says nothing about the certainty of God's existance. Yes, I can use Christianity (or gravity) as a way of viewing everything, but I could use a number of things that way, and some of them would simply amount to irrational predispositions. Just because I'm paranoid doesn't mean everything's really out to get me.

I can not shake the idea that you're just trying to be funny here. Do you really mean to completely dismiss the only mechanism we have for finding things out?

Well, I wasn't really trying to be incredibly serious, no. But that is the logical result of your argument: trust nothing.

Ironically, trusting nothing is a belief I hold because it explains everything the way sunlight or gravity does. Do you have a problem with that?

It's not the only mechanism we have for finding things out. Even within science the greatest force for theories is not observation but logical argument: 'first principles', conservation laws derived with special assumptions, etc. The best accepted theories start with logical argument. You then write a paper with some computer simulations. You then hope an experimentalist goes, "Ooh, how nifty!" and tries to check it out. You then see what the actual results are. You then review your assumptions.

Based upon your responses, I don't think you actually know how the scientific community works. But I really can't blame you. High school and undergrad give you really, really distorted views of it, even if you're in a technical discipline. Until a couple years ago, I had no idea! But I think this makes far more sense.

I have a pretty good idea of how the scientific community works, but ultimately, the more simplistic grade-school interpretation of the scientific method works well enough for this debate.

Yes, and debating is for children. Why, seriously, should we not trust this method?

I trust the scientific method as much as I trust anything. (Again, this detour started because I expressed by conviction of its truth and its accuracy, not my doubt in its methods.) But what you are championing isn't it.

Allow me to state what I am attempting to "champion": I'm trying to say that I don't think faith is the most reliable thing. I think both faith and doubt are very important and should be acknowledged in the proper place, but aren't needed everywhere.

Gravity is a theory, not a fact. 'This ball fell' is a fact. 'This ball is drawn at a particular acceleration, by this mechanism' is a theory.

Well, yeah, if measuring things is as good as some idea that a moron came up with about literal creationism.

First of all, 'measuring things' has practically nothing to do with gravitational theory, except at the very last stages.

Well, you brought up acceleration, and there are predefined units of measure for that. Again, we're straying from the topic in our arguments here.

Second of all, not all theories are equally valid or believable. But still none of them are 'facts' either. That is all I said.

Perhaps 'deify' was too strong. 'Trust to give you something they don't promise' might be better.

So what does it take to make something a "" in your book?

Apology-of-sorts accepted. Deify was definitely too strong, but it's nice to see it was only a misunderstanding here.

A chemical engineer in research/computation.

Cool.

Why is that scary? My conviction is based, as I have said from the beginning of this detour, on my certainty in both--not in my faith or doubt in either. My certainty in God is derived from argument (I was convinced of Christianity intellectually first) as much as my certainty in gravity--but in a slightly different way. But in both cases I believe in them as I believe in the sun.

So, you're saying you have absolutely no doubt in God as you see him? To put a negative connotation on that, that's a bit stubborn (again, I'm familiar with the biblical perspective that that's wise...playing devil's advocate I guess).

I have no idea where you're getting this idea that I doubt gravitational theory even one sip.

I'm assuming that any reasonable person must doubt God at least some of the time. Heck, I even doubt gravity sometimes, like when I think I'm dropping something on the floor but I forget there's a table right below my hand.

I use the plain man's (and the scientist's) understanding. Develop a logical argument with certain assumptions. 'Scientific proof' is in whether the model stacks up to some trials in the real (not computational) world--or in whether, from other experiements, the assumptions are already known to be accurate. But since perfect agreement is never likely, your 'proof' could involve some bad assumptions to be cleared away later.

OK. Now for a real fun party-pleaser: Why are you so convinced of the existance of God?

[BennieM]

I believe in gravitational theory like I believe in the sun; its best support isn't that I can look at it; its best support is that by it I can see everything else. It makes sense out of things that are otherwise nonsense--not merely out of itself and some evidence we get.

Heh, you took that one from C.S. Lewis. Cute, and again, a very good analysis from a Christian perspective. It says nothing about the certainty of God's existance.

Yup, I like Lewis quite a bit. You've recognised that it's from Lewis, but we disagree as to how it was originally used. It was used as a Balfour-like argument: I believe this, because nothing else makes sense; I can't honestly disbelieve; I can disbelieve, but it's either illogical or dishonest and/or insane. Everything else is lit by this sun, as far as this sun extends.

Yes, I can use Christianity (or gravity) as a way of viewing everything, but I could use a number of things that way, and some of them would simply amount to irrational predispositions. Just because I'm paranoid doesn't mean everything's really out to get me.

Of course not. That would be quite silly!

Ironically, trusting nothing is a belief I hold because it explains everything the way sunlight or gravity does. Do you have a problem with that?

I have a Balfour objection: It's dishonest. You can't and don't actually believe it. You cannot be human and do so. Or at least, you can be nothing at all like the one human I know best (me) and believe it.

I have a pretty good idea of how the scientific community works, but ultimately, the more simplistic grade-school interpretation of the scientific method works well enough for this debate.

But why should it? It's false, at the worst, or seriously misguided, at the best, as I have explained.

The key difference is that grade-school science has this idea that you prove your hypothesis. Real science does not function that way. It does not even go to the system to prove something. It purports to go to the real world--not to the system--to test if the assumptions are justified to make the logical theory valid in the real world. You know for sure that the theory is valid; you deduced it logically. The question is whether your assumptions are valid in the real world. Grade-school science has no idea of that whatsoever. To a practising scientist, that is a huge difference.

Scientific experiments test your assumptions--the ones you used in deriving your theory from 'first principles'. But the theory is always 'right', if it has sound logic; the question is where it right and when those assumptions apply (if anywhere).

Allow me to state what I am attempting to "champion": I'm trying to say that I don't think faith is the most reliable thing. I think both faith and doubt are very important and should be acknowledged in the proper place, but aren't needed everywhere.

Uhm... I have no idea what you're saying. Well, at least I have no idea what this has to do with the topic...

So what does it take to make something a "" in your book?

I think either my computer is messing up or you forgot a word...? I see, 'make something a "" in your book'. Do you mean (or did you say) 'fact'? 'theory'? something else?

So, you're saying you have absolutely no doubt in God as you see him? To put a negative connotation on that, that's a bit stubborn (again, I'm familiar with the biblical perspective that that's wise...playing devil's advocate I guess).

OK. Now for a real fun party-pleaser: Why are you so convinced of the existance of God?

Have you read Theism and Humanism by Arthur James Balfour (the former British Prime Minister)? If so, I'm essentially saying what he is saying. If not, I'm essentially saying what he is saying. Ask what I mean.  

I'm assuming that any reasonable person must doubt God at least some of the time. Heck, I even doubt gravity sometimes, like when I think I'm dropping something on the floor but I forget there's a table right below my hand.

Me too. I often doubt scientific theories I believe to be true. Sometimes it's superstition. Sometimes it's carelessness and forgetfulness. Sometimes it's something else. But even when I doubt, I know those theories to be true.

[danny316]

Yup, I like Lewis quite a bit.

That's too bad. I can't say I'm a fan. I like some parts of what I've read by him, but some of his other stuff strikes me as absolute crap. That's another thread though, and possibly one I'd be too overwhelmed to tackle well.

You've recognised that it's from Lewis, but we disagree as to how it was originally used. It was used as a Balfour-like argument: I believe this, because nothing else makes sense; I can't honestly disbelieve; I can disbelieve, but it's either illogical or dishonest and/or insane. Everything else is lit by this sun, as far as this sun extends.

I think the analogy has more reasonable facets beyond that. Excuse my ignorance, but you lost me at "Balfour". As for Lewis's logic of not being able to honestly disbelieve, I find it to be pretty flawed. He often gives a mediocre piece of evidence or uses false dilemma to try to make it sound like everyone should agree with him, and then he conveniently refers to dissenters as "foolish" or "boyish", or just says they don't exist entirely. Like I said, I'm not a fan of Lewis.

Of course not. That would be quite silly!

But I've seen things work in ways that are not good, and people chatter when I walk by, as if they were talking about me. It often seems like people do things just to cause trouble for me.  Clearly there is no other way to explain this than assuming that everyone is out to get me, and to assume otherwise would be naive.  (Again, this is bullshit - there's no reason why only some people could be against me, and the ad hominem attack of being "naive" is quite uncalled for).

I have a Balfour objection: It's dishonest. You can't and don't actually believe it. You cannot be human and do so. Or at least, you can be nothing at all like the one human I know best (me) and believe it.

Whoever said I was anything like you? Trust me, I've said that "you can't be human and do so" in many instances where it simply wasn't the case. Humans do some pretty crazy shit.

But why should it? It's false, at the worst, or seriously misguided, at the best, as I have explained.

The key difference is that grade-school science has this idea that you prove your hypothesis. Real science does not function that way. It does not even go to the system to prove something. It purports to go to the real world--not to the system--to test if the assumptions are justified to make the logical theory valid in the real world. You know for sure that the theory is valid; you deduced it logically. The question is whether your assumptions are valid in the real world. Grade-school science has no idea of that whatsoever. To a practising scientist, that is a huge difference.

Scientific experiments test your assumptions--the ones you used in deriving your theory from 'first principles'. But the theory is always 'right', if it has sound logic; the question is where it right and when those assumptions apply (if anywhere).

The idea of something being "absolutely proved" versus just being a "valid idea" isn't a particular big distinction in a practical, everyday sense. Besides, how many kids really would understand the difference anyway? I don't see a problem with the way it's currently taught, even if it is pretty misleading.

Uhm... I have no idea what you're saying. Well, at least I have no idea what this has to do with the topic...

You brought up believing in gravity as much as you believe in God, remember? I'm saying that it makes more sense to doubt God than to doubt gravity. I'm still not sure why you're so certain of God, but I have a feeling this may end up being a moot point once that's been cleared up.

I think either my computer is messing up or you forgot a word...? I see, 'make something a "" in your book'. Do you mean (or did you say) 'fact'? 'theory'? something else?

"fact"

Have you read Theism and Humanism by Arthur James Balfour (the former British Prime Minister)? If so, I'm essentially saying what he is saying. If not, I'm essentially saying what he is saying. Ask what I mean. 

Nope, I'm not familiar with him at all, and the extremely quick search I just did didn't help me much. Care to fill me in?

Me too. I often doubt scientific theories I believe to be true. Sometimes it's superstition. Sometimes it's carelessness and forgetfulness. Sometimes it's something else. But even when I doubt, I know those theories to be true.

Clearly spoken like someone who is not insane. I rest my case.

Oh, wait a second.

In all seriousness, I'm letting that last part fly until I see this proof of God's existance that you find so compelling. I'm just trying to figure out exactly where you're coming from at this point.

[BennieM]

Whoever said I was anything like you? Trust me, I've said that "you can't be human and do so" in many instances where it simply wasn't the case. Humans do some pretty crazy shit.

I am just telling you how I would be forced to honestly react to those ideas in me. It is consistent with the human tradition. I cannot argue any further. But I would be dishonest to deny it in myself. That is all. If it would not be dishonest in you, it would not be dishonest in you: simple! But in that case, you are (as I already said) not much like me--or not much like the world of writers/authors/poets who have testified to this, anyway.

I have nothing further to say. If you're not like me, my reply was (as I already said) irrelevant. I was only dealing with honesty, not logic.

The idea of something being "absolutely proved" versus just being a "valid idea" isn't a particular big distinction in a practical, everyday sense.

Then why are we even having this conversation?

You brought up believing in gravity as much as you believe in God, remember? I'm saying that it makes more sense to doubt God than to doubt gravity.

I doubt both in moments of illogic. I don't understand, though, why it makes more or less sense to doubt one or the other. I believe both because I think they are true. I doubt both in moments when I lose my faith in them, while still believing them true. How, if I am convinced in both cases, can one doubt 'make more sense' than the other? As someone who believes in gravity for scientific reasons, doubting it makes no real sense whatsoever.

So what does it take to make something a "fact" in your book?

You don't make facts. They exist and you note them.

Have you read Theism and Humanism by Arthur James Balfour (the former British Prime Minister)? If so, I'm essentially saying what he is saying. If not, I'm essentially saying what he is saying. Ask what I mean. 

Nope, I'm not familiar with him at all, and the extremely quick search I just did didn't help me much. Care to fill me in?

I'm saying that I can't honestly disbelieve, essentially. I may be wrong. But as a scientist and as an artist and as what Balfour just calls a 'plain man', I cannot doubt that I am right--and for the record, I never wanted Christianity to be right, so it's not wishfulfilment or something. I am a 'plain man'; I'm not made of the stuff that philosophers are made of. And no one should expect me to take their (your?) path, though it be higher and better. But the 'plain man' cannot doubt in theism, because everything he does and everything he thinks requires it to be true. Maybe I should have just explained that earlier.

But the book is well worth reading. It may not be relevant to you, but it was to me.

In all seriousness, I'm letting that last part fly until I see this proof of God's existance that you find so compelling.

Who said I have proof? I've only said that I find myself logically compelled to believe.

We seem to be quite a bit alike, judging from other threads. I think you might agree that being logical is pointless if you're not going to be honest...? After all, we both think that God has given glimpses of Christianity to everyone; being dishonest can't be a good way to use those glimpses. Now, since not everyone is good at logic, but everyone does know what honesty is,  is it not possible that I can be honest without being a good philosopher--just getting on with the things I'm convinced as true (e.g. I should do my job well, art is good, etc.), not actually being able to argue for their validity?

[danny316]

I doubt both in moments of illogic. I don't understand, though, why it makes more or less sense to doubt one or the other. I believe both because I think they are true. I doubt both in moments when I lose my faith in them, while still believing them true. How, if I am convinced in both cases, can one doubt 'make more sense' than the other? As someone who believes in gravity for scientific reasons, doubting it makes no real sense whatsoever.

It's about what the beliefs are based on. Sure, it might not be biblical, but I think that something that is observable is more reliable than something that is not. We can attribute things to God, but we could just as easily attribute those things to something else. I don't think that belief in God is a solid idea the way that something that can be predicted and easily observed is.

That said, Christianity may very well be true, and as Paul said, we'll know for sure (and beyond any reasonable doubt) when we pass away.

You don't make facts. They exist and you note them.

Yes, but what qualifies something to be considered a fact? What makes something go from being a "perception" or "observation" to being what you'd consider a fact?

I'm saying that I can't honestly disbelieve, essentially. I may be wrong. But as a scientist and as an artist and as what Balfour just calls a 'plain man', I cannot doubt that I am right--and for the record, I never wanted Christianity to be right, so it's not wishfulfilment or something. I am a 'plain man'; I'm not made of the stuff that philosophers are made of. And no one should expect me to take their (your?) path, though it be higher and better. But the 'plain man' cannot doubt in theism, because everything he does and everything he thinks requires it to be true. Maybe I should have just explained that earlier.

Everything he thinks requires it to be true? How so?

I think you might agree that being logical is pointless if you're not going to be honest...?

Nope. I respect someone who's logically coherent but basing his ideas on completely idiotic ideas more than someone who sees things accurately and cannot respond to those things in a logical way. In a cruel twist of fate, this means that Pat Robetson is one of my favorite televangelists.

After all, we both think that God has given glimpses of Christianity to everyone; being dishonest can't be a good way to use those glimpses. Now, since not everyone is good at logic, but everyone does know what honesty is,  is it not possible that I can be honest without being a good philosopher--just getting on with the things I'm convinced as true (e.g. I should do my job well, art is good, etc.), not actually being able to argue for their validity?

That life sounds completely foreign to me. I was under the impression that I had to be able to back up everything I say up and down and sideways so that I could successfully fend off any random troll on the internet who disagrees with me.

This idea of "just getting on with the things I'm convinced as true" as interesting. I'll have to give that some thought.