What would it take for Josh Travis to believe?
Lets entertain the idea that a god could exist, that there may be life after death.
If its unreasonable to believe something that can never be demonstrated or experienced by the living, how could one believe in God or life after death?
I can think of a couple of responses. First, if life after death and God are things that can indeed be demonstrated or experienced. And yes, there have been many claims that "life" was experienced in some manner after a person "died". These claims are well worth investigating. The broad questions one should ask in such an investigation are 1) is the claim a lie/fabrication? 2) could the experience have been something other than what it seemed, like a dream?
One may also prove, with a logical argument, that God exists. If prophecy comes from God, and prophecy is fulfilled, then God exists. This is a troublesome way of proving the existence of God because one would first have to establish that fact that a certain prophecy really came from God and that the prophecy really was fulfilled. The latter fact would be difficult to establish, and the first nearly impossible. Psychic phenomena, well informed guessing, time machines, and so on are more reasonable explanations for fulfilled prophecy than the existence of God.
However, the mention of God in a prophecy that later came about would lend support to, but not prove, the reality of that prophecy. One could "prophecy" that God is going cause a landslide along Highway 21 north of Idaho City on January 1st, 2007. On that date, the "prophet" could blow up a cliffside with dynamite; and with the act, convince a large number of people that the prophecy was true, that he was a prophet, and that, say, God told him to take 20 young brides. However, its clear that God had nothing to do with the occurance or claims.
Prophecy is also a tricky subject because, as we are all aware, self-fullfilling prophecy is a real phenomenon. More likely, in my opinion, is the fulfillment of prophecy due to random, natural occurances. In my life I've seen many blood-red suns. Over the centuries, there have been thousands of instances in which the sun, or nature in general, takes on an unusual appearance. Every such instance is an opportunity for an ancient prophecy which refers to a blood-red sun to be "proven". If there is a conjunction of enough random factors, believers will undoubtedly point them out as evidence of the impending apocalypse, or whatever prophecy conveniently fits.
Finally, when a person speaks in an extraordinary manner of events yet to come, it is much more likely that he or she is schizophrenic or is being fooled by someone hiding behind a bush, than it is the person is a prophet of God.
Note that "Prophet of God" is a concept which is implies that a god exists; which, as I've claimed, is something that cannot be demonstrated and has yet to be proven by logical argument. However, "prophet of God" is a common phrase, thanks to tradition. Tradition is filled with phrases such as this. An entire book called the Bible, could be conceived as one large phrase like "prophet of God" implying but not proving the existence of God. Countless ideas and common knowledge is derived from the Bible, yet all this phraseology amounts to as much real proof of the existence of god as a three word phrase.
For centuries, religion has continued to exist in spite of much more scientific, reasonable explanations for its outrageous claims. A strategy that has served religious people well is burying the argument of God's existence in irrelevant scripture and emotionally appealing stories. The massive quantity of text which religion has built around itself, as foundation and bulwark, has granted it great authority and apparent authenticity. The proper, formal language (ie King James version of the Bible) and scripture's characterization of God as a forceful, willful, powerwielding diety also serve to grant religion an undeserved credibility. When it comes to convincing others of a claim; being loud, confident, pompous, forceful, and intimidating (as God is in the Old Testament and as religion tends to be) is perhaps the best of all methods available.
With all this said, with these problems recognized, I still maintain that belief in an afterlife and God could be proven beyond a reasonable doubt if:
1) near-death experiences were validated,
2) an argument sound and extensive enough was constructed, or
3) I experienced these things directly
If its unreasonable to believe something that can never be demonstrated or experienced by the living, how could one believe in God or life after death?
I can think of a couple of responses. First, if life after death and God are things that can indeed be demonstrated or experienced. And yes, there have been many claims that "life" was experienced in some manner after a person "died". These claims are well worth investigating. The broad questions one should ask in such an investigation are 1) is the claim a lie/fabrication? 2) could the experience have been something other than what it seemed, like a dream?
One may also prove, with a logical argument, that God exists. If prophecy comes from God, and prophecy is fulfilled, then God exists. This is a troublesome way of proving the existence of God because one would first have to establish that fact that a certain prophecy really came from God and that the prophecy really was fulfilled. The latter fact would be difficult to establish, and the first nearly impossible. Psychic phenomena, well informed guessing, time machines, and so on are more reasonable explanations for fulfilled prophecy than the existence of God.
However, the mention of God in a prophecy that later came about would lend support to, but not prove, the reality of that prophecy. One could "prophecy" that God is going cause a landslide along Highway 21 north of Idaho City on January 1st, 2007. On that date, the "prophet" could blow up a cliffside with dynamite; and with the act, convince a large number of people that the prophecy was true, that he was a prophet, and that, say, God told him to take 20 young brides. However, its clear that God had nothing to do with the occurance or claims.
Prophecy is also a tricky subject because, as we are all aware, self-fullfilling prophecy is a real phenomenon. More likely, in my opinion, is the fulfillment of prophecy due to random, natural occurances. In my life I've seen many blood-red suns. Over the centuries, there have been thousands of instances in which the sun, or nature in general, takes on an unusual appearance. Every such instance is an opportunity for an ancient prophecy which refers to a blood-red sun to be "proven". If there is a conjunction of enough random factors, believers will undoubtedly point them out as evidence of the impending apocalypse, or whatever prophecy conveniently fits.
Finally, when a person speaks in an extraordinary manner of events yet to come, it is much more likely that he or she is schizophrenic or is being fooled by someone hiding behind a bush, than it is the person is a prophet of God.
Note that "Prophet of God" is a concept which is implies that a god exists; which, as I've claimed, is something that cannot be demonstrated and has yet to be proven by logical argument. However, "prophet of God" is a common phrase, thanks to tradition. Tradition is filled with phrases such as this. An entire book called the Bible, could be conceived as one large phrase like "prophet of God" implying but not proving the existence of God. Countless ideas and common knowledge is derived from the Bible, yet all this phraseology amounts to as much real proof of the existence of god as a three word phrase.
For centuries, religion has continued to exist in spite of much more scientific, reasonable explanations for its outrageous claims. A strategy that has served religious people well is burying the argument of God's existence in irrelevant scripture and emotionally appealing stories. The massive quantity of text which religion has built around itself, as foundation and bulwark, has granted it great authority and apparent authenticity. The proper, formal language (ie King James version of the Bible) and scripture's characterization of God as a forceful, willful, powerwielding diety also serve to grant religion an undeserved credibility. When it comes to convincing others of a claim; being loud, confident, pompous, forceful, and intimidating (as God is in the Old Testament and as religion tends to be) is perhaps the best of all methods available.
With all this said, with these problems recognized, I still maintain that belief in an afterlife and God could be proven beyond a reasonable doubt if:
1) near-death experiences were validated,
2) an argument sound and extensive enough was constructed, or
3) I experienced these things directly
posted by Josh at
12:56 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home