CNN linked it.
So did FOX.
Drudge had a link for a time.
Didn't check the other networks.
Just didn't have the desire to, especially since the whole shebang is a set up.
Evolution VERSUS Creationism.
The Bible VERSUS We don't know.
Gimme a break.
I've done a lot of study in this arena. I've read Dawkins (and Hawking) for good measure. Brilliant scientists. Not so good on the philosophy, though or actually finding logical conclusions to their given premises. Still, well worth the respective reads only so you know where they are coming from.
I've also listened to and read numerous Christian scientists and mathematicians: Francis Collins, Ian Hutchinson, John Lennox, Troy Vorhees, and others. Top notch stuff, especially from a Christian worldview. None, and I mean NONE of these thinkers see any conflict between science and faith.
Of course, there are those who want there to be a conflict.
Read that again. And again. And again.
A lot of money and air time goes to those who want there to be a conflict. "It's either/or!" they shout, without realizing both/and works really, really well.
Science is incomplete. It will always be incomplete. It rests upon certain fundamental assumptions which cannot be proven or disproven. (For proof of this, read Goedel's proof.)
Faith rests upon certain fundamental assumptions which cannot be proven or disproven. (See Hebrews 11)
The conflict comes from folks who are so dead-set in their own particular worldviews that they cannot allow for any sort of truth outside those particular worldviews. It makes for great television/drama (not), but makes it awfully difficult for any sort of real reconciliation and dealing with some of the real problems in the world.
Science and faith, working together can accomplish much. They actually need each other. "Debates" and attention grabbing headlines don't help.
Showing posts with label Reason. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Reason. Show all posts
Thursday, February 6, 2014
Wednesday, December 18, 2013
Do All Things Happen for a Reason?
I have been struck by a couple of conversations in the past week regarding this question.
Perhaps you have dealt with this in your life, particularly when facing the trials and tribulations of life.
More than a few times, I hear someone wrestling with troublesome events by saying, "There is a reason for this. God has a reason for this. I may not know what it is, but I know He has a reason for this."
I think I understand why people say such things. I think it has something to do with a philosophical conundrum which has defied human reason, and, in fact, has become an argument that some use to say God does not exist. The conundrum follows:
If God is all powerful and all good, then He has the ability to abolish evil. If He does not abolish evil, then He is not all good. If He cannot abolish evil, then He is not all powerful.
In order to preserve the sovereignty and goodness of God, many, including myself, have said, "We must give allowance that we cannot see the big picture and that God has a reason for allowing certain things to happen as they do." --Everything has a reason.
I think we must address a couple of points--first the idea of God's power.
I believe God is all powerful in the sense that there is no entity which has greater power than God; however, I believe God gave up some of His own power. That may sound blasphemous, but hear me out.
God gave to creation free will. God does not manipulate our hearts and minds to force us to act in a certain fashion. If He did, we would simply be robots, mere puppets on a string. (I love John Lennox's comment regarding this. Paraphrasing: If I went home to a robot wife and hit a button on the computer which made her say, "I love you," it wouldn't be too particularly satisfying." God forcing us to love and obey Him would have the same effect.)
Some have argued: well, why doesn't God limit our ability to perform evil. Hello! Ever hear of a conscience? But, I digress.
Because we have free will, God may know our chosen course of action, but He does not always intervene. Intervention at all times would mean that we would never learn any lessons (pain is a great teacher), and we would simply become objects of God's control once again--kind of like those robotic toys running around in those enclosed areas in the mall. They can go all over the place and run into things, but they are cordoned off in a particular area and are still toys.
So, then why does it seem like after some time, thought, and reflection, it looks like many things happen for a reason?
I submit to you, that most of God's intervention takes place AFTER tumultuous events occur. God's intervention occurs as He begins working to make good come out of the things we suffer--either by our own free will or because of the freedom of nature.
As God works in our lives to bring transformation, we begin to see something unfold which has brought us to a new level of understanding, a new level of love, a new level of compassion, or what have you. God did not cause evil to befall us; He didn't intervene because of the freedom bestowed to His creation; yet, He began working to transform that evil into something good.
Sometimes, we can see this almost instantaneously. Sometimes it takes years, even decades, but when we finally see it, we have a "reason" for what happened. However, that reason wasn't there before the event, it only came after God's intervention and healing work in the world.
Do all things happen for a reason? No.
Can God work to make it seem that way? Yes, and I am convinced He does.
Perhaps you have dealt with this in your life, particularly when facing the trials and tribulations of life.
More than a few times, I hear someone wrestling with troublesome events by saying, "There is a reason for this. God has a reason for this. I may not know what it is, but I know He has a reason for this."
I think I understand why people say such things. I think it has something to do with a philosophical conundrum which has defied human reason, and, in fact, has become an argument that some use to say God does not exist. The conundrum follows:
If God is all powerful and all good, then He has the ability to abolish evil. If He does not abolish evil, then He is not all good. If He cannot abolish evil, then He is not all powerful.
In order to preserve the sovereignty and goodness of God, many, including myself, have said, "We must give allowance that we cannot see the big picture and that God has a reason for allowing certain things to happen as they do." --Everything has a reason.
I think we must address a couple of points--first the idea of God's power.
I believe God is all powerful in the sense that there is no entity which has greater power than God; however, I believe God gave up some of His own power. That may sound blasphemous, but hear me out.
God gave to creation free will. God does not manipulate our hearts and minds to force us to act in a certain fashion. If He did, we would simply be robots, mere puppets on a string. (I love John Lennox's comment regarding this. Paraphrasing: If I went home to a robot wife and hit a button on the computer which made her say, "I love you," it wouldn't be too particularly satisfying." God forcing us to love and obey Him would have the same effect.)
Some have argued: well, why doesn't God limit our ability to perform evil. Hello! Ever hear of a conscience? But, I digress.
Because we have free will, God may know our chosen course of action, but He does not always intervene. Intervention at all times would mean that we would never learn any lessons (pain is a great teacher), and we would simply become objects of God's control once again--kind of like those robotic toys running around in those enclosed areas in the mall. They can go all over the place and run into things, but they are cordoned off in a particular area and are still toys.
So, then why does it seem like after some time, thought, and reflection, it looks like many things happen for a reason?
I submit to you, that most of God's intervention takes place AFTER tumultuous events occur. God's intervention occurs as He begins working to make good come out of the things we suffer--either by our own free will or because of the freedom of nature.
As God works in our lives to bring transformation, we begin to see something unfold which has brought us to a new level of understanding, a new level of love, a new level of compassion, or what have you. God did not cause evil to befall us; He didn't intervene because of the freedom bestowed to His creation; yet, He began working to transform that evil into something good.
Sometimes, we can see this almost instantaneously. Sometimes it takes years, even decades, but when we finally see it, we have a "reason" for what happened. However, that reason wasn't there before the event, it only came after God's intervention and healing work in the world.
Do all things happen for a reason? No.
Can God work to make it seem that way? Yes, and I am convinced He does.
Saturday, July 13, 2013
Personal Experience, Proof of God, and Richard Dawkins
In the midst of writing my book, I came to the realization I would need to read Richard Dawkins' book The God Delusion. I had seen Dawkins debate Christian philosophers and scientists on Youtube, but I had yet to read his works. Necessity drove me to finally purchase the book.
I have managed the first quarter of the book so far, and there is much to discuss--too much to manage in a blog post. Dawkins' book actually received scathing reviews by many, and it is no surprise. What perhaps is surprising is Dawkins' apologetics in dealing with those reviews in the Kindle Edition. Basically, as I read him, he believes his critics are simply delusional--as is anyone who believes in God.
Whether or not I am delusional, along with the majority of the world's population remains to be seen. And I am currently writing a book to argue to the contrary; however, there is one item in Dawkins' book which I believe needs to be addressed: his rebuttal of the "Argument from Experience" for the existence of God.
Dawkins writes:
Many people believe in God because they believe they have seen a vision of him--or of an angel or a virgin in blue--with their own eyes. Or he speaks to them inside their heads. This argument from personal experience is the one that is most convincing to those who claim to have had one. But it is the least convincing to anyone else, and anyone knowledgeable about psychology. (Kindle Location 1397)
What makes Dawkins say such things?
The human brain runs first-class simulation software. Our eyes don't present to our brains a faithful photograph of what is out there, or an accurate movie of what is going on through time. Our brains construct a continuously updated model: updated by coded pulses chattering along the optic nerve, but constructed nevertheless. (Kindle location 1414)
...[The brain] is well capable of constructing 'visions' and 'visitations' of the utmost veridical power. To simulate a ghost or an angel or a Virgin Mary would be child's play to software of this sophistication. And the same works for hearing. (Kindle location 1431)
That is really all that needs to be said about personal 'experiences' of gods or other religious phenomena. If you've had such an experience, you may well find yourself believing firmly that it was real. But don't expect the rest of us to take your word for it, especially if we have the slightest familiarity with the brain and its powerful workings. (Kindle location 1471)
It may surprise you that I will not argue with Dawkins' commentary on the way the brain works. My own studies through Bowen Family Systems Theory confirms exactly this phenomena of the brain. In fact, it is well known that we all have a blind spot in each eye. Yet, if we close one eye, no such spot appears. Our brains fill it in!!!
Yes, indeed, our brains are capable of producing a model of reality, and they do it all the time.
But Dawkins has a problem here. A big problem which he doesn't seem to grasp. He uses this phenomena to argue against any sort of religious phenomena without admitting that his brain is running a model on the observations he too is relating to us about biology and evolution. He may try to argue that he is subjecting his observations to rigorous methodology, but it is still being processed by his own simulator in his own brain. And he certainly cannot argue that others have run the simulation and come up with the same results thereby confirming his own simulation because he admits: "Religious experiences are different only in that the people who claim them are numerous." (Kindle location 1403)
So, applying Dawkins' own argument to his works invalidates them, correct? I hardly think he would agree, yet, this is the logical conclusion.
There is more to be said; however. For Dawkins' only deals with the "simulation software's" ability to add things in. What he does not delve into--either by choice or by ignorance--is that the simulation software in our brain also OMITS things. Yes, you heard me correctly. The simulation software omits things--especially when there is a bias attached; and there is always a bias attached.
Please watch the following video as illustration:
If you are like me, you rewound it just to make sure there wasn't some sleight of hand.
Did you see that your brain omitted something important? Did you see how your simulation software omitted the obvious?
Perhaps Professor Dawkins knows this. Perhaps he does not. If he does and refused to include this important fact, I think he is guilty of major confirmation bias. Why?
Well, if one admits that one's brain simulation software omits things based upon a particular bias...
And Dawkins' particular bias is a singular hatred (believe me, that's not too strong a word) of all things religious...
Then it is not only quite possible, but quite likely his brain omits and overlooks religious experiences that may be happening in his own life. It is possible, even likely, Dawkins is missing something that is obvious to the rest of us: religious experience.
What Dawkins fails to recognize is the trustworthiness of the source. It is quite possible to dismiss religious experiences as false among those who are indeed mentally ill and unbalanced. It is quite another thing to dismiss them among people who live lives full of sanity, regularity, and normalcy (whatever that might be). Dawkins lumps them all together, and in doing so--along with omitting a very important detail in how our brains work--falls far short of offering a dismissal of religious experience as proof of God's existence.
I have managed the first quarter of the book so far, and there is much to discuss--too much to manage in a blog post. Dawkins' book actually received scathing reviews by many, and it is no surprise. What perhaps is surprising is Dawkins' apologetics in dealing with those reviews in the Kindle Edition. Basically, as I read him, he believes his critics are simply delusional--as is anyone who believes in God.
Whether or not I am delusional, along with the majority of the world's population remains to be seen. And I am currently writing a book to argue to the contrary; however, there is one item in Dawkins' book which I believe needs to be addressed: his rebuttal of the "Argument from Experience" for the existence of God.
Dawkins writes:
Many people believe in God because they believe they have seen a vision of him--or of an angel or a virgin in blue--with their own eyes. Or he speaks to them inside their heads. This argument from personal experience is the one that is most convincing to those who claim to have had one. But it is the least convincing to anyone else, and anyone knowledgeable about psychology. (Kindle Location 1397)
What makes Dawkins say such things?
The human brain runs first-class simulation software. Our eyes don't present to our brains a faithful photograph of what is out there, or an accurate movie of what is going on through time. Our brains construct a continuously updated model: updated by coded pulses chattering along the optic nerve, but constructed nevertheless. (Kindle location 1414)
...[The brain] is well capable of constructing 'visions' and 'visitations' of the utmost veridical power. To simulate a ghost or an angel or a Virgin Mary would be child's play to software of this sophistication. And the same works for hearing. (Kindle location 1431)
That is really all that needs to be said about personal 'experiences' of gods or other religious phenomena. If you've had such an experience, you may well find yourself believing firmly that it was real. But don't expect the rest of us to take your word for it, especially if we have the slightest familiarity with the brain and its powerful workings. (Kindle location 1471)
It may surprise you that I will not argue with Dawkins' commentary on the way the brain works. My own studies through Bowen Family Systems Theory confirms exactly this phenomena of the brain. In fact, it is well known that we all have a blind spot in each eye. Yet, if we close one eye, no such spot appears. Our brains fill it in!!!
Yes, indeed, our brains are capable of producing a model of reality, and they do it all the time.
But Dawkins has a problem here. A big problem which he doesn't seem to grasp. He uses this phenomena to argue against any sort of religious phenomena without admitting that his brain is running a model on the observations he too is relating to us about biology and evolution. He may try to argue that he is subjecting his observations to rigorous methodology, but it is still being processed by his own simulator in his own brain. And he certainly cannot argue that others have run the simulation and come up with the same results thereby confirming his own simulation because he admits: "Religious experiences are different only in that the people who claim them are numerous." (Kindle location 1403)
So, applying Dawkins' own argument to his works invalidates them, correct? I hardly think he would agree, yet, this is the logical conclusion.
There is more to be said; however. For Dawkins' only deals with the "simulation software's" ability to add things in. What he does not delve into--either by choice or by ignorance--is that the simulation software in our brain also OMITS things. Yes, you heard me correctly. The simulation software omits things--especially when there is a bias attached; and there is always a bias attached.
Please watch the following video as illustration:
Did you see that your brain omitted something important? Did you see how your simulation software omitted the obvious?
Perhaps Professor Dawkins knows this. Perhaps he does not. If he does and refused to include this important fact, I think he is guilty of major confirmation bias. Why?
Well, if one admits that one's brain simulation software omits things based upon a particular bias...
And Dawkins' particular bias is a singular hatred (believe me, that's not too strong a word) of all things religious...
Then it is not only quite possible, but quite likely his brain omits and overlooks religious experiences that may be happening in his own life. It is possible, even likely, Dawkins is missing something that is obvious to the rest of us: religious experience.
What Dawkins fails to recognize is the trustworthiness of the source. It is quite possible to dismiss religious experiences as false among those who are indeed mentally ill and unbalanced. It is quite another thing to dismiss them among people who live lives full of sanity, regularity, and normalcy (whatever that might be). Dawkins lumps them all together, and in doing so--along with omitting a very important detail in how our brains work--falls far short of offering a dismissal of religious experience as proof of God's existence.
Wednesday, May 15, 2013
Rethinking What You Thought You Knew (or at least what you were taught)
Every once in a while a book will come along which will change the way you think--or, at the very least, it will challenge the orthodoxy of that which you were taught during the education you received.
Perhaps it is a blessing (or a curse) that in the past three or four years, several books have done this very thing to me:
Timothy Keller's The Reason for God: Belief in an Age of Skepticism
Dallas Willard's compilation of several Veritas Lectures titled A Place for Truth: Leading Thinkers Explore Life's Hardest Questions
C.S. Lewis' Mere Christianity
These titles gave me some much needed tools to wrestle with my faith in a manner that was not given to me by the liberal education that I received in theology and philosophy. For once, I was able to wrestle with my faith from an orthodox perspective, and this wrestling helped me deal with the major points I found lacking in my previous theological education.
Currently, I am reading another book which promises to do the same thing in the area of biblical scholarship that the above books did in theology/philosophy.
The book is by Richard Bauckham, a Scottish scholar, and it is titled Jesus and the Eyewitnesses: The Gospels as Eyewitness Testimony. Thus far, (I am approximately 1/4 of the way through a 500 page tome) it is turning everything I learned in college and seminary upside down.
Revisiting the Past
During my college and seminary years, the third Quest for the Historical Jesus was well under way. Some of you might remember the famous or infamous Jesus Seminar from the mid to late 90's. I remember it well as it was another culmination of a particular way of doing biblical studies introduced to me by Dr. Norm Beck at Texas Lutheran University. I'll never forget the distinction he made between the Jesus of History and the Christ of Faith.
How does one go about making such a distinction?
Well, first one must approach the Gospel stories in the New Testament with certain assumptions:
The Gospels originated in communities of faith who wrote down the stories of Jesus years after the death and resurrection of Jesus. These stories were first passed down as oral traditions, and over time, they became embellished. Certain things were added to the stories to make Jesus seem more powerful and attractive. There are kernels of history still included in the Gospel narratives, but these must be weeded out from the faith statements/embellishments added by the various communities in which the Gospel stories originated.
How can one go about distinguishing the Jesus of History from the Christ of Faith? Good question. Certain scholars have come up with numerous sets of criteria to accomplish this task. These vary of course from scholar to scholar and from methodology to methodology. The Jesus Seminar was quite ingenious in that they had a vote by color scheme to decide what was "authentically Jesus" and what was embellishment. Such methodologies could be applied in the following manner, and I will use two of the most important events surrounding Jesus: the crucifixion and the resurrection.
The crucifixion of Jesus is found in all four canonical gospels. It is also attested to by extra-biblical sources. The crucifixion would also be considered an embarrassment to the early Christian community as their leader was executed as a public criminal. To include this in the works despite the embarrassment means there is a very high likelihood that the event actually took place. Ergo-the crucifixion is definitely something that happened in the life of the Jesus of History.
The resurrection cannot be attested to by science or reason. Extra-biblical sources comment that Jesus' followers say He rose from the dead, but there are no other witnesses other than those followers. Such comments are not objective and are not historically verifiable. Ergo, the resurrection is an event which is faith based and belongs to the Christ of Faith.
Now, this type of hair splitting can be rather concerning to many Christians. There is a sense of "this is what really happened" versus "this is what was made up" lurking very near. But, professors are usually not willing to totally destroy someone's faith. They quickly point out the difference between reason and faith and that faith isn't something reason can confirm or deny. There is no danger from entering into this process.
However, there are more than a few issues with this process:
1. Even though professors (and others) try to comfort believers by pointing out the difference between faith and reason and saying there is nothing to worry about; a good chunk of folks set faith and reason at war with one another. There is a tendency to elevate one particular type of knowledge above the other, and this has led to all sorts of issues for the Church and for society.
2. When dealing with the Jesus of History--if you actually think you can whittle down to it--one must be able to make the Jesus of History as powerful as the Christ of Faith. If the Christ of Faith developed later as an embellishment of oral history, then there must have been something quite powerful about the Jesus of History to initiate a movement based upon Him and His teachings. Have Jesus of History scholars had to do their own embellishment to make the Jesus of History as appealing as the Jesus which appears in the Gospels? Not sure on that one.
3. There is an oddly peculiar thing that happens in this quest for the Jesus of History. Whenever a scholar "reconstructs" Jesus, then that Jesus seems to share many of the same passions, inclinations, and concerns as that particular biblical scholar. So, one must ask whether or not the scholar is truly objective or is simply trying to make Jesus into a mirror image of his or her own beliefs?
Revisiting the Basic Assumptions
Bauckham makes such problems irrelevant.
How?
He challenges the basic assumptions of such biblical scholarship.
Bauckham begins by building a case that the Gospel narratives were NOT based upon oral histories and traditions that developed over time and were embellished. (That's an important statement. Read it again.) Rather, Bauckham builds his case that each Gospel narrative was written based upon the eyewitness testimony of individuals who both saw and heard Jesus in person. Each Gospel writer uses different eyewitnesses with at least one primary one, and three of the Gospels actually give indications as to who the primary eyewitness(es) was.
Mark's primary eyewitness was Peter.
Luke's primary eyewitnesses were several women who were disciples.
John was written by an eyewitness--the Beloved Disciple.
As I mentioned earlier, I am only 1/4 of the way through the book, but Bauckham's arguments are thoroughly researched, grounded, and documented. There are multiple footnotes on just about every page. He is very, very thorough.
Consequences
If indeed Bauckham is correct in his challenge of the basic assumptions of the formation of the Gospel narratives, then we have just entered into a whole new world of understanding the stories about Jesus. These are not the stories of legend, but the recollections of people who were there.
Now, one can say that these folks are making all the stuff up. It's a reasonable thing to say. However, these are multiple witnesses recounting many of the same stories without too much difference. In fact, knowing the way our brains work and the details they remember, it might even be safe to say that the differences we encounter in many of the biblical stories are there because these eyewitnesses remember certain details over others--much like eyewitnesses who testify to a jury differ in their details. In no way does it discount the truth of the events!
Furthermore, the dualism of distinguishing between the Jesus of History versus the Christ of Faith is no more. The Jesus of History IS the Christ of Faith (basically, this was the same thing Luke Timothy Johnson said during the whole Jesus Seminar hullabaloo; however, Bauckham is much, much more thorough). The Gospels are stories based upon individual testimony and not compilations put together by particular communities. And, if Bauckham is correct about the Gospel of John, we have at least one narrative written by a person who witnessed the life of Jesus, His death, His resurrection, and His appearances after the resurrection.
Fascinating, exciting stuff!!! Stuff that makes you rethink everything you thought you knew or at least what you were taught.
Perhaps it is a blessing (or a curse) that in the past three or four years, several books have done this very thing to me:
Timothy Keller's The Reason for God: Belief in an Age of Skepticism
Dallas Willard's compilation of several Veritas Lectures titled A Place for Truth: Leading Thinkers Explore Life's Hardest Questions
C.S. Lewis' Mere Christianity
These titles gave me some much needed tools to wrestle with my faith in a manner that was not given to me by the liberal education that I received in theology and philosophy. For once, I was able to wrestle with my faith from an orthodox perspective, and this wrestling helped me deal with the major points I found lacking in my previous theological education.
Currently, I am reading another book which promises to do the same thing in the area of biblical scholarship that the above books did in theology/philosophy.
The book is by Richard Bauckham, a Scottish scholar, and it is titled Jesus and the Eyewitnesses: The Gospels as Eyewitness Testimony. Thus far, (I am approximately 1/4 of the way through a 500 page tome) it is turning everything I learned in college and seminary upside down.
Revisiting the Past
During my college and seminary years, the third Quest for the Historical Jesus was well under way. Some of you might remember the famous or infamous Jesus Seminar from the mid to late 90's. I remember it well as it was another culmination of a particular way of doing biblical studies introduced to me by Dr. Norm Beck at Texas Lutheran University. I'll never forget the distinction he made between the Jesus of History and the Christ of Faith.
How does one go about making such a distinction?
Well, first one must approach the Gospel stories in the New Testament with certain assumptions:
The Gospels originated in communities of faith who wrote down the stories of Jesus years after the death and resurrection of Jesus. These stories were first passed down as oral traditions, and over time, they became embellished. Certain things were added to the stories to make Jesus seem more powerful and attractive. There are kernels of history still included in the Gospel narratives, but these must be weeded out from the faith statements/embellishments added by the various communities in which the Gospel stories originated.
How can one go about distinguishing the Jesus of History from the Christ of Faith? Good question. Certain scholars have come up with numerous sets of criteria to accomplish this task. These vary of course from scholar to scholar and from methodology to methodology. The Jesus Seminar was quite ingenious in that they had a vote by color scheme to decide what was "authentically Jesus" and what was embellishment. Such methodologies could be applied in the following manner, and I will use two of the most important events surrounding Jesus: the crucifixion and the resurrection.
The crucifixion of Jesus is found in all four canonical gospels. It is also attested to by extra-biblical sources. The crucifixion would also be considered an embarrassment to the early Christian community as their leader was executed as a public criminal. To include this in the works despite the embarrassment means there is a very high likelihood that the event actually took place. Ergo-the crucifixion is definitely something that happened in the life of the Jesus of History.
The resurrection cannot be attested to by science or reason. Extra-biblical sources comment that Jesus' followers say He rose from the dead, but there are no other witnesses other than those followers. Such comments are not objective and are not historically verifiable. Ergo, the resurrection is an event which is faith based and belongs to the Christ of Faith.
Now, this type of hair splitting can be rather concerning to many Christians. There is a sense of "this is what really happened" versus "this is what was made up" lurking very near. But, professors are usually not willing to totally destroy someone's faith. They quickly point out the difference between reason and faith and that faith isn't something reason can confirm or deny. There is no danger from entering into this process.
However, there are more than a few issues with this process:
1. Even though professors (and others) try to comfort believers by pointing out the difference between faith and reason and saying there is nothing to worry about; a good chunk of folks set faith and reason at war with one another. There is a tendency to elevate one particular type of knowledge above the other, and this has led to all sorts of issues for the Church and for society.
2. When dealing with the Jesus of History--if you actually think you can whittle down to it--one must be able to make the Jesus of History as powerful as the Christ of Faith. If the Christ of Faith developed later as an embellishment of oral history, then there must have been something quite powerful about the Jesus of History to initiate a movement based upon Him and His teachings. Have Jesus of History scholars had to do their own embellishment to make the Jesus of History as appealing as the Jesus which appears in the Gospels? Not sure on that one.
3. There is an oddly peculiar thing that happens in this quest for the Jesus of History. Whenever a scholar "reconstructs" Jesus, then that Jesus seems to share many of the same passions, inclinations, and concerns as that particular biblical scholar. So, one must ask whether or not the scholar is truly objective or is simply trying to make Jesus into a mirror image of his or her own beliefs?
Revisiting the Basic Assumptions
Bauckham makes such problems irrelevant.
How?
He challenges the basic assumptions of such biblical scholarship.
Bauckham begins by building a case that the Gospel narratives were NOT based upon oral histories and traditions that developed over time and were embellished. (That's an important statement. Read it again.) Rather, Bauckham builds his case that each Gospel narrative was written based upon the eyewitness testimony of individuals who both saw and heard Jesus in person. Each Gospel writer uses different eyewitnesses with at least one primary one, and three of the Gospels actually give indications as to who the primary eyewitness(es) was.
Mark's primary eyewitness was Peter.
Luke's primary eyewitnesses were several women who were disciples.
John was written by an eyewitness--the Beloved Disciple.
As I mentioned earlier, I am only 1/4 of the way through the book, but Bauckham's arguments are thoroughly researched, grounded, and documented. There are multiple footnotes on just about every page. He is very, very thorough.
Consequences
If indeed Bauckham is correct in his challenge of the basic assumptions of the formation of the Gospel narratives, then we have just entered into a whole new world of understanding the stories about Jesus. These are not the stories of legend, but the recollections of people who were there.
Now, one can say that these folks are making all the stuff up. It's a reasonable thing to say. However, these are multiple witnesses recounting many of the same stories without too much difference. In fact, knowing the way our brains work and the details they remember, it might even be safe to say that the differences we encounter in many of the biblical stories are there because these eyewitnesses remember certain details over others--much like eyewitnesses who testify to a jury differ in their details. In no way does it discount the truth of the events!
Furthermore, the dualism of distinguishing between the Jesus of History versus the Christ of Faith is no more. The Jesus of History IS the Christ of Faith (basically, this was the same thing Luke Timothy Johnson said during the whole Jesus Seminar hullabaloo; however, Bauckham is much, much more thorough). The Gospels are stories based upon individual testimony and not compilations put together by particular communities. And, if Bauckham is correct about the Gospel of John, we have at least one narrative written by a person who witnessed the life of Jesus, His death, His resurrection, and His appearances after the resurrection.
Fascinating, exciting stuff!!! Stuff that makes you rethink everything you thought you knew or at least what you were taught.
Tuesday, April 30, 2013
Opinion Versus Conviction
A conviction is something that actually then in many ways is rooted in your soul. It is in your conscience. To change a conviction will involve a changing of who you are as a person. So, we are really not talking about preferences or opinions, and so when two worldviews collide, when two convictions collide, the best thing one can hope for is at least the cordiality with which we can disagree, and the civility with which we can interact in the midst of that disagreement. –Ravi Zacharias, Veritas Lecture "Is Tolerance Intolerant? Pursuing the Climate of Acceptance and Inclusion
I heard the comment many times in my first congregation, "That's just your opinion."
But it's not just an opinion for many. It's a conviction.
Ravi Zacharias put it succinctly in the above paragraph from his linked Veritas Lecture.
I don't think we are very good at making this distinction in our society today. We love spouting commentary about another's opinion. We actually denigrate their stances by calling them such. For the truth of the matter is, when it comes to many of the things we debate in this day and age, we are dealing with conviction.
And convictions, more often than not, cannot be proven. They are taken by faith.
For instance, a person who is a believer of God believes in two types of knowledge: knowledge gained by reason and knowledge gained by revelation.
A person who does not believe in God believes in one type of knowledge: knowledge gained by reason alone.
Which conviction is correct? (I would also add here, one could call these convictions "assumptions.")
The person of faith cannot prove there is such a thing as revelatory knowledge--at least not by reason alone. He or she assumes that such knowledge is real.
The person who believes all knowledge comes from reason is making an assumption as well. The statement "knowledge comes from reason" is an assumption. It cannot be proved by reason. That's called circular logic and has long been acknowledged as a fallacy.
Both convictions are taken upon faith. Period.
These basic convictions lead to very, very different conclusions about life. Period.
To change these convictions changes the entire worldview a person holds. Period.
And how easy is it to change a worldview? How easy is it to change one's basic assumptions/convictions about life? Very, very difficult. Period.
And so how can we discuss things when people hold vastly different convictions, those convictions are so difficult to change, and they lead to such vastly different conclusions about how the world operates and our place in that world?
...when two convictions collide, the best thing one can hope for is at least the cordiality with which we can disagree, and the civility with which we can interact in the midst of that disagreement.
Cordiality and civility. Two things hardly evident in much of our discourse in these days, especially since we are hardly taught to be humble. Everyone has to win. No one's self-esteem can be harmed. Everything has to be fair.
I call B.S.
If we are to have a civil and cordial discourse in this day and age, a massive dose of humility must be given to each and every person.
Christians, shouldn't have much of an issue as The Man instructed us, "All who exalt themselves will be humbled, and all who humble themselves will be exalted." --Matthew 23:12
I heard the comment many times in my first congregation, "That's just your opinion."
But it's not just an opinion for many. It's a conviction.
Ravi Zacharias put it succinctly in the above paragraph from his linked Veritas Lecture.
I don't think we are very good at making this distinction in our society today. We love spouting commentary about another's opinion. We actually denigrate their stances by calling them such. For the truth of the matter is, when it comes to many of the things we debate in this day and age, we are dealing with conviction.
And convictions, more often than not, cannot be proven. They are taken by faith.
For instance, a person who is a believer of God believes in two types of knowledge: knowledge gained by reason and knowledge gained by revelation.
A person who does not believe in God believes in one type of knowledge: knowledge gained by reason alone.
Which conviction is correct? (I would also add here, one could call these convictions "assumptions.")
The person of faith cannot prove there is such a thing as revelatory knowledge--at least not by reason alone. He or she assumes that such knowledge is real.
The person who believes all knowledge comes from reason is making an assumption as well. The statement "knowledge comes from reason" is an assumption. It cannot be proved by reason. That's called circular logic and has long been acknowledged as a fallacy.
Both convictions are taken upon faith. Period.
These basic convictions lead to very, very different conclusions about life. Period.
To change these convictions changes the entire worldview a person holds. Period.
And how easy is it to change a worldview? How easy is it to change one's basic assumptions/convictions about life? Very, very difficult. Period.
And so how can we discuss things when people hold vastly different convictions, those convictions are so difficult to change, and they lead to such vastly different conclusions about how the world operates and our place in that world?
...when two convictions collide, the best thing one can hope for is at least the cordiality with which we can disagree, and the civility with which we can interact in the midst of that disagreement.
Cordiality and civility. Two things hardly evident in much of our discourse in these days, especially since we are hardly taught to be humble. Everyone has to win. No one's self-esteem can be harmed. Everything has to be fair.
I call B.S.
If we are to have a civil and cordial discourse in this day and age, a massive dose of humility must be given to each and every person.
Christians, shouldn't have much of an issue as The Man instructed us, "All who exalt themselves will be humbled, and all who humble themselves will be exalted." --Matthew 23:12
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)