[athanatos]

Okay, so I've been in a 19th cent. philosophy class this semester. It's almost over, but man has it been one of the most interesting, fast-paced philosophy courses. We have gone over Kant (briefly, very briefly), Hegel, Feuerbach, Marx, Kierkegaard, and now Nietzsche. I didn't care too much for Hegel, Marx was interesting but it felt rather easy to belittle him, Kierkegaard was very interesting, and Nietzsche I don't even know where to begin. He's got a lot of really interesting insights, but his way of going about it is just adolescent in many points.

But Feuerbach. At the beginning of the semester, I flipped through Feuerbach and thought to myself "oh gosh, we have to read this trash?" After reading it and engaging taking seriously the thesis that God is us -- a clearer, fuller resolution from Hegel's philosophy. God is the personification of reason and all we consider good. Taking this seriously, I have found it very, very strong. Adopting a confirmation bias, I find that it is one of the strongest ways to look at Christianity from an atheistic P.O.V., and all the problems that follow from the Christian ethics. Heck, if you replace "God" or "The Lord" with reason or "everything that is good", a lot of passages seem like they could retain their charge. (geeze, don't wanna give someone any ideas for new bible translations)

I guess by now I should say that I don't believe Feuerbach's account of God.

However, I feel like taking it seriously there is a new arsenal of attacks on Christianity. Consider the idea that God is highest when we differentiate Him from us, this comes to play in a host of things and is fully congruent with Christianity. Consider worship: we exalt God and we feel unworthy. Consider salvation: we give God the credit and we feel like wretches. Consider: the idea of losing/never-gaining a relationship with Christ -- are they not in two groups? Those who are too proud, who attach themselves to reason and common understandings of morality (that is, to make themselves God); those who are wicked, irrational, and hopeless (that is, to make themselves unrelatable to God). Consider the studies on the male-female relations with God: they show that males ascribe to God what they find in themselves (strength, knowledge, justice), while females ascribe to God what they find in themselves (mercy, gentleness, care).*

We can also see, from this point of view, why Christianity would be so strong, or any religion which has a similar God. You can't argue someone out of the most reasonable God; you can't argue against the most good-natured God. Instead, wouldn't you want to follow reason diligently, and believe that to be ungodly is irrational and stupid? Instead, wouldn't you want to have the highest ethics, and believe that to be ungodly is to have irregular ethics, uncaring heart, and act that one is still justified? You don't want to be irrational, thought to be weird in ethical judgment, or be uncaring, do you? Thus you must obey the commands of the god, follow his decrees, and anything he dictates.

Where I think this fails is all the times where the Scripture talks about the wisdom of the world is foolishness to God; and that the wisdom of God (and the death on the cross) is foolish to those who are perishing, a stumbling block to the philosopher of this age. That one must step out in faith, trusting the nature of the person who promised, sometimes without more justification than just that.

I guess I am just posting saying that what I thought was going to be taken least serious in my studies, keeps coming back to me.

* Foster, R. A., & Babcock, R. L. (2001). God as a Man versus God as a Woman: Perceiving God as a Function of the Gender of God and the Gender of the Participant. International Journal for the Psychology of Religion, 11.

[athanatos]

Does anyone else have this feeling that their faith seems to keep coming back to choice for belief? I feel like I have hundreds of other explanations for Christianity's claims, and that I am choosing to believe God is the real answer.>_>

[Nate]

Originally Posted by athanatos

Does anyone else have this feeling that their faith seems to keep coming back to choice for belief? I feel like I have hundreds of other explanations for Christianity's claims, and that I am choosing to believe God is the real answer.>_>

Which claims, specifically, are there "hundreds of other explanations for"?

I'm finding it hard to think of more than half a dozen explanations for the resurrection account (1) it was true, 2) it was made up, 3) he wasn't dead, 4) they were confused, 5) ummmm....).

How about the creation account (1) it was true, 2) it was made up, 3) Shiva / Allah / somebody else did it, 4) the sky had sex with the earth, 5) a big bang caused it, 6) aliens from another dimension made everything we see, 7) the spaghetti monster and the pink unicorn teamed up, 8) ummm....).

The flood (1) it was true, 2) it was made up, 3) it happened locally and they were confused, 4) ummm...). The exodus (1) it was true, 2) it was made up, 3) it wasn't as bad as they said, 4) ummm...). Walking on the water (1) it was true, 2) it was made up, 3) they hallucinated, 4) they were confused, 5) ummm....). Feeding the five thousand (1) it was true, 2) it was made up, 3) they all ate just a little bit, 4) ummm....).

How about Christianity's central claim, that we need a Savior and that Christ is that Savior. This is probably the only claim that can reasonably be said to have a large number of legitimate alternatives, as every religion has something approaching a need for salvation from evil. Still, in the modern world, there are only a handful of religions (say, a dozen?) that are accepted widely enough to be considered "other explanations" by a reasonable person. Sure, you can make up your own salvation account, but why not just be an atheist? If religion is true, and there really is a God, then certainly not you alone are the one to have found him.

I think that you're perfectly correct that faith is just "choosing to believe" one thing over another. I'm not sure what the big deal is about that realization. The problem is that you're preventing yourself from seeing the reality of the situation by using silly terms like "hundreds of other explanations", when there really aren't all that many different accounts of the things that Christianity claims. The world is not so nebulous as you seem to think. Maybe I'm just not understanding what exactly it is you're asking.

[athanatos]

Originally Posted by Nate

Which claims, specifically, are there "hundreds of other explanations for"?

I'm finding it hard to think of more than half a dozen explanations for the resurrection account (1) it was true, 2) it was made up, 3) he wasn't dead, 4) they were confused, 5) ummmm....).

How about the creation account (1) it was true, 2) it was made up, 3) Shiva / Allah / somebody else did it, 4) the sky had sex with the earth, 5) a big bang caused it, 6) aliens from another dimension made everything we see, 7) the spaghetti monster and the pink unicorn teamed up, 8) ummm....).

The flood (1) it was true, 2) it was made up, 3) it happened locally and they were confused, 4) ummm...). The exodus (1) it was true, 2) it was made up, 3) it wasn't as bad as they said, 4) ummm...). Walking on the water (1) it was true, 2) it was made up, 3) they hallucinated, 4) they were confused, 5) ummm....). Feeding the five thousand (1) it was true, 2) it was made up, 3) they all ate just a little bit, 4) ummm....).

How about Christianity's central claim, that we need a Savior and that Christ is that Savior. This is probably the only claim that can reasonably be said to have a large number of legitimate alternatives, as every religion has something approaching a need for salvation from evil. Still, in the modern world, there are only a handful of religions (say, a dozen?) that are accepted widely enough to be considered "other explanations" by a reasonable person. Sure, you can make up your own salvation account, but why not just be an atheist? If religion is true, and there really is a God, then certainly not you alone are the one to have found him.

I think this is on the same track. Only I was thinking along these lines: someone says God did [x] recently in their lives or God did [x] in the Bible... it is easy to come up with another interpretation that seems very reasonable, often more reasonable. Give yourself a hundred claims, you get a hundred alternative interpretations. Both consistent. The fact that they can be consistent seems bothersome. It is like choosing between Tycho's model over Copernicus'.

I think that you're perfectly correct that faith is just "choosing to believe" one thing over another. I'm not sure what the big deal is about that realization. The problem is that you're preventing yourself from seeing the reality of the situation by using silly terms like "hundreds of other explanations", when there really aren't all that many different accounts of the things that Christianity claims. The world is not so nebulous as you seem to think. Maybe I'm just not understanding what exactly it is you're asking.

If something is true, why is it so hard to believe? What faulty faculties we must have!

[acrossthesirion]

Originally Posted by athanatos

I think this is on the same track. Only I was thinking along these lines: someone says God did [x] recently in their lives or God did [x] in the Bible... it is easy to come up with another interpretation that seems very reasonable, often more reasonable. Give yourself a hundred claims, you get a hundred alternative interpretations. Both consistent. The fact that they can be consistent seems bothersome. It is like choosing between Tycho's model over Copernicus'.

Explanations don't exist in vacuums. Their "reasonableness" is dependent upon the a one "rationality" or another. Sure, one explanation may seem to be perfectly reasonable when you apply it only to specific situation, but that does not mean it doesn't arise out of system riddled with contradictions or metaphysical/epistemological/ethical problems.

[Nate]

Originally Posted by athanatos

If something is true, why is it so hard to believe? What faulty faculties we must have!

Indeed. That doesn't break my philosophy, although the admittance of human frailty certainly breaks most.

[athanatos]

Originally Posted by Nate

I think that you're perfectly correct that faith is just "choosing to believe" one thing over another. I'm not sure what the big deal is about that realization.

I guess I have been less Voluntarist; as in, you believe according to your evidence and make no conclusion if you have insufficient evidence or too much ambiguity. You don't choose to believe, you just can't help it.

Sentiments otherwise seems rather odd, if not breaking.