My Response to the Claims and Logic of "Scientific Faith" by Howard Agnew Johnson
The following is my critical analysis of the book Scientific Faith, by Howard Agnew Johnston, published in 1904 by Jennings and Graham, Cincinnati. It appears to be a volume from the "Library of Standard Religious Authors".
I've chosen to quote and paraphrase the author in order to most accurately and concisely present the premises from which he supports his thesis. I attempted to understand the author's points as well as I could, to recant those points, and to give credit to whatever strengths they possess. Of course, the fun is putting them to the test; therefore, the majority of space here is dedicated to extracting that which is illogical or weak from the author's argument and bringing it to light. Johnston's premises are shown here in normal font. My responses are in bold.
1.0 pg 25. "People of every faith, in every land, agree that Jesus Christ is the greatest specialist in character the world has ever known."
I believe that I am an educated individual who makes an effort to stay abreast of current affairs; still, I haven't heard of a poll taken of every person in every land for the purpose of finding a consensus on the greatest moral character that has ever existed. Besides, if a poll were taken, it would amass a great deal of subjective information, which is not the sort of information that lends itself towards the goal of establishing the truth of anything other than the opinions of those polled.
If it were possible to proclaim factually that Jesus was "the greatest specialist in character the world has ever known" (given some agreement could be made regarding the specific morals which are the best), the fact would do absolutely nothing to support the Christian's claim that he was the Son of God. There is no logical connection between great character and divine origin.
And besides, was the author not aware of tough challengers to the "greatest" crown such as Plato, Shakespeare, and Confucius. Given huge advancements in our knowledge of human psychology and behavior in the last 150 years, wouldn't it be more likely the "greatest" specialist on character walked the earth more recently than Jesus?
1.1 pg 26. It is unscientific to ignore the life and teachings of Christ because a vast majority of the world's leaders and scholars are followers.
If a scientist dedicated his life to searching for signs of planets outside our solar system, I don't imagine he could be called unscientific for ignoring the life and teachings of Christ.
Personally, I think it's reasonable to call a person "unscientific" when that person has made it known that she is trying to gather data and new knowledge on the nature of God, but has ignored the life and teaching of Christ. Still, Agnew misuses the the word "unscientific" because the practice of science is not contingent upon the degree to which one considers the opinion or established knowledge of the time. Obviously, those can help, but the ignorance of them can only mean a scientist has acted unwisely.
1.2 The experiment that establishes the fact of Christ involves both studying and living in his way. The confirmation of the fact is an experience... "Time and again the same test can be run, and the result of this living in Christ is a belief in Christ."
There are clear exceptions to this claim that make it rather absurd. I need not list them. The author speaks in absolutes and pays the price for it: he comes across as a fool, or else a person attempting to manipulate the beliefs of week-minded individuals.
The only thing such an experiment could "prove" is that most people repond to a set of emotional treatise in the same way-by believing the factual claims attached to the argument. It is not unscientific to study things from a distance. Clearly, greater truth can be found the more one immerses oneself in a culture or study. However, anyone familiar with human psychology and sociology can warn you of the attraction and effectiveness of group-think, as well as the abandonment of critical thinking when the emotional rapture of social belonging/participation takes hold.
1.3 Like a lawyer has a fine legal mind, or a master musician has marvelous insight and interpretation, only one who has become an expert of Christ and his character can discern the truth about it. Or appreciate the truth and significance of it.
In other words, nearly all Christians cannont discern the truth, for the majority cannot claim an expertise in their religion as a lawyer can claim in law or a master musician can demonstrate in his art. Also, I suspect there are many experts on Christ who are not Christians. At any rate, you don't need to be an expert of anything to be able to discern truth or to grasp logic.
1.4 [the author challenges the reader to come to Jesus, to put him fully to the test]
Ok.
1.5 Writing a book on any aspect of Christian life without being a Christian is the most unscientific thing a person can do.
Is it unscientific to be a scientist and not a Christian and write a book on Christian life? This is an odd claim. Jane Goodal didn't need to become an ape to study Gorillas in a scientific manner. Acting like one helped, but still...
1.6 pg 39. "Faith is the result of reasoning from accepted facts concerning that which is not yet know."
This is good...I like it when an author defines faith for the reader in simple terms. I think this is a good definition. I believe that it's pretty close to accurate. However, the whole "reasoning" thing is usually left out by those who claim to have faith. Faith to them is more a hope than it is the best explanation from established facts.
1.7 pg 39. "...it is reasonable to believe certain things consistent with the facts, but transcending experience."
I agree. However, real "belief" or conviction should be reserved for those claims that have both an extremely high probability of truth based upon the facts and an urgency for action based upon founded positive or negative incentives. In addition, it is easy to say that "it is reasonable..."; but it is entirely possible to deem almost any act or belief reasonable in one way or another. Something is not simply reasonable or unreasonable. There are degrees of reasonableness that correspond precisely to the accumulative quality and quantity of the facts, observations, and logic supporting a particular claim.
Some actions based upon belief might be reasonable--like looking outside, observing that there are grey clouds in the sky, believing that it might rain, and opting to go to the movies instead of playing Frisbee in the park. It is reasonable to believe that it will rain because the actions the belief demands are not extraordinarily burdensome or complex (going to a movie). However, if one were to pick up a book (like looking out a window) and observe that the book warns of dire consequences if one does not obey its every command for the remainder of one's life (the observation, like seeing grey clouds), it could be said that the person's belief in the book would be very unreasonable because the actions it demands are so expansive. The greater the sacrifice demanded of one's life, liberty, and happiness (ofcourse, those three always be said together, in that order), the greater the quantity and quality of supporting facts be established before one can deem that belief reasonable. If one person told me that a giant cushion lie over the edge of a cliff and that I wouldn't be hurt if I jumped, I would still not jump if encouraged to do so. If two people made the same claim, I would refuse yet again. If a hundred people swore that I would not be hurt if I jumped off the cliff, and even if they gave me an incentive for jumping by claiming that a lion was on the loose and heading my way, I doubt I would jump. Photographic evidence might not even sway me. Why would I be so stubborn in light of so much first hand testimony and evidence? Because there was so much at stake; namely, my life. Christians beg nonbelievers to abandon their stubbornness, their high standards of proof, and simply come to Christ, hand over their hearts and their minds, and live in His way. I hope this paragraph explains why its reasonable to disbelieve when it comes to religion...
While the standards of proof or reasonableness are much higher for more demanding claims, it is wise to make a more concerted effort at finding supportive evidence for claims such as those.
1.8 pg 40. "A reasonable faith is when facts justify the confidence or trust..in a person or thing."
See above. Even if I don't know a person well, I might trust that they will come and pick me up at 6pm based simply upon the fact that the person seemed like a good guy and said he would. However, I would be unreasonable to believe even a kind old lady when she claimed she would deliver your businesses cash to the bank for you. It would be unreasonable to believe a priest who claimed your sins would be forgiven if only you join the church and live in accordance with its doctrine.
1.9 pg 40. "Faith is simply the working hypothesis upon which the student proceeds in his investigation."
I would not want to base my actions upon a working hypothesis that singing a lullaby to an angry gorilla would cause it to fall fast asleep. I would not want to simply believe that and then hope that my actions would confirm the truth. Scientific inquiry involves the actualization and testing of scientific knowledge, or facts; which is something that can cost a researcher a great deal of time and energy. By and large, however, the scientific method does not demand a sea change in the scientists personality or lifestyle. The testing of the hypothesis "Christ is the Son of God and the Savior of Man" does require such sacrifice, according to the author.
2.0 pg 41. "....Truly great men ... speak with hesitation about certainty of knowledge."
I included this quote because I thought it was one of the few things the author said that was really wise...and happened to contradict almost everything else he wrote in the book.
2.1 pg 43. "Human consciousness is an effect ... the cause of it is the nature of conscious personality." The continued existence of the world-the balance, the equilibrium, indicates harmony, "points to a ruler of the world who has not lost his power."
It does not follow that since the world exists (necessarily in equilibrium-how else could it exist?) there is a "ruler of the world".
2.2 pg 45. Emotion is a sense just like sight or smell, and is just as capable of discerning truth.
Emotion is who we are. We are not incapable of being mislead or manipulated. Emotion is only capable of discerning the truth of something on its own terms. For example, that ending caused me to feel sad. That song makes me feel happy. My feelings are incapable of determining objective facts of an impersonal nature like who directed the movie or what key the song was in. If emotion is capable of discerning truth, then all religions are true.
2.3 pg 47. "...the affections, the feelings, and the will are also organs of evidence to the man."
A key feature of evidence is that it exists outside and independent of the individual experiencing it...it is fact, it is of objective quality...something that is experienced by all keen observers the same way. Emotional response is very often the same among a large group of people, which does lend some objective value to emotion; however, it is obvious that not all people respond the same way emotionally to certain experiences. There are different responses between individuals based on personality, gender, culture, experience, mental health, etc.
2.4 pg 48. All scientific claims are a matter of simple faith because certain facts are pointed out and reasonable inferences are made.
Some scientific claims might fit this description; but then again, such "claims" will likely be called "theories". Those theories that are found worthy of being called "claims" are usually backed by more than the mere pointing out of reasonable inferences. Exact scientific methodology is used to extend truth to greater truth.
2.5 pg 58. The Heavens are like a clock-they move in accordance to a design. They were made to do precisely what they do, when they do it.
No, all we know is that they Do, not that they are "made to do". The word "made" is both too simple (it does not pretend to understand that things are in a constant state of change and evolution, and that one thing's end is just another things beginning) and too wreckless & bold (in that it implies a great deal-a creator, when it knows absolutely nothing of the alleged creator or the way in which the things were created). I have talked to so many people who have such a hard time grasping the notion that something doesn't have to be "made" to exist, that I've come to believe it's human nature,that it's deeply programmed, to see all things as the sums of previously constructed parts, with definite beginnings and ends. I think this thinking is a signature of the human mind, and not representative of reality. It is the primary cause of the belief in God.
2.6 pg 59. The probability that a human eye could be produced more than once is so unlikely as to make it absurd to think it came from chance.
The fact that we cannot comprehend how something is done is in no way a sign of anything-other than our own limits in understanding. A caveman could not comprehend how a television was created. We make millions of them now. How does one determine whether something is unlikely or not? I've never seen an eye randomly develop, but then again, I've never left this tiny blue speck called Earth, and my life is less than a blink of an eye in comparison to the age of the universe.
2.7 pg 60. Immanual Kant: "The perfection of its development, the order and harmony of it laws, give conclusive demonstration of the Godhead from whom the relations are derived."
It is a romantic thing to say, but is flawed logically in its great presumptions that come from nowhere.
2.8 pg 61. The presence of the religious nature, the moral consciousness in man, points to the moral nature of God-religious instinct point to something which satisfies that in man which gave rise to it.
See above. The religious nature and the moral consciousness of man are cutlural phenomena--something we easily fall into with the right experiences in early childhood--but they are certainly not overwhelming instinctual features of humans. I could rightly draw some connection between moral consciousness to survival, and thus instinct. Again, this does not support a belief in God.
2.9 pg 63. Love is manifest in all law. Its obedience always brings blessings.
This is a strange thing to say. It seems to me also to be obviously false. Watch "The Grizzly Man" and you'll see that nature is indifferent and neutral to the subject of love, except in terms of the bonds necessary for survival. Friendship and love are facts-they really exist-but like so many of the things that are important to us, they exist primarily in the human sphere or consciousness. Seeing that which is unquestionably human in that which is certainly not human is foolish. We may correctly see in many animals human characteristics, including the ability to love, since our physiologies are so much the same. But to say that love exists in the rain, or the mountain, or the stars-it may do us good by filling our hearts with a feeling of love (important and good), but that is the sole truth and value of the claim.
3.0 pg 66. The fact of fatherhood in creation reveals the fatherhood of God as necessary in the nature of things.
Fatherhood is not a fact in creation. In thousands of species, the male does not play a part in the rearing of young. The statement is misleading in that it reinforces the idea that fathers and mothers create a new thing out of nothing. "Creation" in the common sense is not in play here. Rather, a design, or code, (life) which is just fragile enough to be slowly altered (genetic mutation) by its environment (evolution) is on "repeat" or spiraling along (reproducing) through space, as is nearly all observable characteristics in the universe (weather, earth, galaxies, etc). This might sound like a heartless interpretation of life; but, again, human consciousness, human reality, is a true reality, and a much more beautiful, important one than the stripped down, generic reality of the universe, which I just illustrated.
3.1 pg 70. [charge:] "That narrow view which cannot see the love of God in the world has only a Gospel of despair for men. It sees no light in the darkness, no comfort for the sorrowing, no victory over sin. It has never helped the world onward one inch in all the centuries."
This charge is aimed directly at me. Given the potential for despair if one imagines that those they love, and they themselves cease to exist after death, how could I possibly respond to the charge? I would say:
Love, Life, and Hope survive through our children, who are a part of us. Love, Life, and Hope continue on through our fellow men, who are our brothers and sisters. Those who currently do not believe in a life after death are very capable of experiencing the same day-to-day pleasure, joy, and contentment that believers do. There are these things to look forward to. There is Joy and Hope in human progress-in the alleviation of pain and the growth of happiness. Technological progress and new scientific discoveries energize the mind and stimulate the imagination. A belief in Satisfaction can destroy despair. A life well lived, a life that causes joy to look back on, is also a life that's easy to leave behing after the mind and body have become tired. Also, if one were to live an average lifespan, so much could be accomplished and experienced. Freedom and diversity in experience make life special and satisfying...
3.2 pg 87. Without God=without hope. Stoicism="'an apprenticeship of death'".
See Above. I wonder whether certain people-uneducated or of different cultures-would have a more difficult time securing happiness if they did not believe in God? This is a charge the author makes, and its one I'm only able to answer with a guess. I'd guess that people need something special to grant them feelings of selfworth and hope beyond that which pure secularism offers (or doesn't offer). Thinking that that something is necessarily a belief in God is a bit closedminded. Education and training of an unconventional manner might be required for some. Still, nothing additional is needed for millions of people alive today.
3.3 pg 87. Jesus Christ-"...a character so perfect that no man could ever suggest how it could be improved by adding anything to it, or by taking anything from it."
I think Jesus would have had greater character if he had had a wife and children that he loved. I think his character could have used some frankness about the difficulties of life and how to overcome them. Clarity/openness would have been nice. He could have been more democratic and less self centered. He could have written a gospel himself, and written more. I dunno, there are plenty of things a person could propose here.
3.4 pg 90. Man-the highest creature.
No. What makes us dominant over all other creatures is our ability to retain knowledge, to make inferences (predict the future), to control ourselves. We can thank our larger brains for these fairly simple, but significant, upgrades.
3.5 pg 92. Man discovers, has mastery over nature, creates, cultivates food, appreciates harmonies of sound, and makes moral judgment. This proves that a loving father in heaven "would seek to realize in man a constant growth of this fellowship of knowledge and power in a life in union with himself."
Other species discover, have mastery over nature (digging burrows, building dams, killing other creatures), creates, stores food, takes pleasure in things (mating calls-most, sunshine-most, shiny objects-crows & more). I don't get how these sorts of capabilities prove anything about our fellowship with a god.
3.6 pg 97. Thousands have proven Jesus true, have proven his power to be sufficient to give the victory over sin, transforming character.
Changing one's character is entirely possible. When it happens, it simply proves the effectiveness of the training or methods used, not the existence or truth of anything beyond those methods.
3.7 pg 101. The first test of the validity of claims regarding "holy" books is to ask "What result do these writings produce in the making of character?" This is the first and final question. The fact that a book is not scientific is not enough to cast it aside.
(See above) I think that even a 12 year old could see that this is not a logical statement.
3.8 pg 102. The world wants a teaching that will allow it to conquer sin and realize a redeemed character.
We're working on it.
3.9 pg 103. [implied] judging by the life of people (taking into account moral character is the most important factor), the teachings of the Bible have been proven the best the world has known.
Belief is simply one aspect of an region's demographic--and one of dozens of factors connected to quality of life. To say, "Look, nation's that are predominately Christian are the richest, most well educated, least violent nations on the planet" and then to claim that those nations enjoy such a high quality of life because of their belief in Christ; well, one would ignore so many, and so much more complex factors like culture (extends well beyond religion), geography, history (economic, political, military), etc, etc.
I feel strongly that the peace, liberty, and prosperity one experiences is, in large measure, something that was secured by previous generations. Individual initiative is highly important, but the fact that a people have more individual intitiative than other people, or have greater wealth, certainly cannot be explained by each individual's starting from scratch and creating all of this good for himself. Quality of life definitely cannot be explained simply by pointing out a people's particular creed.
That said, it seems apparent and indisputable that a people's morality and work ethic-as it exists strongly within individuals-must be a major factor effecting the people's quality of life. Christianity does good so far as it promotes honesty, self respect, individual responsibility, discipline, happiness, brotherhood, love in general, etc. Its undeniable that Christianity has promoted these values in recent years. However, I understand that Christianity has not always been such a liberal, progressive, and humanist religion. It has always been a controlling factor, and while its control has recently led men to do good, it has in the past (an to some extent still does), justify all manner of slavery, oppression, and violence. Where these have existed, Christianity has sometimes been slow to correct.
I believe that it is very likely that the good religion has done could have been accomplished absent mysticism and claims of divine authority.
4.0 pg 106. Darwin visited a population in 1833 and declared it the most barbaric he'd ever seen. After missionaries converted the people, Darwin returned and was astonished by the transformation that had occurred. He immediately wrote a letter to the London Missionary Society asking to be an honorary member.
This is a strong point--and one that directly challenges my last statement. Could lasting positive change in a nation be made on a large scale without a belief in God? This is a question of logistics. If violence, crime, and poverty were rampant in a country, could an ideology/morality be introduced which would turn things around, and if so, would an ideology/morality be effective if it did not claim to be of divine origin? I simply don't know. And, how important is the humility/fear afforded people by a great authority figure-even a god-when it comes to instilling morality in a people? Could religion be justified in that it is the only way less developed, or less enlightened nations can remain stable, peaceable, productive nations? I'll address these questions later.
4.1 pg 107. John Locke said, "To give a man a full knowledge of morality, I should need to send him to no other book than the New Testament."
I partially agree. The New Testament is a great textbook for teaching morality, but I believe its wrong one many points-especially sexual morality and worship. I disapprove of its content on sin, divinity, worship, heaven & hell, etc.
4.2 pg 110. "The Bible is the record of [god's] revelation."
If its a record of God's revelation, God has revealed himself to be rather vague, repetitious, unreasonable, violent, changing...
4.3 pg 112. "Not the Bible, but Christ Himself, the personal historical Christ, is the ultimate foundation on which ... Christianity rests."
I must re-read the scriptures in the near future so that my memory of Jesus's words and deeds can be refreshed; but as I recall now, what Christ did and said consisted of calling people to repent, to believe; teaching lessons on charity and empathy; sharing some gospel ("the meek shall inherit the earth); and performing miracles. These do not make for a very thick book (keeping in mind the Gospels are repetitive-tell the same story three times) to base one's religion on.
4.4 pg 119 "...that justifies the opinion that any discrepancies which now appear came in through incorrect work on the part of the copyists."
I agree that the discrepancies in the Gospels are irrelevant-they can be explained away easily.
4.5 pg 120 The differences in the ways the gospels were written can be explained by the fact that they were being taught to different people. Matthew-Jews (emphasis on prophecy) . Mark-Romans (power). John-Greeks (humanist, spiritual).
I can accept that. Still, this is evidence that Christianity survives because it appeals to (or "manipulates") public sentiment/emotion instead of relying on the strength of its reason/logic and substance of its message.
4.6 pg 125. God reveals his light slowly-as in the case of Christians view of slavery. Good Christians once thought it just and right. Now the Bible has become clear to them on this point.
How can god reveal his light slowly when every man is supposed to be able to come to him in his/her lifetime? This statement means that a person could be a perfect Christian, could have a close relationship with Christ through prayer, and could have known God's revelation (Bible), yet still kept slaves and treated his wife as less than an equal. A poor excuse.
4.7 pg 126. The lower level of morals that appear to be acceptable to God in old times can be explained by this slow moral progress of man-man has steadily come to understand God better.
If all is dependent upon man's moral progress, then what does God have to do with it? I suppose the statement does not imply that man could progress morally without God. It does imply that man possesses a great deal of independence--that God is hands-off in worldly affairs. I guess this means the Bible came to be just so God could say, "Yo guys, I'm here...see you again in, oh, well, you'll see..."
4.8 pg 136. The emergence of life from nothing was a miracle. That's scientific.
I don't think "miracle" and "scientific" are synonyms. I do see that point, however. Although the author didn't use the following point, there are some theories out there nowadays regarding what existed before the Big Bang; but the Big Bang theory is a scientific theory that has for some time seemed to say that everything came out of nothing. Kinda like "Let there be lights" and bang! there was the universe. I think the author was saying that miracles don't really exist, we just don't know the science behind the event--in which case, I agree.
4.9 pg 137. a miracle is just knowing nature better.
Yeah, sounds good to me.
5.0 pg 144. Miracles were used in early times in order to teach the gospel to an unsophisticated audience-like making things understandable to children. Miracles weren't about proving, they were about teaching.
If you say so.
5.1 pg 146. The miracle of grace-men leaving a life of misery and sin and finding joy in Christ-happens all the time and lends support to the idea of miracles.
I do believe people can make dramatic changes in their lives. A catalyst is needed to begin making changes. A system, or formula, that guides behavior towards certain goals, will ensure the permanence of a new way of living. Christianity provides a catalyst, system, and goal to those willing to change. Life lived without construction will almost certainly produce "sin" and misery. Humans are animals; and as such, there always exists a strong possibility that our behavior may be informed by our instincts (temptation/sin), our chemical/hormonal composition (emotion-anger, despair, etc), or general disorder (lack of intelligence, knowledge, mental sickness). Modern man stifles and constrains these negative influences thanks to a mind that's been focused on progress for thousands of years. Culture and learning keep us in line. Religion, for those people and nations who have lost hold of civilizing forces, most certainly provides a minimum construction (catalyst/system/goal) for raising above the most primitive/animalistic behavior. It is no surprise that "Gods Grace" (this construction) has produced extreme changes in countless lives.
5.2 pg 155. Proof is in character.
As much as I like the idea of loyalty to character, and trust in one's own King, one cannot say that the goodness of a person proves anything that person says. EVERYONE is capable of being misled. Everyone can hold false beliefs/convictions. In addition, countless historical figures have proven capable of misleading their followers. Proof is not in character, it is in science if it is anywhere.
5.3 pg 155. Truth is determined through results. Positive result=truth
A positive result does not prove the truth of a claim. The fact that the quality of life in a nation improves after that nation converts to a certain religion, does not prove the claims of that religion. I think this goes without saying.
5.4 pg 157. Christ obeyed the law perfectly [fact that demonstrates Jesus's exemplary character]
Even if it were granted that Christ obeyed the law perfectly (which isn't true-Jesus, for example, broke the Sabbath), that statement that perfect obedience is a trait of exemplary character is subjective and highly debatable.
5.5 pg 158. Christ never prayed for forgiveness because he was sinless [see above]
And he never was baptized because he was sinless. Oh wait, he was baptized! Right, it was a demonstration baptism-see, this is how its done.
5.6 pg 160 Napoleon at St Helena: everything about Jesus; his birth and life, the character of his teachings, his gospel, empire, "march across ages", the Christian struggle, their success despite all efforts to kill them off, Jesus's success despite using love instead of force-all of these things point to Jesus's divinity.
Jesus was successful because he had a more complete understanding of human nature. Our actions are not determined by physical force, anger, fear, and sex-drive alone. We also act out of love. It seems as though Jesus was the one to really drill this home. In addition, the idea that God is a loving father to all instead of a strict ruler of a select group of people-and therefore granting exclusive rights of salvation (and freedom from fear) to only a few-this notion of God was simple, revolutionary, and powerful, as Napoleon observed.
5.7 pg 162. Jesus didn't require a teacher-he was the ultimate teacher.
Did Jesus have a teacher? I don't know. Did he learn from others, like John the Baptist, the Pharises, and whoever he hung out with in his 20s (no one knows where he was...)? How could he have not?
So Jesus already knew, or was given of God, everything he preached to his followers? Why then did some of his teachings exist before his time, like, "do unto others as you'd have done to you"? Am I communicating in question form now? Lets move on....or shall we???
5.8 pg 165. Jesus himself indicated that the realization of his divinity and truth of the Gospel was to be given by God, not revealed in flesh and blood.
Odd, Jesus was flesh and blood, he made a big thing of pointing that out, and didn't he come to proclaim the gospel to man? To be fair, I think I see the author's distinction--Jesus brought the gospel for men to hear, but the realization of its divinity is something men can only expect to be given to them by God. What is it like when God makes the truth known? How does it feel? It must be pretty awesome to convince someone of the truth of the entire Gospel.
What can we derive from this claim that the divinity and truth of the Gospel is given by God and not by flesh and blood? Initially, I thought that perhaps the realization would have to wait until after we die. Then I remembered how it has been explained to me in the past--that others using reason and evidence cannot prove that the Gospel is true. In fact, others can only grant me knowledge of Christ. I will only believe when God (and I) am ready for me to believe.
If God finds me ready to receive the truth in this lifetime, how will it happen? I have been told that the Holy Ghost, or the Spirit, will "whisper it in my ear". I don't take this literally because I've not heard of any believers hearing voices, and I've been told explicitly that the presence and influence of the Holy Ghost is known by a feeling. One can feel the Holy Ghost. And when one feels the Holy Ghost, it is an indication that there great truth in what is being heard, and that God is there/near.
When I went to church, I thought I felt the Holy Ghost on a number of occasions. It's been years, but I'll try to describe what I felt as surreal, serious, confidence, joy?, solemness,.... I no longer think that I felt something that could only be a "Holy Ghost" or God's presence or God making the truth known to me. And I don't recall having some sort of amazing realization about the truth of the Gospel everytime I felt "the spirit".
Its hard to imagine that something so important as the truth about God is made possible only through a vague, jumbly emotion that comes and goes. In fact, its hard to imagine the truth about anything being made known through feelings, given that feelings are often times so misleading. I swear I've felt the same emotion I associated with the Holy Ghost while attending various ceremonies and church meetings. I've even felt it watching TV shows on UFOs. Emotions are so tricky. I can get teary-eyed reading a short obituary about someone I didn't know. My eyes have welled up while reading stories about dog rescues, plane crashes, speeches, and the like. Emotions are great, they are important, in many ways, they are who we are; but in the end, they are no basis for establishing the existence or divinity of something.
5.9 pg 167. Jesus "was not taught of man, yet his ideals can be found nowhere else in all the centuries."
What were Jesus's ideas? Repent? The Kingdom of God is at Hand? The meek shall inherit the Earth? Obey thy Father and the Mother? I don't know...I think I need to read the Bible some more because I am not presently blown away by the original ideas of Jesus.
6.0 pg 168. "When a man aspires, above everything else, to possess a character like that of Christ, that the reality and power of Christ's life, as being filled with the very life of God, will appear."
Let me say this: The power of self image to determine one's happiness and entire life is enormous. Right now, I can briefly imagine being a priest, or a theologian, and immediately I can sense a change in my mental & emotional state. I can imagine being Lance Armstrong. If somehow I could convince myself that I am Lance, I would act and feel quiet different than I do now-even still couldn't win a tour.
Aspiration is powerful. If one aspires to anything, one's already experiencing far more positive emotion than the majority of people. To try to be like Jesus, one will invariably experience what it feels like to imagine oneself as holy, good, loving, important, etc, etc. This is a very attractive thing, to give away a fairly vague sense of self and a low sense of self worth for absolute certainty regarding who you are, the importance of your life, and your goal in life. Who can deny that this transformation, this adoption of certainty, personality, and importance, is not enormously compelling. It has drawn followers to Christ for 2000 years.
6.1 pg 169. "The only adequate explanation of his life is that God filled his life".
How about: A baby was born out of wedlock. To avoid trouble, the mother claimed his birth was divine--perhaps encouraged by the expectations of the people that a savior, or king of the Jews, would soon arise. also encouraged to lie by an astronomical anomaly (a comet or supernova or something). The baby was told at an early age that his birth was divine. The baby grew into a boy and a man, possessing a self image that granted him the greatest confidence, charisma, and sense of importance-the son of god. As such, he acted a son of god would act, and he did so convincingly. It was a superstitious time, and the people were oppressed by Roman rule. People in Northern Palestine were a mix of Jews and Gentiles, with influences from around the civilized world thanks to established trade routes. People were also quite superstitious at this time, as Roman Stoicism was failing to inspire the Empire. Greek Humanism, Pagan Mysticism, and Jewish Monotheism combined in Christ, and found common enemies in the Roman Empire and exclusionary Judaism. The time was right, the person was right, civilization was on the march. Christianity rode the wave all the way into the 21st century.
6.2 pg 176. "All our previous study reveals the fact that the human heart cannot be satisfied with anything else than the living God."
If by "living God" you mean "a persistent, solid sense of worth and love", then I agree.
6.3 pg 187. The resurrection=a historic fact.
Slowly bleeding a person with multiple flesh wounds is not the best way to secure their death. By the way, since there is no proof Jesus died on the cross, and no one saw him come to life (they saw him after he had come to life), its preposterous to say that the resurrection is a historic fact. Its beyond preposterous, its blatantly manipulative.
6.4 pg 231. Christianity has proven to be the one true religion by:
-bringing greater blessings to men than any other religion
-the persistence as a missionary force among men and nations
-has "held its own wherever it has been planted
-realizing the sonship of God among men with increasing fidelity
-accomplished more than it had a right to in 19 centuries
See above (success does not equal truth)
6.5 pg 233. The reason Christianity hasn't been even more successful is the unreadiness of men to receive and obey it.
The reason all systems of control, (including all tyrants, all governments) aren't more successful is the unwillingness of men to receive and obey it. The notion that some people aren't believers because they're unready is both racist and illiberal. Someone has been condemned to hell because humans in 3000 BC weren't ready or worthy to believe in Christ? Hmph! And isn't it odd that men would be more ready to receive that gospel just as science is discrediting it more and more?
6.6 pg 233. Christ alone gives us the solution to the problem of character
The guy wasn't even married. He didn't have a girlfriend. How can he give us the solution to the problem of character if he didn't face the same issues the average person faces-especially the average person living today. I could go on and on about facets of character that he didn't even touch upon. Geesh, Christ being history's foremost expert on character and morality nearly 2000 years before sociology and psychology were even sciences! Silly!
6.7 pg 233. Nothing has dimmed God's glory-it has only increased with time.
Yes, if God exists, his glory has increased as science has given us awesome pictures and knowledge of his work and nature. Still, one might point out that God's glory was probably diminished during the Crusades, the Dark Ages, the American Civil War, all wars, the division of people, various injustices, the a-bomb, etc, etc.
6.8 pg 233. Its silly to think God would be required to prove his power to win men who are not ready to accept his love.
Its silly to think men would be required to accept his love when God has not proved his power (or his existence, for that matter).
6.9 pg 244. ((Interesting))
When the author talks about how terrible life would be without Christ, he quotes Rudyard Kipling, who observed that in India infant marriage, the prohibition of the remarriage of widows, the life-long imprisonment of wives in a worse than penal imprisonment, and the withholding from women of any kind of education.
These issues are liberal progressive issues, not necessarily Christian ones. Numerous, similar crimes against humanity (and women) could be pointed out during most periods in most Christian nations throughout history. Just goes to prove, when you get down to specific morality behind specific issues, Christians are really just liberals in disguise.
7.0 pg ((Interesting))
The author describes how Christianity still has lots to face and more to grow. He lists: "Vice rampant and impudent, with wealth luxurious and selfish, with war between nations and strife between classes, with race prejudices deep and hateful, with Mormonism eating like a cancer at the nation's heart, with national, state, and city governments dependent for revenue upon a traffic that is blighting thousands of homes and wrecking thousands of charactes, with the Church itself all too complacent and indifferent in the midsts of such conditions as these..."
This quote gives us great insight into the real values the author cares about. Its like seeing through the smoke of Christian theology. Some sins, according to the author, are disobeying the law, vice in general, selfishness, a lack of charity, hatred and oppression, false beliefs, and alcohol.
7.1 pg 248. "In America, the most scientific test to be made of Christian progress is in noting that the standard of character is higher than it was ever known to be in the past." (colleges and churches once began with a lottery, church leaders once dealt in the trade of alcohol, all gentlemen used profanity, slavery, politicians not held to high standards in personal life.)
Again, more insight into real values. Values: equality, equal rights, justice, sobriety, freedom, profanity free language, fidelity, truthfulness.
7.2 pg 250. "Christian nations are the source of progress in freedom, higher social life, the 'elevation of humanity', which are changing the world."
Christians have become liberal ideologs, thank god. Lets hope the trend continues.
7.3 pg 259. "Unless the character of life be worth while, its continued existence is not worth while."
Who is to say when life is not worth living? The individual only. Who is to judge another's life as worth while or not? Only a pompous bastard. Implicit in the first half of the quote is that there is a very specific character and way of living that must be adopted if one's life be worth living. I'll reject that notion and say that there are many ways one can live her life, and many different types of character to take up--all of which can be rewarding/fulfilling.
7.4 pg 259. It is not a given that people will value their life and strive to live it.
I agree. This is a huge problem in as much as those who don't value their lives obstruct the lives of those who do, and in as much as we care about others happiness, which I think we should.
7.5 pg 260. There is no promise for a life to come if it is not brought "to life to light Christ's first work was to give to men to see that life here is to be made worth while."
That is a noble work. I'd like to look into this notion of life being "worth while" and having "worth" more.
7.6 pg 260. There would be no joy quickened in millions of souls at the thought of dragging on wearily through endless years of existence if they couldn't see the light shining in the pathways of human progress, or if Christianity were not making good its claim.
This is why capitalism and Christianity make good bed-fellows. The more folks are worked to death, the more they drag wearily, the more they need reassurance that there's light at the end of the tunnel. If life were not like a dark tunnel, if it weren't so difficult, then people wouldn't be so far sighted-seeking out relief/joy far from their present place and time. In some ways, progressivism needs discontent to flourish. As does Christianity. And to a degree, capitalism. This will need to be looked into.
7.7 pg 262. Hope is the flowering of faith.
In other words, faith is a belief/feeling that perserverse through the changing of the seasons--a subdued feeling/conviction that makes possible the more joyful, intense feeling of hope. I admit that a big hope regarding one's own existence 100 years from now and beyond is not something folks like me get to experience. And I'm fine with that, because I have a big hope regarding the continuation and progress of everything else.
7.8 pg 263. Faith is not final proof.
He said it.
7.9 pg 262. ((Interesting))
The author admits that there is only a good probability of the reality of something that cannot be experienced, due to consistency in history, experience, and facts...
8.0 pg 266. It has been demonstrated "that Christ is the one life worth living here." "Its joy, comfort, strength, victory."
....
8.1 pg 267. The scientific process is to proceed as if something were true.
No its not.
8.2 pg 268. The proof that Christ's teachings are true is in the difference between the class of men who follow them, and those who don't.
See above.
I've chosen to quote and paraphrase the author in order to most accurately and concisely present the premises from which he supports his thesis. I attempted to understand the author's points as well as I could, to recant those points, and to give credit to whatever strengths they possess. Of course, the fun is putting them to the test; therefore, the majority of space here is dedicated to extracting that which is illogical or weak from the author's argument and bringing it to light. Johnston's premises are shown here in normal font. My responses are in bold.
1.0 pg 25. "People of every faith, in every land, agree that Jesus Christ is the greatest specialist in character the world has ever known."
I believe that I am an educated individual who makes an effort to stay abreast of current affairs; still, I haven't heard of a poll taken of every person in every land for the purpose of finding a consensus on the greatest moral character that has ever existed. Besides, if a poll were taken, it would amass a great deal of subjective information, which is not the sort of information that lends itself towards the goal of establishing the truth of anything other than the opinions of those polled.
If it were possible to proclaim factually that Jesus was "the greatest specialist in character the world has ever known" (given some agreement could be made regarding the specific morals which are the best), the fact would do absolutely nothing to support the Christian's claim that he was the Son of God. There is no logical connection between great character and divine origin.
And besides, was the author not aware of tough challengers to the "greatest" crown such as Plato, Shakespeare, and Confucius. Given huge advancements in our knowledge of human psychology and behavior in the last 150 years, wouldn't it be more likely the "greatest" specialist on character walked the earth more recently than Jesus?
1.1 pg 26. It is unscientific to ignore the life and teachings of Christ because a vast majority of the world's leaders and scholars are followers.
If a scientist dedicated his life to searching for signs of planets outside our solar system, I don't imagine he could be called unscientific for ignoring the life and teachings of Christ.
Personally, I think it's reasonable to call a person "unscientific" when that person has made it known that she is trying to gather data and new knowledge on the nature of God, but has ignored the life and teaching of Christ. Still, Agnew misuses the the word "unscientific" because the practice of science is not contingent upon the degree to which one considers the opinion or established knowledge of the time. Obviously, those can help, but the ignorance of them can only mean a scientist has acted unwisely.
1.2 The experiment that establishes the fact of Christ involves both studying and living in his way. The confirmation of the fact is an experience... "Time and again the same test can be run, and the result of this living in Christ is a belief in Christ."
There are clear exceptions to this claim that make it rather absurd. I need not list them. The author speaks in absolutes and pays the price for it: he comes across as a fool, or else a person attempting to manipulate the beliefs of week-minded individuals.
The only thing such an experiment could "prove" is that most people repond to a set of emotional treatise in the same way-by believing the factual claims attached to the argument. It is not unscientific to study things from a distance. Clearly, greater truth can be found the more one immerses oneself in a culture or study. However, anyone familiar with human psychology and sociology can warn you of the attraction and effectiveness of group-think, as well as the abandonment of critical thinking when the emotional rapture of social belonging/participation takes hold.
1.3 Like a lawyer has a fine legal mind, or a master musician has marvelous insight and interpretation, only one who has become an expert of Christ and his character can discern the truth about it. Or appreciate the truth and significance of it.
In other words, nearly all Christians cannont discern the truth, for the majority cannot claim an expertise in their religion as a lawyer can claim in law or a master musician can demonstrate in his art. Also, I suspect there are many experts on Christ who are not Christians. At any rate, you don't need to be an expert of anything to be able to discern truth or to grasp logic.
1.4 [the author challenges the reader to come to Jesus, to put him fully to the test]
Ok.
1.5 Writing a book on any aspect of Christian life without being a Christian is the most unscientific thing a person can do.
Is it unscientific to be a scientist and not a Christian and write a book on Christian life? This is an odd claim. Jane Goodal didn't need to become an ape to study Gorillas in a scientific manner. Acting like one helped, but still...
1.6 pg 39. "Faith is the result of reasoning from accepted facts concerning that which is not yet know."
This is good...I like it when an author defines faith for the reader in simple terms. I think this is a good definition. I believe that it's pretty close to accurate. However, the whole "reasoning" thing is usually left out by those who claim to have faith. Faith to them is more a hope than it is the best explanation from established facts.
1.7 pg 39. "...it is reasonable to believe certain things consistent with the facts, but transcending experience."
I agree. However, real "belief" or conviction should be reserved for those claims that have both an extremely high probability of truth based upon the facts and an urgency for action based upon founded positive or negative incentives. In addition, it is easy to say that "it is reasonable..."; but it is entirely possible to deem almost any act or belief reasonable in one way or another. Something is not simply reasonable or unreasonable. There are degrees of reasonableness that correspond precisely to the accumulative quality and quantity of the facts, observations, and logic supporting a particular claim.
Some actions based upon belief might be reasonable--like looking outside, observing that there are grey clouds in the sky, believing that it might rain, and opting to go to the movies instead of playing Frisbee in the park. It is reasonable to believe that it will rain because the actions the belief demands are not extraordinarily burdensome or complex (going to a movie). However, if one were to pick up a book (like looking out a window) and observe that the book warns of dire consequences if one does not obey its every command for the remainder of one's life (the observation, like seeing grey clouds), it could be said that the person's belief in the book would be very unreasonable because the actions it demands are so expansive. The greater the sacrifice demanded of one's life, liberty, and happiness (ofcourse, those three always be said together, in that order), the greater the quantity and quality of supporting facts be established before one can deem that belief reasonable. If one person told me that a giant cushion lie over the edge of a cliff and that I wouldn't be hurt if I jumped, I would still not jump if encouraged to do so. If two people made the same claim, I would refuse yet again. If a hundred people swore that I would not be hurt if I jumped off the cliff, and even if they gave me an incentive for jumping by claiming that a lion was on the loose and heading my way, I doubt I would jump. Photographic evidence might not even sway me. Why would I be so stubborn in light of so much first hand testimony and evidence? Because there was so much at stake; namely, my life. Christians beg nonbelievers to abandon their stubbornness, their high standards of proof, and simply come to Christ, hand over their hearts and their minds, and live in His way. I hope this paragraph explains why its reasonable to disbelieve when it comes to religion...
While the standards of proof or reasonableness are much higher for more demanding claims, it is wise to make a more concerted effort at finding supportive evidence for claims such as those.
1.8 pg 40. "A reasonable faith is when facts justify the confidence or trust..in a person or thing."
See above. Even if I don't know a person well, I might trust that they will come and pick me up at 6pm based simply upon the fact that the person seemed like a good guy and said he would. However, I would be unreasonable to believe even a kind old lady when she claimed she would deliver your businesses cash to the bank for you. It would be unreasonable to believe a priest who claimed your sins would be forgiven if only you join the church and live in accordance with its doctrine.
1.9 pg 40. "Faith is simply the working hypothesis upon which the student proceeds in his investigation."
I would not want to base my actions upon a working hypothesis that singing a lullaby to an angry gorilla would cause it to fall fast asleep. I would not want to simply believe that and then hope that my actions would confirm the truth. Scientific inquiry involves the actualization and testing of scientific knowledge, or facts; which is something that can cost a researcher a great deal of time and energy. By and large, however, the scientific method does not demand a sea change in the scientists personality or lifestyle. The testing of the hypothesis "Christ is the Son of God and the Savior of Man" does require such sacrifice, according to the author.
2.0 pg 41. "....Truly great men ... speak with hesitation about certainty of knowledge."
I included this quote because I thought it was one of the few things the author said that was really wise...and happened to contradict almost everything else he wrote in the book.
2.1 pg 43. "Human consciousness is an effect ... the cause of it is the nature of conscious personality." The continued existence of the world-the balance, the equilibrium, indicates harmony, "points to a ruler of the world who has not lost his power."
It does not follow that since the world exists (necessarily in equilibrium-how else could it exist?) there is a "ruler of the world".
2.2 pg 45. Emotion is a sense just like sight or smell, and is just as capable of discerning truth.
Emotion is who we are. We are not incapable of being mislead or manipulated. Emotion is only capable of discerning the truth of something on its own terms. For example, that ending caused me to feel sad. That song makes me feel happy. My feelings are incapable of determining objective facts of an impersonal nature like who directed the movie or what key the song was in. If emotion is capable of discerning truth, then all religions are true.
2.3 pg 47. "...the affections, the feelings, and the will are also organs of evidence to the man."
A key feature of evidence is that it exists outside and independent of the individual experiencing it...it is fact, it is of objective quality...something that is experienced by all keen observers the same way. Emotional response is very often the same among a large group of people, which does lend some objective value to emotion; however, it is obvious that not all people respond the same way emotionally to certain experiences. There are different responses between individuals based on personality, gender, culture, experience, mental health, etc.
2.4 pg 48. All scientific claims are a matter of simple faith because certain facts are pointed out and reasonable inferences are made.
Some scientific claims might fit this description; but then again, such "claims" will likely be called "theories". Those theories that are found worthy of being called "claims" are usually backed by more than the mere pointing out of reasonable inferences. Exact scientific methodology is used to extend truth to greater truth.
2.5 pg 58. The Heavens are like a clock-they move in accordance to a design. They were made to do precisely what they do, when they do it.
No, all we know is that they Do, not that they are "made to do". The word "made" is both too simple (it does not pretend to understand that things are in a constant state of change and evolution, and that one thing's end is just another things beginning) and too wreckless & bold (in that it implies a great deal-a creator, when it knows absolutely nothing of the alleged creator or the way in which the things were created). I have talked to so many people who have such a hard time grasping the notion that something doesn't have to be "made" to exist, that I've come to believe it's human nature,that it's deeply programmed, to see all things as the sums of previously constructed parts, with definite beginnings and ends. I think this thinking is a signature of the human mind, and not representative of reality. It is the primary cause of the belief in God.
2.6 pg 59. The probability that a human eye could be produced more than once is so unlikely as to make it absurd to think it came from chance.
The fact that we cannot comprehend how something is done is in no way a sign of anything-other than our own limits in understanding. A caveman could not comprehend how a television was created. We make millions of them now. How does one determine whether something is unlikely or not? I've never seen an eye randomly develop, but then again, I've never left this tiny blue speck called Earth, and my life is less than a blink of an eye in comparison to the age of the universe.
2.7 pg 60. Immanual Kant: "The perfection of its development, the order and harmony of it laws, give conclusive demonstration of the Godhead from whom the relations are derived."
It is a romantic thing to say, but is flawed logically in its great presumptions that come from nowhere.
2.8 pg 61. The presence of the religious nature, the moral consciousness in man, points to the moral nature of God-religious instinct point to something which satisfies that in man which gave rise to it.
See above. The religious nature and the moral consciousness of man are cutlural phenomena--something we easily fall into with the right experiences in early childhood--but they are certainly not overwhelming instinctual features of humans. I could rightly draw some connection between moral consciousness to survival, and thus instinct. Again, this does not support a belief in God.
2.9 pg 63. Love is manifest in all law. Its obedience always brings blessings.
This is a strange thing to say. It seems to me also to be obviously false. Watch "The Grizzly Man" and you'll see that nature is indifferent and neutral to the subject of love, except in terms of the bonds necessary for survival. Friendship and love are facts-they really exist-but like so many of the things that are important to us, they exist primarily in the human sphere or consciousness. Seeing that which is unquestionably human in that which is certainly not human is foolish. We may correctly see in many animals human characteristics, including the ability to love, since our physiologies are so much the same. But to say that love exists in the rain, or the mountain, or the stars-it may do us good by filling our hearts with a feeling of love (important and good), but that is the sole truth and value of the claim.
3.0 pg 66. The fact of fatherhood in creation reveals the fatherhood of God as necessary in the nature of things.
Fatherhood is not a fact in creation. In thousands of species, the male does not play a part in the rearing of young. The statement is misleading in that it reinforces the idea that fathers and mothers create a new thing out of nothing. "Creation" in the common sense is not in play here. Rather, a design, or code, (life) which is just fragile enough to be slowly altered (genetic mutation) by its environment (evolution) is on "repeat" or spiraling along (reproducing) through space, as is nearly all observable characteristics in the universe (weather, earth, galaxies, etc). This might sound like a heartless interpretation of life; but, again, human consciousness, human reality, is a true reality, and a much more beautiful, important one than the stripped down, generic reality of the universe, which I just illustrated.
3.1 pg 70. [charge:] "That narrow view which cannot see the love of God in the world has only a Gospel of despair for men. It sees no light in the darkness, no comfort for the sorrowing, no victory over sin. It has never helped the world onward one inch in all the centuries."
This charge is aimed directly at me. Given the potential for despair if one imagines that those they love, and they themselves cease to exist after death, how could I possibly respond to the charge? I would say:
Love, Life, and Hope survive through our children, who are a part of us. Love, Life, and Hope continue on through our fellow men, who are our brothers and sisters. Those who currently do not believe in a life after death are very capable of experiencing the same day-to-day pleasure, joy, and contentment that believers do. There are these things to look forward to. There is Joy and Hope in human progress-in the alleviation of pain and the growth of happiness. Technological progress and new scientific discoveries energize the mind and stimulate the imagination. A belief in Satisfaction can destroy despair. A life well lived, a life that causes joy to look back on, is also a life that's easy to leave behing after the mind and body have become tired. Also, if one were to live an average lifespan, so much could be accomplished and experienced. Freedom and diversity in experience make life special and satisfying...
3.2 pg 87. Without God=without hope. Stoicism="'an apprenticeship of death'".
See Above. I wonder whether certain people-uneducated or of different cultures-would have a more difficult time securing happiness if they did not believe in God? This is a charge the author makes, and its one I'm only able to answer with a guess. I'd guess that people need something special to grant them feelings of selfworth and hope beyond that which pure secularism offers (or doesn't offer). Thinking that that something is necessarily a belief in God is a bit closedminded. Education and training of an unconventional manner might be required for some. Still, nothing additional is needed for millions of people alive today.
3.3 pg 87. Jesus Christ-"...a character so perfect that no man could ever suggest how it could be improved by adding anything to it, or by taking anything from it."
I think Jesus would have had greater character if he had had a wife and children that he loved. I think his character could have used some frankness about the difficulties of life and how to overcome them. Clarity/openness would have been nice. He could have been more democratic and less self centered. He could have written a gospel himself, and written more. I dunno, there are plenty of things a person could propose here.
3.4 pg 90. Man-the highest creature.
No. What makes us dominant over all other creatures is our ability to retain knowledge, to make inferences (predict the future), to control ourselves. We can thank our larger brains for these fairly simple, but significant, upgrades.
3.5 pg 92. Man discovers, has mastery over nature, creates, cultivates food, appreciates harmonies of sound, and makes moral judgment. This proves that a loving father in heaven "would seek to realize in man a constant growth of this fellowship of knowledge and power in a life in union with himself."
Other species discover, have mastery over nature (digging burrows, building dams, killing other creatures), creates, stores food, takes pleasure in things (mating calls-most, sunshine-most, shiny objects-crows & more). I don't get how these sorts of capabilities prove anything about our fellowship with a god.
3.6 pg 97. Thousands have proven Jesus true, have proven his power to be sufficient to give the victory over sin, transforming character.
Changing one's character is entirely possible. When it happens, it simply proves the effectiveness of the training or methods used, not the existence or truth of anything beyond those methods.
3.7 pg 101. The first test of the validity of claims regarding "holy" books is to ask "What result do these writings produce in the making of character?" This is the first and final question. The fact that a book is not scientific is not enough to cast it aside.
(See above) I think that even a 12 year old could see that this is not a logical statement.
3.8 pg 102. The world wants a teaching that will allow it to conquer sin and realize a redeemed character.
We're working on it.
3.9 pg 103. [implied] judging by the life of people (taking into account moral character is the most important factor), the teachings of the Bible have been proven the best the world has known.
Belief is simply one aspect of an region's demographic--and one of dozens of factors connected to quality of life. To say, "Look, nation's that are predominately Christian are the richest, most well educated, least violent nations on the planet" and then to claim that those nations enjoy such a high quality of life because of their belief in Christ; well, one would ignore so many, and so much more complex factors like culture (extends well beyond religion), geography, history (economic, political, military), etc, etc.
I feel strongly that the peace, liberty, and prosperity one experiences is, in large measure, something that was secured by previous generations. Individual initiative is highly important, but the fact that a people have more individual intitiative than other people, or have greater wealth, certainly cannot be explained by each individual's starting from scratch and creating all of this good for himself. Quality of life definitely cannot be explained simply by pointing out a people's particular creed.
That said, it seems apparent and indisputable that a people's morality and work ethic-as it exists strongly within individuals-must be a major factor effecting the people's quality of life. Christianity does good so far as it promotes honesty, self respect, individual responsibility, discipline, happiness, brotherhood, love in general, etc. Its undeniable that Christianity has promoted these values in recent years. However, I understand that Christianity has not always been such a liberal, progressive, and humanist religion. It has always been a controlling factor, and while its control has recently led men to do good, it has in the past (an to some extent still does), justify all manner of slavery, oppression, and violence. Where these have existed, Christianity has sometimes been slow to correct.
I believe that it is very likely that the good religion has done could have been accomplished absent mysticism and claims of divine authority.
4.0 pg 106. Darwin visited a population in 1833 and declared it the most barbaric he'd ever seen. After missionaries converted the people, Darwin returned and was astonished by the transformation that had occurred. He immediately wrote a letter to the London Missionary Society asking to be an honorary member.
This is a strong point--and one that directly challenges my last statement. Could lasting positive change in a nation be made on a large scale without a belief in God? This is a question of logistics. If violence, crime, and poverty were rampant in a country, could an ideology/morality be introduced which would turn things around, and if so, would an ideology/morality be effective if it did not claim to be of divine origin? I simply don't know. And, how important is the humility/fear afforded people by a great authority figure-even a god-when it comes to instilling morality in a people? Could religion be justified in that it is the only way less developed, or less enlightened nations can remain stable, peaceable, productive nations? I'll address these questions later.
4.1 pg 107. John Locke said, "To give a man a full knowledge of morality, I should need to send him to no other book than the New Testament."
I partially agree. The New Testament is a great textbook for teaching morality, but I believe its wrong one many points-especially sexual morality and worship. I disapprove of its content on sin, divinity, worship, heaven & hell, etc.
4.2 pg 110. "The Bible is the record of [god's] revelation."
If its a record of God's revelation, God has revealed himself to be rather vague, repetitious, unreasonable, violent, changing...
4.3 pg 112. "Not the Bible, but Christ Himself, the personal historical Christ, is the ultimate foundation on which ... Christianity rests."
I must re-read the scriptures in the near future so that my memory of Jesus's words and deeds can be refreshed; but as I recall now, what Christ did and said consisted of calling people to repent, to believe; teaching lessons on charity and empathy; sharing some gospel ("the meek shall inherit the earth); and performing miracles. These do not make for a very thick book (keeping in mind the Gospels are repetitive-tell the same story three times) to base one's religion on.
4.4 pg 119 "...that justifies the opinion that any discrepancies which now appear came in through incorrect work on the part of the copyists."
I agree that the discrepancies in the Gospels are irrelevant-they can be explained away easily.
4.5 pg 120 The differences in the ways the gospels were written can be explained by the fact that they were being taught to different people. Matthew-Jews (emphasis on prophecy) . Mark-Romans (power). John-Greeks (humanist, spiritual).
I can accept that. Still, this is evidence that Christianity survives because it appeals to (or "manipulates") public sentiment/emotion instead of relying on the strength of its reason/logic and substance of its message.
4.6 pg 125. God reveals his light slowly-as in the case of Christians view of slavery. Good Christians once thought it just and right. Now the Bible has become clear to them on this point.
How can god reveal his light slowly when every man is supposed to be able to come to him in his/her lifetime? This statement means that a person could be a perfect Christian, could have a close relationship with Christ through prayer, and could have known God's revelation (Bible), yet still kept slaves and treated his wife as less than an equal. A poor excuse.
4.7 pg 126. The lower level of morals that appear to be acceptable to God in old times can be explained by this slow moral progress of man-man has steadily come to understand God better.
If all is dependent upon man's moral progress, then what does God have to do with it? I suppose the statement does not imply that man could progress morally without God. It does imply that man possesses a great deal of independence--that God is hands-off in worldly affairs. I guess this means the Bible came to be just so God could say, "Yo guys, I'm here...see you again in, oh, well, you'll see..."
4.8 pg 136. The emergence of life from nothing was a miracle. That's scientific.
I don't think "miracle" and "scientific" are synonyms. I do see that point, however. Although the author didn't use the following point, there are some theories out there nowadays regarding what existed before the Big Bang; but the Big Bang theory is a scientific theory that has for some time seemed to say that everything came out of nothing. Kinda like "Let there be lights" and bang! there was the universe. I think the author was saying that miracles don't really exist, we just don't know the science behind the event--in which case, I agree.
4.9 pg 137. a miracle is just knowing nature better.
Yeah, sounds good to me.
5.0 pg 144. Miracles were used in early times in order to teach the gospel to an unsophisticated audience-like making things understandable to children. Miracles weren't about proving, they were about teaching.
If you say so.
5.1 pg 146. The miracle of grace-men leaving a life of misery and sin and finding joy in Christ-happens all the time and lends support to the idea of miracles.
I do believe people can make dramatic changes in their lives. A catalyst is needed to begin making changes. A system, or formula, that guides behavior towards certain goals, will ensure the permanence of a new way of living. Christianity provides a catalyst, system, and goal to those willing to change. Life lived without construction will almost certainly produce "sin" and misery. Humans are animals; and as such, there always exists a strong possibility that our behavior may be informed by our instincts (temptation/sin), our chemical/hormonal composition (emotion-anger, despair, etc), or general disorder (lack of intelligence, knowledge, mental sickness). Modern man stifles and constrains these negative influences thanks to a mind that's been focused on progress for thousands of years. Culture and learning keep us in line. Religion, for those people and nations who have lost hold of civilizing forces, most certainly provides a minimum construction (catalyst/system/goal) for raising above the most primitive/animalistic behavior. It is no surprise that "Gods Grace" (this construction) has produced extreme changes in countless lives.
5.2 pg 155. Proof is in character.
As much as I like the idea of loyalty to character, and trust in one's own King, one cannot say that the goodness of a person proves anything that person says. EVERYONE is capable of being misled. Everyone can hold false beliefs/convictions. In addition, countless historical figures have proven capable of misleading their followers. Proof is not in character, it is in science if it is anywhere.
5.3 pg 155. Truth is determined through results. Positive result=truth
A positive result does not prove the truth of a claim. The fact that the quality of life in a nation improves after that nation converts to a certain religion, does not prove the claims of that religion. I think this goes without saying.
5.4 pg 157. Christ obeyed the law perfectly [fact that demonstrates Jesus's exemplary character]
Even if it were granted that Christ obeyed the law perfectly (which isn't true-Jesus, for example, broke the Sabbath), that statement that perfect obedience is a trait of exemplary character is subjective and highly debatable.
5.5 pg 158. Christ never prayed for forgiveness because he was sinless [see above]
And he never was baptized because he was sinless. Oh wait, he was baptized! Right, it was a demonstration baptism-see, this is how its done.
5.6 pg 160 Napoleon at St Helena: everything about Jesus; his birth and life, the character of his teachings, his gospel, empire, "march across ages", the Christian struggle, their success despite all efforts to kill them off, Jesus's success despite using love instead of force-all of these things point to Jesus's divinity.
Jesus was successful because he had a more complete understanding of human nature. Our actions are not determined by physical force, anger, fear, and sex-drive alone. We also act out of love. It seems as though Jesus was the one to really drill this home. In addition, the idea that God is a loving father to all instead of a strict ruler of a select group of people-and therefore granting exclusive rights of salvation (and freedom from fear) to only a few-this notion of God was simple, revolutionary, and powerful, as Napoleon observed.
5.7 pg 162. Jesus didn't require a teacher-he was the ultimate teacher.
Did Jesus have a teacher? I don't know. Did he learn from others, like John the Baptist, the Pharises, and whoever he hung out with in his 20s (no one knows where he was...)? How could he have not?
So Jesus already knew, or was given of God, everything he preached to his followers? Why then did some of his teachings exist before his time, like, "do unto others as you'd have done to you"? Am I communicating in question form now? Lets move on....or shall we???
5.8 pg 165. Jesus himself indicated that the realization of his divinity and truth of the Gospel was to be given by God, not revealed in flesh and blood.
Odd, Jesus was flesh and blood, he made a big thing of pointing that out, and didn't he come to proclaim the gospel to man? To be fair, I think I see the author's distinction--Jesus brought the gospel for men to hear, but the realization of its divinity is something men can only expect to be given to them by God. What is it like when God makes the truth known? How does it feel? It must be pretty awesome to convince someone of the truth of the entire Gospel.
What can we derive from this claim that the divinity and truth of the Gospel is given by God and not by flesh and blood? Initially, I thought that perhaps the realization would have to wait until after we die. Then I remembered how it has been explained to me in the past--that others using reason and evidence cannot prove that the Gospel is true. In fact, others can only grant me knowledge of Christ. I will only believe when God (and I) am ready for me to believe.
If God finds me ready to receive the truth in this lifetime, how will it happen? I have been told that the Holy Ghost, or the Spirit, will "whisper it in my ear". I don't take this literally because I've not heard of any believers hearing voices, and I've been told explicitly that the presence and influence of the Holy Ghost is known by a feeling. One can feel the Holy Ghost. And when one feels the Holy Ghost, it is an indication that there great truth in what is being heard, and that God is there/near.
When I went to church, I thought I felt the Holy Ghost on a number of occasions. It's been years, but I'll try to describe what I felt as surreal, serious, confidence, joy?, solemness,.... I no longer think that I felt something that could only be a "Holy Ghost" or God's presence or God making the truth known to me. And I don't recall having some sort of amazing realization about the truth of the Gospel everytime I felt "the spirit".
Its hard to imagine that something so important as the truth about God is made possible only through a vague, jumbly emotion that comes and goes. In fact, its hard to imagine the truth about anything being made known through feelings, given that feelings are often times so misleading. I swear I've felt the same emotion I associated with the Holy Ghost while attending various ceremonies and church meetings. I've even felt it watching TV shows on UFOs. Emotions are so tricky. I can get teary-eyed reading a short obituary about someone I didn't know. My eyes have welled up while reading stories about dog rescues, plane crashes, speeches, and the like. Emotions are great, they are important, in many ways, they are who we are; but in the end, they are no basis for establishing the existence or divinity of something.
5.9 pg 167. Jesus "was not taught of man, yet his ideals can be found nowhere else in all the centuries."
What were Jesus's ideas? Repent? The Kingdom of God is at Hand? The meek shall inherit the Earth? Obey thy Father and the Mother? I don't know...I think I need to read the Bible some more because I am not presently blown away by the original ideas of Jesus.
6.0 pg 168. "When a man aspires, above everything else, to possess a character like that of Christ, that the reality and power of Christ's life, as being filled with the very life of God, will appear."
Let me say this: The power of self image to determine one's happiness and entire life is enormous. Right now, I can briefly imagine being a priest, or a theologian, and immediately I can sense a change in my mental & emotional state. I can imagine being Lance Armstrong. If somehow I could convince myself that I am Lance, I would act and feel quiet different than I do now-even still couldn't win a tour.
Aspiration is powerful. If one aspires to anything, one's already experiencing far more positive emotion than the majority of people. To try to be like Jesus, one will invariably experience what it feels like to imagine oneself as holy, good, loving, important, etc, etc. This is a very attractive thing, to give away a fairly vague sense of self and a low sense of self worth for absolute certainty regarding who you are, the importance of your life, and your goal in life. Who can deny that this transformation, this adoption of certainty, personality, and importance, is not enormously compelling. It has drawn followers to Christ for 2000 years.
6.1 pg 169. "The only adequate explanation of his life is that God filled his life".
How about: A baby was born out of wedlock. To avoid trouble, the mother claimed his birth was divine--perhaps encouraged by the expectations of the people that a savior, or king of the Jews, would soon arise. also encouraged to lie by an astronomical anomaly (a comet or supernova or something). The baby was told at an early age that his birth was divine. The baby grew into a boy and a man, possessing a self image that granted him the greatest confidence, charisma, and sense of importance-the son of god. As such, he acted a son of god would act, and he did so convincingly. It was a superstitious time, and the people were oppressed by Roman rule. People in Northern Palestine were a mix of Jews and Gentiles, with influences from around the civilized world thanks to established trade routes. People were also quite superstitious at this time, as Roman Stoicism was failing to inspire the Empire. Greek Humanism, Pagan Mysticism, and Jewish Monotheism combined in Christ, and found common enemies in the Roman Empire and exclusionary Judaism. The time was right, the person was right, civilization was on the march. Christianity rode the wave all the way into the 21st century.
6.2 pg 176. "All our previous study reveals the fact that the human heart cannot be satisfied with anything else than the living God."
If by "living God" you mean "a persistent, solid sense of worth and love", then I agree.
6.3 pg 187. The resurrection=a historic fact.
Slowly bleeding a person with multiple flesh wounds is not the best way to secure their death. By the way, since there is no proof Jesus died on the cross, and no one saw him come to life (they saw him after he had come to life), its preposterous to say that the resurrection is a historic fact. Its beyond preposterous, its blatantly manipulative.
6.4 pg 231. Christianity has proven to be the one true religion by:
-bringing greater blessings to men than any other religion
-the persistence as a missionary force among men and nations
-has "held its own wherever it has been planted
-realizing the sonship of God among men with increasing fidelity
-accomplished more than it had a right to in 19 centuries
See above (success does not equal truth)
6.5 pg 233. The reason Christianity hasn't been even more successful is the unreadiness of men to receive and obey it.
The reason all systems of control, (including all tyrants, all governments) aren't more successful is the unwillingness of men to receive and obey it. The notion that some people aren't believers because they're unready is both racist and illiberal. Someone has been condemned to hell because humans in 3000 BC weren't ready or worthy to believe in Christ? Hmph! And isn't it odd that men would be more ready to receive that gospel just as science is discrediting it more and more?
6.6 pg 233. Christ alone gives us the solution to the problem of character
The guy wasn't even married. He didn't have a girlfriend. How can he give us the solution to the problem of character if he didn't face the same issues the average person faces-especially the average person living today. I could go on and on about facets of character that he didn't even touch upon. Geesh, Christ being history's foremost expert on character and morality nearly 2000 years before sociology and psychology were even sciences! Silly!
6.7 pg 233. Nothing has dimmed God's glory-it has only increased with time.
Yes, if God exists, his glory has increased as science has given us awesome pictures and knowledge of his work and nature. Still, one might point out that God's glory was probably diminished during the Crusades, the Dark Ages, the American Civil War, all wars, the division of people, various injustices, the a-bomb, etc, etc.
6.8 pg 233. Its silly to think God would be required to prove his power to win men who are not ready to accept his love.
Its silly to think men would be required to accept his love when God has not proved his power (or his existence, for that matter).
6.9 pg 244. ((Interesting))
When the author talks about how terrible life would be without Christ, he quotes Rudyard Kipling, who observed that in India infant marriage, the prohibition of the remarriage of widows, the life-long imprisonment of wives in a worse than penal imprisonment, and the withholding from women of any kind of education.
These issues are liberal progressive issues, not necessarily Christian ones. Numerous, similar crimes against humanity (and women) could be pointed out during most periods in most Christian nations throughout history. Just goes to prove, when you get down to specific morality behind specific issues, Christians are really just liberals in disguise.
7.0 pg ((Interesting))
The author describes how Christianity still has lots to face and more to grow. He lists: "Vice rampant and impudent, with wealth luxurious and selfish, with war between nations and strife between classes, with race prejudices deep and hateful, with Mormonism eating like a cancer at the nation's heart, with national, state, and city governments dependent for revenue upon a traffic that is blighting thousands of homes and wrecking thousands of charactes, with the Church itself all too complacent and indifferent in the midsts of such conditions as these..."
This quote gives us great insight into the real values the author cares about. Its like seeing through the smoke of Christian theology. Some sins, according to the author, are disobeying the law, vice in general, selfishness, a lack of charity, hatred and oppression, false beliefs, and alcohol.
7.1 pg 248. "In America, the most scientific test to be made of Christian progress is in noting that the standard of character is higher than it was ever known to be in the past." (colleges and churches once began with a lottery, church leaders once dealt in the trade of alcohol, all gentlemen used profanity, slavery, politicians not held to high standards in personal life.)
Again, more insight into real values. Values: equality, equal rights, justice, sobriety, freedom, profanity free language, fidelity, truthfulness.
7.2 pg 250. "Christian nations are the source of progress in freedom, higher social life, the 'elevation of humanity', which are changing the world."
Christians have become liberal ideologs, thank god. Lets hope the trend continues.
7.3 pg 259. "Unless the character of life be worth while, its continued existence is not worth while."
Who is to say when life is not worth living? The individual only. Who is to judge another's life as worth while or not? Only a pompous bastard. Implicit in the first half of the quote is that there is a very specific character and way of living that must be adopted if one's life be worth living. I'll reject that notion and say that there are many ways one can live her life, and many different types of character to take up--all of which can be rewarding/fulfilling.
7.4 pg 259. It is not a given that people will value their life and strive to live it.
I agree. This is a huge problem in as much as those who don't value their lives obstruct the lives of those who do, and in as much as we care about others happiness, which I think we should.
7.5 pg 260. There is no promise for a life to come if it is not brought "to life to light Christ's first work was to give to men to see that life here is to be made worth while."
That is a noble work. I'd like to look into this notion of life being "worth while" and having "worth" more.
7.6 pg 260. There would be no joy quickened in millions of souls at the thought of dragging on wearily through endless years of existence if they couldn't see the light shining in the pathways of human progress, or if Christianity were not making good its claim.
This is why capitalism and Christianity make good bed-fellows. The more folks are worked to death, the more they drag wearily, the more they need reassurance that there's light at the end of the tunnel. If life were not like a dark tunnel, if it weren't so difficult, then people wouldn't be so far sighted-seeking out relief/joy far from their present place and time. In some ways, progressivism needs discontent to flourish. As does Christianity. And to a degree, capitalism. This will need to be looked into.
7.7 pg 262. Hope is the flowering of faith.
In other words, faith is a belief/feeling that perserverse through the changing of the seasons--a subdued feeling/conviction that makes possible the more joyful, intense feeling of hope. I admit that a big hope regarding one's own existence 100 years from now and beyond is not something folks like me get to experience. And I'm fine with that, because I have a big hope regarding the continuation and progress of everything else.
7.8 pg 263. Faith is not final proof.
He said it.
7.9 pg 262. ((Interesting))
The author admits that there is only a good probability of the reality of something that cannot be experienced, due to consistency in history, experience, and facts...
8.0 pg 266. It has been demonstrated "that Christ is the one life worth living here." "Its joy, comfort, strength, victory."
....
8.1 pg 267. The scientific process is to proceed as if something were true.
No its not.
8.2 pg 268. The proof that Christ's teachings are true is in the difference between the class of men who follow them, and those who don't.
See above.
posted by Josh at
12:13 PM
0 Comments
