Pseudo intellectual protesteth too much
"I do find it rather comical anyway that you need to scrabble around for ‘evidence’ (often pretty dodgy evidence) when it suits and then spend ages refuting any empirically tested evidence with all ‘sound and fury’ when it doesn’t suit."
(A comment posted to me on an earlier post)
I have yet to see any empirically tested evidence that a creator God does not exist. Or that Jesus did not resurrect from the dead. Or That after receiving the 'death sentence' from doctors my friend wasn't miraculously healed of cancer IMMEDIATELY after another friend prayed and heard Jesus say that he (Jesus) was going to heal him - even the doctors were quoted in the papers as stating this was a miracle!
If there is empiracally tested evidence for such things, why is that many who I suspect are greater and more intelligent thinkers even then those who post negatively on my blog (if that be possible - given the rudeness and patronsisation of some 'intellectual' protestors) believe otherwise???
Then I get accused of needing evidence to sustain my faith. The implication is that I should take on board: "Now faith is being sure of what we hope for and certain of what we do not see. This is what the ancients were commended for. Heb 11:1"
I feel that on this one I just can't win. I am damned if I offer evidence for my faith, and damned if I appear to have blind faith. Well the truth on this matter is that I am sure of what I hope for and certain of what I do not see, but am also greatful that I can enter into the world of appologetics using the evidence that is before me.
(A comment posted to me on an earlier post)
I have yet to see any empirically tested evidence that a creator God does not exist. Or that Jesus did not resurrect from the dead. Or That after receiving the 'death sentence' from doctors my friend wasn't miraculously healed of cancer IMMEDIATELY after another friend prayed and heard Jesus say that he (Jesus) was going to heal him - even the doctors were quoted in the papers as stating this was a miracle!
If there is empiracally tested evidence for such things, why is that many who I suspect are greater and more intelligent thinkers even then those who post negatively on my blog (if that be possible - given the rudeness and patronsisation of some 'intellectual' protestors) believe otherwise???
Then I get accused of needing evidence to sustain my faith. The implication is that I should take on board: "Now faith is being sure of what we hope for and certain of what we do not see. This is what the ancients were commended for. Heb 11:1"
I feel that on this one I just can't win. I am damned if I offer evidence for my faith, and damned if I appear to have blind faith. Well the truth on this matter is that I am sure of what I hope for and certain of what I do not see, but am also greatful that I can enter into the world of appologetics using the evidence that is before me.
Comments
I hope this finds you well?
Yes, an interesting post – it seems as if you are a little angry and I do apologise if I have caused offence. However I stand by what I said. Let me explain why.
If I were to say to you ‘There is substantial empirical evidence that supports the theory of evolution.’ You would probably jump in and say something along the lines ‘it’s only a theory...’ etc. ‘The Bible says’ etc.
As I said at the beginning of the reply that seems to have narked you ‘sometimes we have to agree to disagree...’
There is little or no empirical evidence that pray works or that there is life after death, or that Jesus rose from the dead. No one is saying these things aren’t true, or true for you at least. All I am saying is that these cannot be tested empirically i.e. in a manner that would suit a positivist paradigm or worldview. Hence my surprise at the effort yourself and fellow Evangelical spectrum bloggers put into refuting a scientific/non-theist worldview when that worldview challenges or exposes the weaknesses of Scriptural interpretation; yet use same paradigm – basically evidence ‘A’ proves ‘B’ – when it suits.
e.g. in the post which has upset you, you appeal to history: ‘There isn't a serious historian who denies that people like Peter who followed this man died for his faith... WHAT MORE EVIDENCE DO YOU NEED PARTICULARLY FOR THE EXISTENCE OF JESUS?’
Here you appeal to history; yet in my reply I demonstrated that the history of the New Testament is weak in some aspects. Yet I DO NOT state Jesus didn’t exist; what I do state is that the real force for belief is FAITH – not evidence – and nowhere in my replies can I read any mention of my denying the power of faith.
Similarly in this post you appeal to scientific evidence as being a means by which Christian belief is validated: ‘even the doctors were quoted in the papers as stating this was a miracle!’. All I am saying is that it is futile to use evidence as a base for religion – by its very nature, religious belief is rooted in faith. Your friend’s healing may have been a miracle – NO ONE is disputing that fact. The fact that it needs to be ‘validated’ by Western medicine is the bit I find odd, that’s all.
I spent years working in the cancer wards of one of London’s leading cancer centres and saw many, many devout and faithful Christians claim Jesus would heal them (people from the age of 16 to 80+); they all died – often painful, nasty, messy deaths, frequently leaving small children and loved ones in dire circumstances (hence my involvement). Do you remember the David Watson debacle? When John Wimber and the Vine Fellowship told David he would be cured of cancer. He died, despite well publicised communication with the Holy Spirit saying he would be cured.
It is very dangerous to seek positivist evidence for Christian (or whatever faith) belief; positivism & theology are distinct disciplines and don’t make good bed fellows. For every once in a while ‘miracle’ there are far more examples of illness, circumstances, problems etc. coming to their usual conclusion – despite the fervent prayers of the faithful.
If you offer ‘evidence’ do not get huffy when people refute it; it is far better to stick to what Christianity is about, FAITH. If your faith is sufficient you don’t need to worry what other folk say – be they intellectuals or pseudo intellectuals.
N.B. I’ve been called a ‘pseudo-intellectual’ before, perhaps I am; certainly I am aware that the more knowledge you acquire, the more ignorant you realises you are... That said, I’ve just been able to give up my part time job because I have won £43K of funding for the remainder of my PhD, granted by a body of fairly senior UK academics – so I must be doing something right. But I would never claim to be an intellectual. Please read the last two entries on my blog (30/10/09 & 27/10/09) and I hope you can see how I view my own intellectual abilities.
Your humble servant in Pseuds’ Corner:
L.L.
Thanks for your reply and particular for the tone of the reply.
"the fact that it needs to be ‘validated’ by Western medicine is the bit I find odd, that’s all."
Personally I don't think the miracle in one sense needed to be validated - it just happened to have been validated and therefore gives credibility to the story. That said Jesus sent lepers who had been cleansed to the priest for such a validation.
"No one is saying these things aren’t true, or true for you at least."
You know that this type of reply can not be satisfactory and am surprised with your tone of absolute certainty about your views - that you allow yourself to make such a statement. Either I am right in my statement for example that micro evolution is a myth or I am wrong - I can't be both right and wrong at the same time. My belief can not be true to me and at the same time a completely opposite view be true to that person. Similarly either it is absolutely true that my friend Geoff's miracle healing either was instigated by Jesus or it is absolutely untrue.
It is interesting that you have worked on a cancer ward (might it be possible that my telling of Geoff's story was divine providence - or does it have to be a coincidence?) I have no problem with the 'non miracles' since I obviously believe complete healing happens in heaven anyway. In CHrist there is no such thng as terminal illness. God is sovereign and it is he who decides to keep alive and whom to heal.
Blessings
Neil
More from Pseuds’ Corner...
Please could you elucidate “"No one is saying these things aren’t true, or true for you at least." You know that this type of reply cannot be satisfactory and am surprised with your tone of absolute certainty about your views”
We share a very similar trait, we are both fairly sure of what we are saying is correct. Like you, I am not a great lover of postmodernism – though I accept that there are different realities. However, despite my own misgivings concerning a scientific worldview, in the main I am happy to live within that view because it seems the best means of explaining the world. The question which concerns us both is, ‘Is there an Unseen World?’ I would proffer a tentative yes to this question; though would add the caveat that by this I mean there are things that as yet are not explainable by scientific or rational deduction.
Yet for many years I held fairly orthodox Christian beliefs, initially Evangelical and then I migrated to a more catholic (note the small ‘c’) understanding of Christianity – particularly influenced by Michael Ramsey’s book ‘The Gospel and the Catholic Church’ and subsequent familiarity with the Greek Fathers and Orthodoxy.
I then began formal study (at masters level) of other religions and cultures and was pretty shocked to note that religious belief, particularly monotheistic belief, tends to give rise to very similar views being held by given groups with very different societies. e.g. Reformed Islam bears an uncanny resemblance to Evangelical Christianity in its emphasis of a personal relationship with Allah through Scripture.
Hence I have particular problems when, in blogs like your own, the Bible is given as the only TRUTH. And an even greater problem when it is implied the world would be a better place if everyone became Christians. There is little evidence from history to suggest this is the case – there is a putative belief that somewhere in the past, there was some halcyon world that intellectual and political liberalism has destroyed. Even the briefest sortie into popular history suggests this is at best wishful thinking and at worst a lie. My own belief is that organised religious belief is rooted in personal needs and an articulation of social power. Reading some of your posts it is easy to see that if you got into political power some of the freedoms of Western secular democracy would indeed be at risk of erosion.
Since my general creed is live and let live my pot shots at some of the inconsistencies of your religious assertions is just a little harmless sniping (if you don’t want to be sniped at, don’t have a blog!). I do take exception to the view that Christians are somehow special and their worldview shouldn’t be challenged or that because they believe in stories (or selected stories) from some dusty old book Christians (or Muslims, Jews, for that matter) have some greater moral authority than the rest of us poor mortals. Again history, and my considerable personal experiences in several churches and working for religious organisations, suggest that Christian morality ruled by the 11th Commandment – Thou Shalt Not Get Found Out...’
Lastly, “It is interesting that you have worked [at a cancer centre] (might it be possible that my telling of Geoff's story was divine providence...”. Its seems you are trying to say God is speaking to me? And note – thro you... And we’re back to the old L.L. chestnut of the endemic conceit of religious belief. It may interest you to note that in my experience of palliative care, there are some people who just get better! They are few and far between, but some people make remarkable recoveries or don’t succumb to their terminal diagnosis. I have known this happen to two people – one was a confirmed atheist and remained so. I’ve also known others claim to be cured by Allah, Hinduism, Buddhism, spiritualism, Scientology and even Michael Jackson! Will the real healer of terminal cancer please stand up!
Happy Blogging...
"I have yet to see any empirically tested evidence that a creator God does not exist. Or that Jesus did not resurrect from the dead."
Or that empirically tested evidence that you don't owe me $100,000.
So, pay up already. :-)
Seriously though, the burden of proof lies with the person making a positive claim. Since I say neither "God does not exist" nor do I say "Jesus did not resurrect from the dead", I do not have the burden of proof. I simply react to positive statements (which carry the burden of proof), such as "God exists" or "Jesus resurrected" with, "ok, please support that claim."
Neil, I think you're reading far too much emotion into what I and LL have been writing. The only time I really had an issue with you was your misuse of the words "theory" and "fact".
Lastly, whenever I read something like:
"Or That after receiving the 'death sentence' from doctors my friend wasn't miraculously healed of cancer IMMEDIATELY after another friend prayed and heard Jesus say that he (Jesus) was going to heal him - even the doctors were quoted in the papers as stating this was a miracle!"
I think, "hey, that's awesome for your friend! But... what about the starving and diseased children all around the world? Are they not praying hard enough?"
Lastly, and you don't have to accept this, but are you aware that there are psychological explanations to your view of the "miracle" situation above? I accept those explanations more than I do the "miracle" explanations, because the former does not require new questions to be asked.
Regardless, glad to see you back, Neil. I responded to one of your recent threads, but it appears that my comment was not posted. I'm curious if it simply got lost, or you were too busy, or maybe I wrote something that you found offensive? If it's the latter, I apologize, as that was not my intention.
Be well.
I noticed that up above you mention that you have a belief that micro evolution is a myth. I assume you meant to write "macro evolution" there, correct?
Also, Neil, is it possible that everything that you currently think that you understand about evolution (whether micro or macro) is completely incorrect? Is it possible that you, unintentionally, might be arguing against a straw-man of evolution?
Just re-reading your complaint and I read this:
“Then I get accused of needing evidence to sustain my faith. The implication is that I should take on board: "Now faith is being sure of what we hope for and certain of what we do not see. This is what the ancients were commended for. Heb 11:1"
I am very sorry if you misunderstood this – I certainly WASN’T saying you need evidence to sustain your faith. As noted above, all I am saying is that positivism and faith are not good bed fellows. As you are so clearly demonstrating – the problems start when you TRY and dovetail evidence from one epistemological paradigm with arguments and Scriptural evidence that clearly belong to another – they are not a good fit...
To be quite frank, don’t you think it is a tad unhealthy to immediately see yourself as the victim or target? This is rather, shall we say, egocentric... You have inferred something that I certainly never intended (nor can I see any evidence for this inference in my posted comments); this grieves me, probably more than you might think.
I will end with some words of wisdom from a woman who was described by a possible suitor – Herbert Spencer – as being ‘too morbidly intellectual...’. The woman in question is George Eliot and the quote is from Mill on the Floss. I have used it elsewhere on the net, but I think it is fitting to use it here:
“Plotting covetousness and deliberate contrivance, in order to compass a selfish end, are nowhere abundant but in the world of the dramatist: they demand too intense a mental action for many of our fellow-parishioners to be guilty of them. It is easy enough to spoil the lives of our neighbours without taking so much trouble; we can do it by lazy acquiescence and lazy omission, by trivial falsities for which we hardly know a reason, by small frauds neutralized by small extravagances, by maladroit flatteries, and clumsily improvised insinuations. We live from hand to mouth, most of us, with a small family of immediate desires; we do little else than snatch a morsel to satisfy the hungry brood, rarely thinking of seed-corn or the next year’s crop.”
In sackcloth and ashes, here in Pseuds’ Corner.
L.L
???
"I responded to one of your recent threads, but it appears that my comment was not posted."
I have not intentionally not pulished your post. Sorry if i deleted it without publishing.
"I noticed that up above you mention that you have a belief that micro evolution is a myth"
You are right I meant macro evolution
"this grieves me, probably more than you might think."
Don't be greived!
"don’t you think it is a tad unhealthy to immediately see yourself as the victim or target?"
I am not the only one that thinks that(inadvertantly or otherwise) 'intellectual bullying' tactics has been employed. I accept however that getting the right tone using the media of blogging can be difficult - sometime when we put across our point strongly it can appear that we are at best being patronising.
This post did not mean to have a 'woe is me' tone I am by no means scarred by your comments - but am interested about the sometimes aggressive tone of those who want to deny the Christian faith. What is the honest answer to this? Why do people object to the Christian faith with such fervour?
Do you guys accept that there are more intelligent people than yourself who looked at the evidence of eg the resurrection of Jesus and come to the conclusion that Jesus is alive? If so what is your explanation of this?
time for bed!
Neil
Long live the syllogism, eh, Neil?!!
By the way, I've never stated anywhere on this blog or anyone else’s, that Jesus didn't rise from the dead.
Please don't presume I am 'anti-Christian'. My major gripe is the portraying of Christianity as a salve-all religion and the Bible as the infallible word of God, when there is scant evidence for this; my belief is that The Bible may have some pointers along the way, but there has to be a good deal of ‘blinkering’, ignoring shocking inconsistencies and anomalies, if one wants to consider it as an all encompassing whole. It is the lack of true dialogue I find difficult in blogs like yours and others like it. I used to work in an office in London where some staff had a weekly prayer meeting. I was frequently asked by these Christians for where certain passages could be found in the Bible, because it became known that my knowledge of Scripture often exceeded their own. It is probably still the case. It would be nice, once and a while, that if I asked you a question about one of the Bible’s inconstancies, that you were able to proffer a suitable reply. Because I can no longer overlook these problems with Scripture, I would be interested to know how you are able to do this. Alas, we have not reached this dialogue; I hope in the future we can do this one day...
I know from your video on the Church Army website you work with children; a ‘black & white’ view of the Bible and its stories might work for children, but it doesn’t work for me, I’m afraid.
Have a blessed Sunday!
L.L.
(I’m soon to become Commuterland Lad, as we move out of London next week, but I think I will keep the sobriquet L.L....)
P.S. Looking at your Facebook friends’ list, you have friends who are friends of my friends; which might suggest you and I share a good deal more in common than you might think...
I can only speak for myself, but it's not "the Christian faith" that I object to, but it's disinformation, telling people what they think, and distorting another person's argument to make a negative presentation.
That's why, as I said before, my real objection was your use of the words "fact" and "theory". Or that you assume that I object to "the Christian faith", which I usually don't. Or that you think I'm trying to get all "intellectual" on you. You assume a lot about my motives, it seems, and I object far more to that than I do to your faith.
"Do you guys accept that there are more intelligent people than yourself who looked at the evidence of eg the resurrection of Jesus and come to the conclusion that Jesus is alive?"
Of course.
"If so what is your explanation of this?"
This is a very long explanation, but I'll try to nutshell it: it's because this conclusion is reached by way of emotion, and not by reason.
The much longer explanation goes into the psychology of it all, and if you want to start learning about that, I suggest learning about "Confirmation Bias".
I replied to this... did you accidently delete it again, or just been busy? I hope it's the latter.
Did my other reply get lost in the ether?
1st There are people more intelligent than me and possibly yourself (even I am not arrogant enough to estimate your intelligence) who have seriously looked at the evidence for Evolution and concluded it appears the only valid means of explaining life on Earth - are they right or wrong? Long live the Syllogism!!
As for my denying the death and resurrection of Christ - I have never made this denial on your blog! I think you should actually read what people are saying rather than presuming you and your beliefs are the victim in all this. I tend to harp on about it, but there is a good deal of conceit in religious belief - particularly the individualistic, me me me world of Evangelical Christianity. e.g. Someone on the internet posts something on your blog that states they have problems with aspects of Christian belief - this the becomes a 'denial' of the resurrection and a personal attack on you. Oh the trials of inverted pride!!
You have a whole blog posting inspired by your attitude on my blog... – have a look: http://londonlad-onwards.blogspot.com/2009/11/pseudo-intellectual.html
As for my views or understanding of Christianity - have a read of this quote:
"Jesus’ life, death and resurrection in this world bring us into a new way of relationship and understanding the world around us. He is both God and man, the Second Person of the Trinity, part of a communion of Love which is both the source and goal of our lives. He is true relationship. We are called to live our lives in this relationship; it is the gift of the Holy Spirit to bring us into full communion with God in this world and the fullness of Life in the next. Jesus took on our humanity so that our failing in relationship with God could be transformed and made new by humble obedience and self offering to the Father in the Spirit. Man could again return to the complete relationship God intended for us, the created and the Creator in a communion of Love and self-giving."
This is from a published article in a Christian journal - written by me.
Yes, I now have major problems with Christianity - and alas, blogs like yours, with their simplistic assertions – based on what appears to be gut feelings after hermeneutically reading a line or two from here and there in the Bible – heavy reliance on the syllogism and aggressive propaganda against more sophisticated reason; only assist me in my conviction than although there may be some truth in the basics of the Christian religion (though no more than are probably found in Islam or Hinduism) many Christians are enough to put me off organised religion for life!
Well, I have a house to move (we complete today on our house purchase!!).
Regards:
L.L.