9 ms·

WBC doesn't have a reasonable understanding of the scripture? By merit of what? For every part of the book they are ignoring aren't there parts that everyone el

WBC doesn't have a reasonable understanding of the scripture? By merit of what? For every part of the book they are ignoring aren't there parts that everyone else ignores or comes up with flimsy rationalizations for? So faith in its current form is unreasonable? Faith instead should be scrutable? Thou shall test the Lord?

lotharbot 15y ago
> "aren't there parts that everyone else ignores or comes up with flimsy rationalizations for?" One of the things "crazies" and cults do is take single verses or single sentences, decide that they are universal principles written in a literal and strict legal fashion, draw a series of conclusions, and ignore or rationalize away anything that contradicts those conclusions. Often, a single charismatic leader chooses which verses the group follows and which they ignore; this is the case with WBC. On the other hand, a "reasonable person" will look at how different teachings relate to each other, consider the scope and context of each teaching, and try to build a coherent understanding of the whole. It's an iterated process; a study of passage A might change your understanding of passage B, while exposure to new historical or geographic information might change your understanding of passage C. Serious study, historical research, discussion, and reasoned, cordial disagreement (often of the form "I think you overstate the importance of X" or "I think you misunderstand the symbolism in Y") are characteristic of this approach. To an outside observer who is not familiar with the whole of scripture, it's easy to slip into the misconception that both groups are making "flimsy rationalizations" or ignoring inconvenient passages. The only way to really clearly see the difference is to become familiar with the source material yourself. Consider the prior analogy: crazies often believe they are standing on solid scientific ground, as they rationalize and ignore science that contradicts their ideas. To someone with inadequate understanding, it may appear that scientists also rationalize and ignore the crazies' data. With a strong enough scientific background, it becomes clear that the crazies' reasoning is flimsy while the scientists have solid, sensible, principled reasons for rejecting the crazies' conclusions. > "faith in its current form is unreasonable?" Faith, in the sense that a certain (rather vocal) Christian minority means it, is anti-reason. Despite your incredulous tone, faith, in its current and traditional form for most of the rest of Christianity, is reasonable -- as I said before, what it means to most of us is "acting upon what past experience has shown us to be true, even though present emotions make it difficult". Your reference to "testing the Lord" provides a great example of what faith means. In Exodus 14, Moses leads the people to the Red Sea, where God lets them cross and drowns Pharoah's army; then to Marah, with undrinkable water that God shows Moses how to purify; then to the desert, where God gives them bread from heaven. Each step of the way, they whine about impending death. By now, experience has shown them that God is providing for them, so (per my definition above) they should have faith as a result of experience. Yet the next time they come to a place with no water, they again complain about impending death. It is at this point (Exodus 17:2) that Moses says "why do you test the Lord?" They're not being criticized for unbelief in the unseen, but for unbelief when they should know better. They're not being criticized for wanting to see a sign from God; they're being criticized for challenging God for yet another sign. The expression "do not test the Lord" is always used in this sense -- when someone already has the experience to know better. (When people who do not have such experience ask God for a sign, He often gives it.)
- sixcorners 15y ago
  Well it's so good to hear someone say that faith should involve the weighing of evidence and all that. The next time I talk to an unreasonable Christian who doesn't like that I point out that their experience, like all the others, can be misconstrued as blind chance, can't be reproduced, and/or can't be falsified, I will just say that they don't know what faith really means and they are not a true Christian. That they are being unreasonable. That the way they use the word "faith" is different from the other majority 10% of Christians. > Serious study, historical research, discussion, and reasoned, cordial disagreement So I presume that using this method Christianity as a whole can begin to understand the true nature of the scripture and eventually coalesce into a single coherent religion? Instead of say, many many many different churches all believing things totally opposite of what the next does? I am sorry for my incredulous tone but it's just so foreign to me that any group that says that the skeptical will be punished can also be intellectually honest. I'm glad that you and presumably many like you take faith to be something that must not be anti-reason. To me that is rare, but then again that might be biased by all of the crazies that seem to get lots of attention. And I'm not talking about the Harold Campings of the world, just the average politician who rejects science.
  - lotharbot 15y ago
    > "The next time I talk to an unreasonable Christian ... I will just say [stuff]" A lot of the "unreasonableness" in modern American Christianity has a specific basis; understanding that basis is important if you want to respond effectively. Christian Liberalism was an intellectual movement in the late 1800s that sought to discard the supernatural aspects of scripture by inappropriately assuming most of it was figurative; Fundamentalism arose in the early 1900s as a response that included a series of overreactions -- treating scripture hyper-literally, embracing anti-intellectualism, and treating even the smallest everyday occurrences as supernaturally significant. While few today claim the label, a lot of ordinary American Christians have been influenced to some degree by this sort of thinking. Correcting this sort of unreasonableness is not as simple as telling them they're wrong and stupid; a less snarky and less belittling approach is usually more effective. Declaring (inaccurately) that they're "not true Christians" doesn't help, but rather, it is helpful to explain the details of why they are mistaken and help them understand better. (The downside is that this takes more effort than the standard reddit-style "OMG UR DUMB" comment; the upside is that it's actually productive.) > "their experience ... can be misconstrued as blind chance, can't be reproduced, and/or can't be falsified" It is tremendously important to treat one's experiences just like any other sort of data. One of the mistakes certain people make is treating common events as significant. One mistake a different group makes is treating all experience as insignificant. Do not be a part of either of those groups. Recall that "falsifiability" is a statement about theory, not about data. An experience is not falsifiable. A generalization drawn from experience should be (otherwise it is a worthless generalization.) Also recall that a lot of types of data cannot be reproduced -- historical observations, astronomical observations, fields like economics, and so on. We have systems and best practices for dealing with non-repeatable data; if it's carefully recorded, it can be analyzed and discussed rationally. It's not as good as lab experiments, but it's what you have to settle for when dealing with systems that can't be constrained to the lab. The key to dealing with experience as data is to understand the probabilities involved. Finding one's car keys after prayer and searching is not particularly signficant (after all, one normally finds their car keys after searching); praying and hearing turn-by-turn directions in your head to a place you've never been is significant. While both scenarios could theoretically be "blind chance", one is significantly harder to justify in that manner. > "Christianity as a whole can ... eventually coalesce ...?" The Bible isn't written like a legal document or a mathematical proof. In attempting to understand a fairly complex and sophisticated system with many parts contributing to the whole, there are estimates and prioritizations and judgment calls involved. Thus, there is a certain expected level of disagreement that is reasonable -- and modern Christian theologians are at that point (the "rank and file" are a little behind.) Most of the seemingly huge disagreements between churches or denominations are actually small disagreements about how to balance multiple important factors (I say this as a pacifist married to a defense contractor -- we are not "totally opposite", we just disagree on the relative importance of two statements.)
Dove 15y ago
You know, bible.org has a wonderful online theology course. I often recommend it to people as a primer on how theologians function in an academic context. It's not hostile, it's not an argument or apologetic. Just televised classroom discussions. I think it's interesting and thought-provoking, especially if you think "academic theologian" is a contradiction in terms. The lectures are a couple hours long, and they're best approached as a course. But they've cut them up into ~15 minute answers to topics. There's a list here: http://bible.org/article/258-theology-questions-and-answers http://bible.org/article/258-theology-questions-and-answers You might be particularly interested in numbers 33, 34, and 35 (How do various Christian traditions view truth?). Number 199, "What does it mean to have faith?" also answers one of your direct questions. The bit from 6:50 is where he starts getting into the actual answer to that.
- sixcorners 15y ago
  Thank you, I will have to watch that when I get the chance.

lotharbot 15y ago

> "aren't there parts that everyone else ignores or comes up with flimsy rationalizations for?" One of the things "crazies" and cults do is take single verses or single sentences, decide that they are universal principles written in a literal and strict legal fashion, draw a series of conclusions, and ignore or rationalize away anything that contradicts those conclusions. Often, a single charismatic leader chooses which verses the group follows and which they ignore; this is the case with WBC. On the other hand, a "reasonable person" will look at how different teachings relate to each other, consider the scope and context of each teaching, and try to build a coherent understanding of the whole. It's an iterated process; a study of passage A might change your understanding of passage B, while exposure to new historical or geographic information might change your understanding of passage C. Serious study, historical research, discussion, and reasoned, cordial disagreement (often of the form "I think you overstate the importance of X" or "I think you misunderstand the symbolism in Y") are characteristic of this approach. To an outside observer who is not familiar with the whole of scripture, it's easy to slip into the misconception that both groups are making "flimsy rationalizations" or ignoring inconvenient passages. The only way to really clearly see the difference is to become familiar with the source material yourself. Consider the prior analogy: crazies often believe they are standing on solid scientific ground, as they rationalize and ignore science that contradicts their ideas. To someone with inadequate understanding, it may appear that scientists also rationalize and ignore the crazies' data. With a strong enough scientific background, it becomes clear that the crazies' reasoning is flimsy while the scientists have solid, sensible, principled reasons for rejecting the crazies' conclusions. > "faith in its current form is unreasonable?" Faith, in the sense that a certain (rather vocal) Christian minority means it, is anti-reason. Despite your incredulous tone, faith, in its current and traditional form for most of the rest of Christianity, is reasonable -- as I said before, what it means to most of us is "acting upon what past experience has shown us to be true, even though present emotions make it difficult". Your reference to "testing the Lord" provides a great example of what faith means. In Exodus 14, Moses leads the people to the Red Sea, where God lets them cross and drowns Pharoah's army; then to Marah, with undrinkable water that God shows Moses how to purify; then to the desert, where God gives them bread from heaven. Each step of the way, they whine about impending death. By now, experience has shown them that God is providing for them, so (per my definition above) they should have faith as a result of experience. Yet the next time they come to a place with no water, they again complain about impending death. It is at this point (Exodus 17:2) that Moses says "why do you test the Lord?" They're not being criticized for unbelief in the unseen, but for unbelief when they should know better. They're not being criticized for wanting to see a sign from God; they're being criticized for challenging God for yet another sign. The expression "do not test the Lord" is always used in this sense -- when someone already has the experience to know better. (When people who do not have such experience ask God for a sign, He often gives it.)

sixcorners 15y ago
Well it's so good to hear someone say that faith should involve the weighing of evidence and all that. The next time I talk to an unreasonable Christian who doesn't like that I point out that their experience, like all the others, can be misconstrued as blind chance, can't be reproduced, and/or can't be falsified, I will just say that they don't know what faith really means and they are not a true Christian. That they are being unreasonable. That the way they use the word "faith" is different from the other majority 10% of Christians. > Serious study, historical research, discussion, and reasoned, cordial disagreement So I presume that using this method Christianity as a whole can begin to understand the true nature of the scripture and eventually coalesce into a single coherent religion? Instead of say, many many many different churches all believing things totally opposite of what the next does? I am sorry for my incredulous tone but it's just so foreign to me that any group that says that the skeptical will be punished can also be intellectually honest. I'm glad that you and presumably many like you take faith to be something that must not be anti-reason. To me that is rare, but then again that might be biased by all of the crazies that seem to get lots of attention. And I'm not talking about the Harold Campings of the world, just the average politician who rejects science.
- lotharbot 15y ago
  > "The next time I talk to an unreasonable Christian ... I will just say [stuff]" A lot of the "unreasonableness" in modern American Christianity has a specific basis; understanding that basis is important if you want to respond effectively. Christian Liberalism was an intellectual movement in the late 1800s that sought to discard the supernatural aspects of scripture by inappropriately assuming most of it was figurative; Fundamentalism arose in the early 1900s as a response that included a series of overreactions -- treating scripture hyper-literally, embracing anti-intellectualism, and treating even the smallest everyday occurrences as supernaturally significant. While few today claim the label, a lot of ordinary American Christians have been influenced to some degree by this sort of thinking. Correcting this sort of unreasonableness is not as simple as telling them they're wrong and stupid; a less snarky and less belittling approach is usually more effective. Declaring (inaccurately) that they're "not true Christians" doesn't help, but rather, it is helpful to explain the details of why they are mistaken and help them understand better. (The downside is that this takes more effort than the standard reddit-style "OMG UR DUMB" comment; the upside is that it's actually productive.) > "their experience ... can be misconstrued as blind chance, can't be reproduced, and/or can't be falsified" It is tremendously important to treat one's experiences just like any other sort of data. One of the mistakes certain people make is treating common events as significant. One mistake a different group makes is treating all experience as insignificant. Do not be a part of either of those groups. Recall that "falsifiability" is a statement about theory, not about data. An experience is not falsifiable. A generalization drawn from experience should be (otherwise it is a worthless generalization.) Also recall that a lot of types of data cannot be reproduced -- historical observations, astronomical observations, fields like economics, and so on. We have systems and best practices for dealing with non-repeatable data; if it's carefully recorded, it can be analyzed and discussed rationally. It's not as good as lab experiments, but it's what you have to settle for when dealing with systems that can't be constrained to the lab. The key to dealing with experience as data is to understand the probabilities involved. Finding one's car keys after prayer and searching is not particularly signficant (after all, one normally finds their car keys after searching); praying and hearing turn-by-turn directions in your head to a place you've never been is significant. While both scenarios could theoretically be "blind chance", one is significantly harder to justify in that manner. > "Christianity as a whole can ... eventually coalesce ...?" The Bible isn't written like a legal document or a mathematical proof. In attempting to understand a fairly complex and sophisticated system with many parts contributing to the whole, there are estimates and prioritizations and judgment calls involved. Thus, there is a certain expected level of disagreement that is reasonable -- and modern Christian theologians are at that point (the "rank and file" are a little behind.) Most of the seemingly huge disagreements between churches or denominations are actually small disagreements about how to balance multiple important factors (I say this as a pacifist married to a defense contractor -- we are not "totally opposite", we just disagree on the relative importance of two statements.)

Dove 15y ago

You know, bible.org has a wonderful online theology course. I often recommend it to people as a primer on how theologians function in an academic context. It's not hostile, it's not an argument or apologetic. Just televised classroom discussions. I think it's interesting and thought-provoking, especially if you think "academic theologian" is a contradiction in terms. The lectures are a couple hours long, and they're best approached as a course. But they've cut them up into ~15 minute answers to topics. There's a list here: http://bible.org/article/258-theology-questions-and-answers http://bible.org/article/258-theology-questions-and-answers You might be particularly interested in numbers 33, 34, and 35 (How do various Christian traditions view truth?). Number 199, "What does it mean to have faith?" also answers one of your direct questions. The bit from 6:50 is where he starts getting into the actual answer to that.

sixcorners 15y ago
Thank you, I will have to watch that when I get the chance.