Christianity is a personal relationship with God

The progressive Christian movement includes a segment who have rejected all the doctriens of the faith, I'll worry abut why latter; but one aspect of this apostacy is the rejection of salvation especially as a personal experience. I will demonstrate the entire point of christiantiy is personal salvation. That is not to say that it excludes social justice. I will deal with that at the end. One exampe of this rejection is Boyd Evans who is a Parish preist at St. thomas episcopal makes a statement which I found on facebook.

Boyd Evans "Christianity was never about individual salvation, It is well past time for us to get over this notion, if you don't believe that your salvation is bound up with your neighbors you have entirely missed Jesus' message."[1]

Robin Meyers defines salvation as:

The best single English synonym for “salvation”—“transformation”. Transformation of ourselves and the world. It’s about personal transformation and transformation of society as a whole. Salvation can be experienced as healing—a salve. Salvation is a healing ointment. Giving the transformation from blindness to seeing. In Eastern orthodoxy—primary definition of salvation is enlightenment. Jesus came as a light in our darkness[2]

I don't disagree with him and I certaily want to be mindful of the social justice connotations but that does not exclde being saved from sin and going to heaven. One is about growth of the other. God wants us to be coduits for his love to reach the world, But we can't shine the love of God into the world without seeing the need to change the world.

I don't know if Meyers holds his view in contrast to being saved from sin or in agreement with my view. But I will argue that personal relatioip with God, which includues beimg savd form sin,is fundmanetal to the meaning of being a Christian.

in more conservative churches where “salvation” meant believing certain things in order to get certain rewards, especially the assurance of going to heaven. Your discomfort comes from critical thinking, since to be “saved” assumes that you are lost and cannot save yourself. It also assumes that we are born into Original Sin as an inheritance, like being born left-handed or with red hair. Like so much of the language of evangelical Christianity, the “believer” is helpless and hopeless until we submit to a higher power. Or, more accurately, until we agree to say that we “accept Jesus Christ as our personal Lord and Savior” and know that our sins were forgiven by his death on the cross. It also assumes that the whole purpose of the life of Jesus was to die, when in fact he was killed. [3]

Meyers'understanding of orthodox view of salvation is wrong.It is not a reward for following rules. It is the outcome of a personal relatioship with God which is what the faith is about.Clearly a personal love relationshp between God and the believer reults in personal salvation as it's major effect. It is clear this is the goal of the christian faith. The Elder John tells us this when he says:"7 Dear friends, let us love one another, for love comes from God. Everyone who loves has been born of God and knows God. 8 Whoever does not love does not know God, because God is love." [1jn4:7-8] The Greek term used here to mean "Know" is Ginosko. Usually defined in lexicons as:

"to learn to know, come to know, get a knowledge of perceive, feel to become known to know, understand, perceive, have knowledge of to understand What does Ginóskó mean?" [4] Ginosko is special because it connotes the kind of knowledge that comes from personal experience.

The word ginōskō, ..., often describes the kind of knowledge involved in building an intimate relationship with a person. In fact,ginōskō is tied so tightly to relationships that it is used to describe the sexual relations between a husband and wife (Matthew 1:25; Luke 1:34).[5]

What is the Greek definition of knowledge? Epistêmêis the Greek word most often translated as knowledge, while technê is translated as either craft or art.Apr 11, 2003.

Thus when it speaks of Giosko we can be sure it is speaking of a personal dimension ot the faith. The faith is not just a bunch of good works and nice attitiudes. It's a relationship with God. The author of the Johanine literatrue (Gospel and epistles of John loved to use the word ginosko: In 1 John he uses it 21 times.[6] In the Gosel he uses it 141 times.one example:"If you had known (ginosko) Me (Jesus), you would have known (ginosko) My Father also; from now on you know (ginosko) Him, and have seen Him. (Jn 14:7). Wiersbe: What does it mean to “know the Father?”

Some of the social justice crowd reject the Johonine literatire becaues they don't like personal salavtion and they dont want to know God in that way. They still claim to follow Jesus but they just dovthesame thingtheevangelicals did. They transfomr the faith into politics. What the synoptic Gospels? Is there no use of ginosko knowing God in Matthew Mark or Luke?

Mat 7:23 - And then will I profess unto them, I never knew G1097 you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.

Mat 12:7 - But if ye had known G1097 what this meaneth, I will have mercy, and not sacrifice, ye would not have condemned the guiltless.

Mat 13:11 - He answered and said unto them, Because it is given unto you to know G1097 the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it is not given.

Mat 25:24 - Then he which had received the one talent came and said, Lord, I knew G1097 thee that thou art an hard man, reaping where thou hast not sown, and gathering where thou hast not strawed:

Mar 4:11 - And he said unto them, Unto you it is given to know G1097 the mystery of the kingdom of God: but unto them that are without, all these things are done in parables:

Matthew 7:9-12 New Living Translation (NLT) “You parents—if your children ask for a loaf of bread, do you give them a stone instead? Or if they ask for a fish, do you give them a snake? Of course not!

Luk 10:22 - All things are delivered to me of my Father: and no man knoweth G1097 who the Son is, but the Father; and who the Father is, but the Son, and he to whom the Son will reveal him.

Romans 1:21;

21 For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened.

Romans 8:15: “For you did not receive the spirit of bondage again to fear, but you received the Spirit of adoption by whom we cry out, 'Abba, Father.Jul 19, 2020

Romans 8:28. New International Version ... And we know that in all things God works for the good of those who love him, who have been called according to his ..

1cor 1 21 For since in the wisdom of God the world through its wisdom did not come to know God, God was well-pleased through the foolishness of the message preached to save those who believe. None ofthese verses say the poimt is... but they areindicative of the poimt, /they

What does it mean to be in a personal relationship with God? How does one have a persoanl relationship with someone who can't be seen or heard? It is a mistake to think that God is not communicating with us just because we can't see or hear him audibly. God communicates with us im serveral ways. Of course thorugh scriptire but that is not a personal relationship in and of itself; it may be part of one. Also God speaks to the heart directly. Wr can't hear it but we can feel it,we can come to understand it.Such a relationshp is conducted largely thorgh prayer and thorugh meditating upon God's presemce. We can feel God's presence.Tjis isnot merely fantasy, the affects of the experence and the resultsin thelifeof believer bearoot aninidcatiomn of reality see my first book The Trace of God.[7]

If you don't have a relationship with God like this that does not mean you are not saved. The relationship is there to be had if you sek it, if yo tristi Jesus atomememtand epemdt. give your life to Christ..

NOTES

[1]Boyd Evans, Twitter

https://twitter.com/revboydevans

Boyd Evans,"Rector of St. Thomas Episcopal Church in Abingdon, Virginia. Former scientist (nanotechnology, magnetic materials, biomedical) at Oak Ridge National Laboratory. @revboydevans" Abingdon, VA

https://www.linkedin.com/in/boyd-evans-3a36362

[2]Rev. Dr. Robin Meyers,"What does salvation mean in Progressive Christianity?,"Progressive Christianity.org, (May 7, 2022). https://progressivechristianity.org/resources/what-does-salvation-mean-in-progressive-christianity/ (accessed Hab 24,2023)

[3] Ibid

[4]The NAS New Testament Greek Lexicon, Strong's Number: 1097 Browse Lexicon Original Word Word Origin ginosko.(1999). https://www.biblestudytools.com/lexicons/greek/nas/ginosko.html#:~:text=ghin%2Doce'%2Dko,a%20knowledge%20of%20perceive%2C%20feel

Greek lexicon based on Thayer's and Smith's Bible Dictionary plus others; this is keyed to the large Kittel and the "Theological Dictionary of the New Testament." These files are public domain.

[5]Ezea project, "Greek word of the week:ginosko," (2021) https://ezraproject.com/ginosko-knowledge-that-goes-beyond-information/#:~:text=The%20word%20gin%C5%8Dsk%C5%8D%2C%20on%20the,%3B%20Luke%201%3A34).

"Ezra Project is dedicated to helping people explore the Bible for themselves, through a developing knowledge of the New Testament in its original Greek. It is a ministry project developed by Dr. John Bechtle, an experienced professor and writer who has spent several decades helping people understand the Scriptures." see :about:

[6]Ginosio in 2st John: 1 John 2:3; 1 John 2:4; 1 John 2:5; 1 John 2:13; 1 John 2:14; 1 John 2:18; 1 John 2:29; 1 John 3:1; 1 John 3:6; 1 John 3:16; 1 John 3:19; 1 John 3:20; 1 John 3:24; 1 John 4:2; 1 John 4:6; 1 John 4:7; 1 John 4:8; 1 John 4:13; 1 John 4:16; 1 John 5:2; 1 John 5:20

[7]Joseph Hinman, The Trace of God: A Rational Warrant for Belief.

Giotto's Resurrection

The major argument for the Resurrection as McDowell argued in Evidence that Demands a Verdict, was centered upon the notion of Guards on the tomb: how did they get the body past the guards? One of the major innovations in countering this argument has been a tendency for Skeptics to argue that most crucifixion victims were not buried in individual tombs, but were tossed aside in mass graves or left for dogs to eat. Thus, it is assumed, the narrative of the Tomb was a latter fabrication, one calculated to produce an apologetic which would set up proof of a resurrection.

This argument can be countered in several ways:

I. Some burials for Crucifixion victims did happen and were not that uncommon.

A. The Skeptical Argument that Crucified Criminals were not given burial.In Fact the Romans did leave bodies on the cross often until they diintegrated.

B. Jews were horrified by non-burial of the crucified. The Romans usually respect ocal religious custom.

1) Crucifixion comes under heading of hanging

. This point has often been made in a different way by skeptics in argument. They will say that the references to being hung on tree indicate that Jesus was actually hung and not crucified. But hanging on a tree was the euphemism for crucifixion. It came from the OT custom of handing the body of an executed criminal on a tree. When crucifixion was brought in by the Romans the euphemism was created and applied to crucifixion. (See Raymond Brown, Death of The Messiah, Vol. II p.1209)

This means that the Jews had a horror of non-burial.

Deut. 21: 22-23 "if there shall be against someone a crime judged worthy of death, and he be put to death and you hang him on a tree, his body shall not remain all night on the tree: but you shall bury him on the same day, for cursed of God is anyone hanged."(quoted Ibid.).

2) Burial of crucified mandatory.

The Conflict between Roman and Jewish practices is phrased thus by S. Liberman: "The Roman practice of depriving executed criminals of the rite of burial and exposing their corps to the cross for many days... horrified the Jews." In the first Jewish revolt the Idumeans cast out corpses without burial. Commenting with disgust on this Josephus states: "the Jews are so careful about funeral rites that even those who are crucified because they were guilty are taken down and buried before sunset." [Ibid. and Josephus in War 44.5.2 #317]

Skeptics will quote this horror as though that is the main thing that made Jews fear crucifixion, but they will go on asserting that the Roman practice dominated, whereas the Jews found it mandatory according to their religion to bury the dead, even those crucified after having been found guilty of a crime.

3) Type of burial is the issue.

Brown point out that the guilty were often denied burial among their ancestors but put into common graves. Brown quotes the Mishna, Sanhedrin 6.6 "even if the accused was the King of Kings he shall be denied burial with his fathers." This phraseology may have been intentionally aimed against Christians. Does this mean then, that Jesus' body would have been placed in a common grave such that there was no actual tomb for him rise out of and leave empty?

C. Jews would probably have allowed burial of Jesus in Joseph's Tomb.

1) They key to the issue is the charge against him.

The charge against the prisoner is what would determine where his remains came to rest. If he was a criminal found worthy of death because he committed a crime he would be buried ignominiously in a common grave. However, political desenters crucified by the Romans did not come under this stricture. The Innocent crucified unjustly by foreign powers (Romans) could be given honorable burial. (Ibid. p.1210).

2) Jesus was not exicuted on criminal charges.

Jesus was executed not for criminal charges, but for political insurrection. Thus he would not come under the strictures of the crucified guilty but could be given a decent burial in an honored tomb.

Jesus was executed by the Romans, not for blasphemy, but on the charge of being the King of the Jews. Could this have been regarded as a death not in accordance with the Jewish law and so not subjecting the crucified to dishonorable burial? [Ibid., p. 1211]

"An innocent or nobel Jew might be crucified for something that did not come under the law of God, or indeed for keeping the divine law. We find this issue raised in Talbad Sanhedirin 47a-47b when Abey complians 'would you compare those slain by a [Gentile] govenrment to those slian by the Beth Din? the former, since their death is not in accordence with Jewish law obtain forgvieness...'Such a distinction had to have been made earlier or there could have been no tradition of an honorable burial for the Macabean martyrs. Thus we cannot discount the possibility of an honorable first burial for one crucified by the Romans....Yet would the tendency be to give Jesus an honorable or dishonorable burial? According to Mark/Mat the Sanhedirin found him worthy of death on the charge of blasphemy, and Josephus would have had the blasphemer stoned or hung...on the other hand Jesus was executed by the Romans not for blasphemy but on the charge of being the King of the Jews...."[Brown 1210-1211]

The Sanhedrin believed Jesus guilty of blasphemy, that doesn't mean that he was formally executed for it. That means his he may have been entitaled to honorable burial.

3) Clues in Mark and in Gospel of Peter (GPet).



a) Time indications

. Mark is probably the basis for Synoptic understanding of the events and John may have an account independent from that of Mark. There is a time requirement implicit in the request to get the body buried since the death occurred about 3pm and some time between this time and sunset the body had to be placed in the ground to prevent profanation of the Holy day (Passover). Thus there was a race against time and it was expedient to to follow through with events as quickly as possible.

b) Jospeh of Aramethia.

Brown points out that since the first mention of Jospeh in all the Gospels is at this juncture, his Role in burying Jesus, he was not thought of as a follower or as a supporter, but merely one who wanted to prevent profanation of the Holy Day. He was a distinguished member of the Sanhedrin and would have had a certain degree of political influence. If he was merely concerned with doing his duty he might be willing to offer his own tomb for the sake of expediency. This makes sense of what seems to be a lack of cooperation between two parties, the women and Jospeh. Had both groups been followers it makes no sense why Joseph would not have been there to roll away the stone for the women, or why the women would not have stayed to anoint the body. This also makes sense of the tendency of John and GPet to sp

eak of the Jews burying Jesus, "they drew out the nails, " and so forth. (John 19:38, GPet 6:21). 4) Roman Respect for Jewish Customs.

"During the Roman period decrees were promulgated which prohibited the removal of the stone coverings of tombs and the mutilation of their contents." [R.K. Harrison Archaeology of The New Testament, New York: Association Press 1964, p. 31]

There is an inscription of such a law, called "The Nazareth law" found on the stone covering the entrance to a tomb, which dates to Claudias' time (about AD 41). This may have been in response to the claims of Jesus' resurrection. Brown does not regard that as a serious argument, however, although it does show that the Roman's were willing to respect the Religious practices of the Jews. We do know this from other instances in fact, that exceptions were made to honor the specific religious requirements of the Jews whenever possible. Thus there would probably have been no insistence that Roman custom be followed with regard to the bodies on crosses. IN fact Browns gives an example of three friends of Josephaus' who were crucified and Josephus was able to have them taken down on the insistence that leaving them up violated their religious customs.

While it is true that in some cases the Romans did leave the bodies of crucified victims on crosses for extended periods of time (typically to horrify rebellious locals), the basic rules for how to treat the crucified was laid out in "The Digest of Justinian" 48:24 in which Ulipian tells us that the bodies of those who suffer capital punishment are not to be denied to their relatives, and this is extended by Julius Paulus to include any who seek them for burial (see R.E. Brown, "Death of the Messiah, Vol. 2, pg. 1207).

Basically, the Romans successfully held their empire together in no small part by remaining sensative to local sensibilities, especially in times of general peace and tranquility as we find in Palestine in the first half of the First Century. Adding credence to the historicity of the burial tradition offered in the Gospels is the nature of Jewish Law on the matter, the probable historicity of Joseph of Arimathea himself, and the general lack of legendary development in the account by the Gospel authors themselves. Quoting from The Death of the Messiah, Vol. 2 (Doubleday, 1994):>

"...I suggested that "a respected council member who was also himself awaiting the kingdom of God" meant that Joseph was a religiously pious Sanhedrist who, despite the condemnation of Jesus by the Sanhedrin, felt an obligation under the Law to bury this crucified criminal before sunset. That Mark created such an identification is most unlikely since it runs counter to his hostile generalizations casting blame on all the members of the Sanhedrin for the injustice of sentencing Jesus to death" (Mark 14:55,64; 15:1).... Raymond Brown, DMV2, pg. 1239

The "laws" that Brown refers to include (Joshua 8:29, 10:27, II Samuel 2:12-14; Tobit 1:17-19; 2:3-7; 12:12-13; Sirach 7:33; 38:16) as mentioned by Josephus in Jewish War 4.5.2; #317 "The Jews were so careful about funeral rites that even those who are crucified because they were found guilty are taken down and buried before sunset." These practices arise especially Mosaic Law.

Deuteronomy 21:22-23 "If there shalle be against someone a crime judged worthy of death, and he be put to death and you hang him on a tree, his body shall not remain all night on the tree; but you shall bury him the same day, for cursed of God is the one hanged."

Further, we have from Josephus again mentioning of the command to bury on the same day one who has been hung on a tree after being stoned to death, in a first-century context Antiquities 4. 202 and Jewish War 4. 317.Brown documents the story of Josephus, who saw three of his freinds hanging on corsses, and was able to have them taken down because it was almost sunset. Two of the three survived, but the one who died was burried honorably.

In his concluding remarks on the burial of Jesus, Raymond Brown had this to say:

"That Jesus was buried is historically certain. That Jewish sensitivity would have wanted this done before the oncoming Sabbath (which may also have been a feast day) is also certain, and our records give us no reason to think that this sensitivity was not honored. That this burial was done by Joseph of Arimathea is very probable, since a Christian fictional creation of a Jewish Sanhedrist who does what is right is almost inexplicable, granted the hostility in early Christian writings toward the Jewish authorities responsible for the death of Jesus. Moreover, the fixed designation of such a character as "From Arimathea," a town very difficult to identify and reminiscent of no scriptural symbolism, makes a thesis of invention even more implausible� While probability is not certitude, there is nothing in the basic preGospel account of Jesus' burial by Joseph that could not plausibly be deemed historical." (R.E. Brown, DMV2, pg. 1240-41

) One of history's most liberal theologians concurs. Commenting specifically on Mark 15:42-47

: "This is an historical account which creates no impression of being a legend apart from the women who appear again as witnesses in v. 47, and vs. 44-45 which Matthew and Luke in all probability did not have in their Mark." R. Bultmann, History of the Synoptic Tradition, (New York: Harper & Row, 1963), pg. 274.

"A straightforward reading of the Gospels' portrait of the burial has been challenged by revisionist scholars, who theorize that Jesus died in a mass crucifixion: the body was thrown into a common, shallow trench, to become carrion for vultures and scavenging dogs. This makes for vivid drama but implausible history. Pilate, after all, had been forced in the face of Jewish opposition to withdraw his military shields from public view in the city when he first acceded to power. What likelihood was there, especially after Sejanus' death, that he would get away with flagrantly exposing the corpse of an executed Jew beyond the interval permitted by the Torah, and encouraging its mutilation by scavengers outside Jerusalem?"Revisionism can be productive. But it can also become more intent on explaining away traditional beliefs than on coming to grips with the evidence at hand, and I think this is a case in point. It is worth explaining why I go along with much of the Gospel's account of Jesus' burial, because doing so will help us grapple with the vexed question of what happened three days after his crucifixion."Time and again, the Gospels reveal the tendancy of the first Christians to shift the blame for Jesus' death away from Pilate and onto the Sanhedrin. Yet when it comes to taking on the weighty responsibility of burying Jesus, we find members of that same council taking the lead, while most of Jesus' disciples had beaten a hasty and ignominious retreat. Joseph's and Nicodemus' public act cost them: they donated mortuary dressing and ointment as well as use of the cave. They also contracted uncleanness for seven days after the burial. On each of those seven days they would have had to explain to curious colleagues where and why they had come into contact with a corpse, a powerful source of impurity."Joseph's act went beyond mere display of ordinary decency. He ensured that Jesus was interred in one of the caves he had recently dug for himself and his family. The significance of this gesture is plain: there were those wihtin the council who had not agreed with Caiphas' condemnation of Jesus to Pilate."[Chilton, Bruce. "Rabbi Jesus

: The Jewish Life and Teaching that Inspired Christianity", (New York: Doubleday, 2000) p. 270-272.] II. The "No Tomb" Theory doesn't account for or explain the early faith in the resurrection

. Had it been common custom for crucifixion victims to always have been left on the cross for several days and finally to be thrown to dogs, one can scarily see how anyone would not know this. Knowing the fate of crucifixion victims to always been lack of any real burial, who in Jerusalem would be convinced by the stories of Jesus and the empty tomb? The very fact of the contradictory nature of the story would turn off any interest in the group from the beginning. It would have been known to most people that crucified and empty tomb just don't' go together, so who would have believed the story? Than to think that they waited 50 years until Mark wrote his Gospel to try and add apologetics touches such as Jospeh of Aramethia volunteering his tomb, is absurd. Clearly the story had to emerge at a very early period, yet if it emerged very early it would have been know to be a lie. No one would believe something that so violated common knowledge and of which they had never heard a word and knew no one else who ever heard of such events. The notion that these aspects of the Jesus story do not have a basis in historical fact just does not hold water.

Atheist explanatory power: Turtles all the way down

I first heard the anecdote about turtles when it starred Wittgenstein. In some class he taught, supposedly, they were referring to the Indian cosmogany in which the earth sits on the back of an elephant and the elephant is on the back of a great turtle. A student asked "what does the turtle sit on?" Supposedly Wittgenstein said "from there on it's turtles all the way down." There is no real proof that Wittgenstein ever said that. Googling the phrase, it is associated with him without proving who said it. Moreover, no one knows what it means. I've seen about six interpretations. It's always associated with the sort of flippant remark a skeptic might make about religious answers. Here I use it as a metaphor for the arrogance of scientism to think that scientific exactitude and certainty rules out the possibility of other realms and forms of truth that science can't seek.

One of the most solid things in modern science is the Greek concept of the atom, and Greek atomism stands as atheistic symbol and as the basis of scientific thought. The reason atheists use an atomic symbol for their own is becuase they harken back to Greek atomistic view as a replacement for belief in deity. Science shows us all, we know the basic building blocks of reality, sub atomic particles, and thus we know there's no need for a God, yada yada yada. When we examine those bulwarks of modern thought we see that they are shaky and as uncertain as the one about the turtles. This is especially apt for sub atomic particles; science has never found a basic particle, it seems there is always a smaller one, it's particles all the way down.

The Issue of Transcendence

Are there realms beyond our knowing, is this possible? If so, is there any possibility of our investigating them? Scientists have usually tended to assume that metaphysical assumptions about realms beyond are just out of the domain of science and can’t be investigated so they don’t bother to comment. Victor Stenger, however, wants to be able to assert that he’s disproved them so he argues that the magisteria do overlap. “There exists a widespread notion, promulgated at the higher levels of the scientific community itself, that science has nothing to say about God or the supernatural…”[1] He sights the national academy of sciences and their position that these are non overlapping magisteria, “science is a way of knowing about the natural world. It is limited to explaining the natural world. Science can say nothing about the supernatural. Weather God exists or not is a question about which science is neutral.”[2] Stenger disagrees. He argues that they can study the effects of prayer so that means they can eliminate the supernatural.

Two things are wrong with Stenger’s approach. First, he doesn’t use Lourdes or any other empirical record of miracles. He’s going entirely by double blind studies which can’t control for prayer from outside the control group; that makes such studies virtually worthless. So in effect Stenger is taking the work of people who try to empirically measure what is beyond the empirical, then when it doesn’t work he says “see, there’s nothing beyond the empirical.” That proves nothing more than the fact that we can’t measure that which is beyond measuring. Secondly, he doesn’t deal with the real religious experience studies or the M scale. That means he’s not really dealing with the empirical effects of supernature. I deal with the M scale at length in my book The Trace of God. I’ve just demonstrated good reason to think that supernature Is working in nature. It’s not an alien realm outside the natural, it’s not a miracle it’s not something that sets its self apart form the daily regular workings of the world. Supernature is of God but nature is of God. God made nature and he works in nature. We can tell the two apart by the results. Now I am going to deal with the other two issues, are there realms beyond the natural? Are there evidences of a form of supernatural in the world that stand apart from the natural such that we can call them “miracles?” Are there realms beyond the natural? Of course there can be no direct evidence, even a direct look at them would stand apart from our received version of reality and thus be suspect. The plaintive cry of the materialists that “there is no evidence for the supernatural” is fallacious to the core. How can there be evidence when any evidence that might be would automatically be suspect? Moreover, science itself gives us reason to think there might be. Quantum physics is about unseen realms, but they are the world of the extremely tiny. This is the fundamental basis of reality, what’s beneath or behind everything. They talk about “particles” but in reality they are not particles. They are not bits of stuff. They are not solid matter.[3] Treating particles as points is also problematic. This is where string theory comes in.

This is where string theory comes in. In string theory fundamental particles aren't treated as zero-dimensional points. Instead they are one-dimensional vibrating strings or loops. The maths is hair-raising, and the direct evidence non-existent, but it does provide a way out of the current theoretical cul-de-sac. It even provides a route to unifying gravity with the other three fundamental forces - a problem which has baffled the best brains for decades. The problem is, you need to invoke extra dimensions to make the equations work in string-theory and its variants: 10 spacetime dimensions to be precise. Or 11 (M-theory). Or maybe 26. In any case, loads more dimensions than 4. So where are they then? One idea is that they are right under our noses, but compacted to the quantum scale so that they are imperceptible. "Hang on a minute", you might think,"How can you ever prove the existence of something that, by definition, is impossible to perceive?" It's a fair point, and there are scientists who criticize string theory for its weak predictive power and testability. Leaving that to one side, how can you conceptualize extra dimensions?[4] There is no direct evidence of these unseen realms and they may be unprovable. Why are they assumed with such confidence and yet reductionists make the opposite assumption about spiritual realms? It’s not because the quantum universe realms are tangle or solid or material they are not. Scientists can’t really describe what they are, except that they are mathematical. In fact why can’t they be the same realms? Then there’s the concept of the multiverse. This is not subatomic in size but beyond our space/time continuum. These would be other universes perhaps like our own, certainly the size of our own, but beyond our realm of space/time. Some scientists accept the idea that the same rules would apply in all of these universes, but some don’t.

Beyond it [our cosmic visual horizon—42 billion light years] could be many—even infinitely many—domains much like the one we see. Each has a different initial distribution of matter, but the same laws of physics operate in all. Nearly all cosmologists today (including me) accept this type of multiverse, which Max Tegmark calls “level 1.” Yet some go further. They suggest completely different kinds of universes, with different physics, different histories, maybe different numbers of spatial dimensions. Most will be sterile, although some will be teeming with life. A chief proponent of this “level 2” multiverse is Alexander Vilenkin, who paints a dramatic picture of an infinite set of universes with an infinite number of galaxies, an infinite number of planets and an infinite number of people with your name who are reading this article.[5]

Well there are two important things to note here. First, that neither string theory nor multiverse may ever be proved empirically. There’s a professor at Columbia named Peter Woit who writes the blog “Not Even Wrong” dedicated to showing that string theory can’t be proved.[6] There is no proof for it or against it. It can’t be disproved so it can’t be proved either.[7] That means the idea will be around for a long time because without disproving it they can’t get rid of it. Yet without any means of disproving it, it can’t be deemed a scientific fact. Remember it’s not about proving things it’s about disproving them. Yet science is willing to consider their possibility and takes them quite seriously. There is no empirical evidence of these things. They posit the dimensions purely as a mathematical solution so the equations work not because they have any real evidence.[8]

We could make the argument that we have several possibilities for other worlds and those possibilities suggest more: we have the idea of being “outside time.” There’s no proof that this is place one can actually go to, but the idea of suggests the possibility, there’s the world of anti-matter, there are worlds in string membranes, and there are other dimensions tucked away and folded into our own. In terms of the multiverse scientists might argue that they conceive of these as “naturalistic.” They would be like our world with physical laws and hard material substances and physical things. As we have seen there are those who go further and postulate the “rules change” idea. We probably should assume the rules work the same way because its all we know. We do assume this in making God arguments such as the cosmological argument. Yet the possibility exists that there could be other realms that are not physical and not “natural” as we know that concept. The probability of that increases when we realize that these realms are beyond our space/time thus they are beyond the domain of our cause and effect, and we know as “natural.” It really all goes back to the philosophical and ideological assumption about rules. There is no way to prove it either way. Ruling out the possibility of a spiritual realm based upon the fact that we don’t live in it would be stupid. The idea that “we never see any proof of it” is basically the same thing as saying “we don’t live it so it must not exist.” Of course this field is going to be suspect, and who can blame the critics? Anyone with a penchant for the unknown can set up shop and speculate about what might be “out there.” Yet science itself offers the possibility in the form of modern physics, the only rationale for closing that off is the distaste for religion.

All that is solid melts into air

This line by Marx deals with society, social and political institutions, but in thinking about the topic of SN it suggests a very different issue. The reductionst/materialists and phsyicalists assume and often argue that there is no proof of anything not material and not ‘physical” (energy is a form of matter). We see this in the quotes at the beginning of the chapter. The hard tangible nature of the physical is taken as the standard for reality while the notion of something beyond our ability to dietetic is seen in a skeptical way, even though the major developments in physics are based upon it. Is the physical world as tangible and solid as we think? Science talks about “particles” and constructs models of atoms made of wooden tubes and little balls this gives us the psychological impression that the world of the very tiny is based upon little solid balls. In reality subatomic particles are not made out of little balls, nor are these ‘particles” tangible or solid. In fact we could make a strong argument that no one even knows what they are made of.

We keep talking about "particles", but this word doesn't adequately sum up the type of matter that particle physicists deal with. In physics, particles aren't usually tiny bits of stuff. When you start talking about fundamental particles like quarks that have a volume of zero, or virtual particles that have no volume and pop in and out of existence just like that, it is stretching the everyday meaning of the word "particle" a bit far. Thinking about particles as points sooner or later leads the equations up a blind alley. Understanding what is happening at the smallest scale of matter needs a new vocabulary, new maths, and very possibly new dimensions. This is where string theory comes in. In string theory fundamental particles aren't treated as zero-dimensional points. Instead they are one-dimensional vibrating strings or loops. The maths is hair-raising, and the direct evidence non-existent, but it does provide a way out of the current theoretical cul-de-sac. It even provides a route to unifying gravity with the other three fundamental forces - a problem which has baffled the best brains for decades. The problem is, you need to invoke extra dimensions to make the equations work in string-theory and its variants: 10 spacetime dimensions to be precise. Or 11 (M-theory). Or maybe 26. In any case, loads more dimensions than 4.[9]

Particles are not solid; they are not very tiny chunks of solid stuff. They have no volume nor do they have the kind of stable existence we do. They “pop” in and out of existence! This is not proof for the supernatural. It might imply that the seeming solidity of “reality” is illusory. There are two kinds of subatomic particles, elementary and composite. Composite are made out of smaller particles. Now we hear it said that elementary particles are not made out of other particles. It’s substructure is unknown. They may or may not be made of smaller particles. That means we really don’t know what subatomic particles are made of. That means scientists are willing to believe in things they don’t understand.[10] While it is not definite enough to prove anything except that we don’t know the basis of reality, it does prove that and also the possibilities for the ultimate truth of this are still wide open. To rule out “the supernatural” (by the wrong concept) on the assumption that we have no scientific proof of it is utterly arrogance and bombast. For all we know what we take to be solid unshakable reality might be nothing more than God’s day dream. Granted, there is end to the spinning of moon beams and we can talk all day about what ‘might be,’ so we need evidence and arguments to warrant the placing of confidence in propositions. We have confidence placing evidence; it doesn’t have to be scientific although some of it is. The point here is that there is no basis for the snide dismissal of concepts such as supernatural and supernature.

Notes

[1] Victor Stenger, God and The Folly of Faith: The Incompatibility of Science and Religion. Amherst: New York: Prometheus Books, 2012. 225.

[2] Stenger, ibid, quoting National Academy of Sciences, Teaching about Evolution and the Nature of Science. Washington DC: National Academies Press, 1998, 58.

[3] STFC “are there other dimensions,” Large Hadron Collider. Website. Scinece and Facilities Council, 2012 URL: http://www.lhc.ac.uk/The%20Particle%20Detectives/Take%205/13686.aspx

[4] ibid

[5] George F.R. Ellis. “Does the Miltiverse Reallly Exist [preview]” Scientific American (July 19, 2011) On line versoin URL: http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=does-the-multiverse-really-exist, George F.R. Ellis is Proffessor Emeritus in Mathematics at University of Cape Town. He’s been proessor of Cosmic Physics at SISSA (Trieste)

[6] Peter Woit, Not Even Wrong, Posted on September 18, 2012 by woi blog, URL: http://www.math.columbia.edu/~woit/wordpress/

[7] ibid, “Welcome to the Multiverse,” Posted on May 21, 2012 by woit URL: http://www.math.columbia.edu/~woit/wordpress/?p=4715

[8] Mohsen Kermanshahi. Universal Theory. “Sring Theory.” Website URL: http://www.universaltheory.org/html/others/stringtheory5.htm

[9] STFC ibid, op cit.

[10] Sylvie Braibant; Giorgio Giacomelli; Maurizio Spurio Particles and Fundamental Interactions: An Introduction to Particle Physics (2nd ed.). Italy: Springer-Verlag, science and Business media, 2009, pp. 1–3.

Gobal approach to knowledge part II

Ralph Hood Jr. The University of Tennessee at Chattanooga,

In part 1 I said I. A Global approach to knowledge enables us to understand the inadequacy of the scientifically based view that writes God out of the picture.

By "gloal approach" I mean one thatmakes useof science, logoc and phenomenoloy, As opposeto atheists on the net who escrew logic as meaningkess because God argumets use logicadof courseshutterifear atpersonalexperemce. The global approch includes more than hyst scientiic data.

II. Understanding the need for the global approach to knowledge gives us the understanding of the link between ground of being and the divine.

III. Understanding these two points gives us the basic realization of the reality of God that frees us from the need to prov.I. A Global approach to knowledge enables us to understand the inadequacy of the scientifically based view that writes God out of the picture.

We are free from the need to prove when we know in deep and priovate way and are backed upn ithis by logicand obetiove sc9entiic ev9oence that gives usthecojjfience to beieve. The skeptiocosimmoted confrot theevidence but wedo notneedto prove God exists. We nly needtowarramt belief and thatis cdoewhen thethreeapproaches bac each other.

Objectve scoemtofoc evidense is great for understanding things at a basuc kevek. Theoroblem is itislimited to the physical ademprical. It can't measure feelimg or deal with meaning or expain why we are here. Some ,ateroalists may assume that weknow there'so way andis they think isproven by the ability of science to uderstandpphys8capeocesses that the starsand theeearth andbrought life,everytyungis explaied because thats a;; there is. Since it doesn't answer questions meaningand purpose but only assumes thyere'sothingmore, but limitsinquary towhathey can ccrol, thereisno real insidght, We need expeeiexe and logic ro expKub. Dr, James Tour an Israeli scietists speaks about his born again experiece and how he felt the presence of God as palapable and present right in fromt of him. The things he says about that are exactly what I experienced when I speak about the presemnce of God. For Tour's commemts see the link:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qeuW2UPa1Lw

This experience and the scientific evidence is what my first book was about.(The Trace of God) Such experieinces are common yet in general people fear them because we fear feelings. If one read the scientific work I don't see how one could keep form beliving.

Why should we assume that such experiences are experiences of the divine? The first reason is because the content of the experience is largely that of the divine. Even when the experience is interpreted by the receiver not be about God the receiver has been known to act in way consistently with belief in God, and the experience described is the same experience as those described by those who say ‘this was God.’ Ergo it’s just a matter of interpretation. The vast majority of those who have these experiences do believe they are about God.[1] Secondly, there is a voluminous and ancient tradition of writing about experiences by people from all over the world, and the brunt of this tradition is that it’s an experience of the divine. Literary and philosophical works such as Mysticism by Evelyn Underhill,[2] The works of W.T. Stace[3] and many other such writings which catalogue the writings of these experiences, and many more works of the experiences of individual mystics by the mystics themselves. Thirdly, grounded in empirical evidence, the universal nature of such experiences implies the experience of a source external to the human mind encountered by all who have such experiences. When I say “external” I mean it originates externally but is experienced internally. This includes human brain structure and brain chemistry as a conduit not that it circumvents natural processes. The works of W.T. Stace are very influential. He shows that, as Ralph Hood Jr. put it, “within and eventually outside of the great faith traditions mysticism has flourished.”[4] Stace offers five characteristics that demonstrate the commonalities to mystical experience; these are characteristics that are found universally in all cultures and in all forms of mystical experience:

The contemporary interest in the empirical research of mysticism can be traced to Stace’s (Stace, 1960) demarcation of the phenomenological characteristics of mystical experiences (Hood, 1975). In Stace’s conceptualization, mystical experiences had five characteristics (Hood, 1985, p.176):

1. The mystical experience is noetic. The person having the experience perceives it as a valid source of knowledge and not just a subjective experience.
2. The mystical experience is ineffable, it cannot simply be described in words.
3. The mystical experience is holy. While this is the religious aspect of the experience it is not necessarily expressed in any particular theological terms. 4. The mystical experience is profound yet enjoyable and characterized by positive affect.
5. The mystical experience is paradoxical. It defies logic. Further analysis of reported mystical experiences suggests that the one essential feature of mysticism is an experience of unity (Hood, 1985). The experience of unity involves a process of ego loss and is generally expressed in one of three ways (Hood, 1 976a). The ego is absorbed into that which transcends it, or an inward process by which the ego gains pure awareness of self, or a combination of the two.[5]

In speaking of “mystical experience” we are not talking about visions or voices. We are not talking about miracles or God speaking to people. We are talking about “the sense of the numinous,” a sense of presence, a sense of undifferentiated unity of all things. The claim is often made that this is an unmediated experience of reality. The veil is taken back on the thing behind the façade and reality is experienced directly. The notion of an unmediated experience is debatable and not essential to an understanding of the experience. A couple of examples might be helpful. It’s helpful to understand that mystical experiences come in two forms, introvertive and extrovertive. Intorovertive experiences are without time and space; they are not keyed to any external landmark or visual que. They seem to be beyond word, thought, or image. Extrovertive experiences are often keyed to a land mark and seem like projecting a sense onto the image of nature. For example the sense that God is pervading the physical space in nature around which one views a scene in nature. Or a sense that all the natural landscape around forms some sort of whole that’s meaningful and indicative as an understanding of all reality.

Common Core Vs. Perennial Philosophy

Hood takes these kinds of statements as phenomenological and descriptive of a personal experience. The true nature of that experience as unmediated is not important. The issue is that its universality, since it should be culturally constructed is indicative of more than just a trick of brain chemistry or cultural constructs. Ralph Hood Jr. argues for what is called “the common core hypothesis.” This is not a perennial philosophy one often finds discussed as part of mystical experience. The distinction is hat perennial almost construct a separate religion out of mystical experience and puts it over against faith traditions. The common core hypothesis merely recognizes that there is a common core experience that is universal to mystical experience, and thus it can be argued that it’s an experience of some reality external to just human brain structure. Yet it doesn’t try to collapse faith traditions into a particular theological formulation. Moreover, the common core hypothesis just takes the common core as a phenomenological reality not a theological or ontological demand about reality. Yet mystical experience “promotes a special type of human experience that is at once unitive and nondiscursive, at once self fulfilling and self-effacing.”[6] Introvertive mystical has been identified as “pure consciousness.” This kind of experience lacks content and can’t be tied to a cultural construct or personal influence.[7] While it is the case that these kinds of experiences are interpreted in various ways, and it is the case that various theological explanations tailored to a given tradition are advanced for these, as many as there are mystics to have the, the real diversity comes not from the experience but from the explanations attached to the experiences.[8] Much of the discussion about common core is tied to the texts of a given literature. There various bodies of mystical literature, the important once for our purposes is the empirical. This is a measurement based empirical scientific literature such as the work of Hood.[9]

Many names loom large in that body of literature; Greeley, Maslow, Wuthnow, Nobel, Lukoff and Lu, none more prolific or significant than Hood.Ralph Hood entered the field in the early 70s when he was a young man. Since that time he has done a huge a mount of research and is best known for developing what is called ‘the Mysticism scale,” or “M scale.” This is a 32 item questionnaire that is scored in a particular way and is calculated to test the veracity of Stace’s theories. In other words, if actual modern mystics around the world experience the things Stace thought they do, in the way Stace thought they experienced them (see the five point list above) they would answer certain questions in a certain way.[10] Hood’s work in the M scale is becoming the standard operating procedure for study of mystical and religious experiences. It hasn’t yet been understood by everyone so we find that people evoking religious experience by manipulating stimulation of the brain don’t use the M scale for research and thus can’t prove they are evoking real mystical experiences.[11] Dale Caird said that “research into mystical experience has been greatly facilitated”[12] by Hood’s M scale. Caird did one of the studies that validated the M scale. Burris (1999) has shown that the M scale is the most commonly used measurement for the study of mysticism.[13]

The M scale enables us to determine the validity of a mystical experience among contemporary people. In other words, did someone have a “real mystical experience” or are they just carried by the idea of having one?[14] There are two major versions of the M scale, what is called “two factor” solution and a three factor solution. The two factors are items assessing an experience of unity (questions such as “have you had an experience of unity?”) and items refereeing to religious and knowledge claims. In other words questions such as “did you experience God’s presence?” Or did you experience God’s love?” In each section there are two positively worded and two negatively worded items.[15] The problem with the two factor analysis is that it tried to be neutral with Langue, according to Hood himself. It spoke of “experience of ultimate reality” but with no indication that ultimate reality means reality of God. As Hood puts it, “no langue is neutral.”[16] One group might want ultimate reality defined as “Christ” while others who are not in a Christian tradition might eschew such a move. In response to this problem Hood and Williamson, around 2000, developed what they termed “the three factor solution.” They made two additional versions of the scale one made reference where appropriate to “God” or “Christ.” They had a “God” version and a “Chrsit” version and both were given to Christian relevant samples. The scales were “factor analyzed” that just means they weighed each difference as a factor such as it’s mention of God or mention of Christ. In this factor analysis, where the scale referred to “God,” “Christ” or simply “reality” the “factor structures were identical.” This means the respondents saw “God,” “Christ” and “ultimate reality” as coterminous, or as the same things. That means Christians who have mystical experience understand God, Christ, and Reality as reffering to the same things.[17] For all three versions matched Stace’s phenomenologically derived theory. “For all three intervertive, extrovertive and interpirative factors emerged.”[18] That means respondents were answering in ways indicative of having both types of mystical experience and deriving interpretive experiences from it, they understood their experiences in light of theological understanding. The only exception was that the introvertive factors contained the emergence of ineffability because there was no content to analyze. Of course where the scale has been validated the same technique was used and tailored to the tradition of the respondent. Buddhists got a version appreciate to Buddhists and Muslims got one appropriate to Islam, and so on. The same kinds of factors emerged. This demonstrates that mystical experiences are the same minus the details of the tradition, such as specific references to names. In other words Buddhists recognize Buddha mind as ultimate reality, while Vedantists recognize Brahmin as ultimate reality, Christian recognize Jesus as Ultimate reality, Muslims recognize Allah as ultimate reality, but all say they experience ultimate reality. This is a good indication that the same basic reality stands behind this experience, or to say it another way they are all experiences of the same reality.

Hood wrote a Text book with Bernard Spilka[19]Hood and Spilka point three major assumptions of the common core theory that flow out of Stace’s work: (1) Mystical experience is universal and identical in phenomenological terms. (2) Core Categories are not always essential in every experince, there are borderline cases. (3) Interovertive and extrovertive are distinct forms, the former is an experience of unity devoid of content, the latter is unity in diversity with content. The M scale reflects these observations and in so doing validate Stace’s findings. Hood and Spilka (et al) then go on to argue that empirical research supports a common core/perinnialist conceptualization of mysticism and it’s interpretation.

The three factor solution, stated above, allows a greater range of interpretation of experience, either religious or not religious. This greater range supports Stace’s finding that a single experience may be interpreted in different ways.[20] The three factor solution thus fit Stace’s common core theory. One of the persistent problems of the M scale is the neutrality of language, especially with respect to religious language. For example the scale asks about union with “ultimate reality” not “union with God.” Thus there’s a problem in understanding that ultimate reality really means God, or unify two different descriptions one about God and one about reality.[21] There is really no such thing as “neutral” language. In the attempt to be neutral non neutral people will be offended. On the one had the common core idea will be seen as “new age” on the other identification with a particular tradition will be off putting for secularists and people of other traditions. Measurement scales must sort out the distinctions. Individuals demand interpretation of experiences, so the issue will be forced despite the best attempts to avoid it. In dealing with William James and his interpreters it seems clear that some form of transformation will be reflected in the discussion of experiences. In other words the experiences have to be filtered through cultural constructs and human assumptions of religious and other kinds of thought traditions in order to communicate them to people. Nevertheless experiences may share the same functionality in description. Christians may want the experiences they have that would otherwise be term “ultimate reality” to be identified with Christ, while Muslims identify with Allah and atheist with “void.” The expressed is important as the “social construction of experience” but differently expressed experiences can have similar structures. Hood and Williamson designed the three factor analysis to avoid these problems of language.[22] This is a passage from my own work, The Trace of God[23]:

In a series of empirical measurement based studies employing the Mysticism scale introvertive mysticism emerges both as a distinct factor in exploratory analytic studies[24] and also as a confirming factor analysis in cultures as diverse as the United States and Iran; not only in exploratory factor analytic studies (Hood & Williamson, 2000) but also in confirmatory factor analyses in such diverse cultures as the United States and Iran (Hood, Ghornbani, Watson, Ghramaleki, Bing, Davison, Morris, & Williamson. (2001).[25] In other words, the form of mysticism that is usually said to be beyond description and beyond images, as opposed to that found in connection with images of the natural world, is seen through reflection of data derived form the M scale and as supporting factors in other relations. Scholars supporting the unity thesis (the mystical sense of undifferentiated unity—everything is “one”) have conducted interviews with mystics in other traditions about the nature of their introvertive mystical experiences. These discussions reveal that differences in expression that might be taken as linguistics culturally constructed are essentially indicative of the same experiences. The mystics recognize their experiences even in the expression of other traditions and other cultures. These parishioners represent different forms of Zen and Yoga.[26] Scholars conducting literature searches independently of other studies, who sought common experience between different traditions, have found commonalities. Brainaid, found commonality between cultures as diverse as Advanita-Vendanta Hinduism, and Madhmika Buddhism, and Nicene Christianity; Brainaid’s work supports conclusions by Loy with respect to the types of Hinduism and Buddhism.[27]

The upshot of this work by Hood is two fold: on the one had it means there is a pragmatic way to control for the understanding of what is a mystical experience and what is not. Using Stace as a guide we find that modern experiences around the world are having Stace-like experiences. Thus Stace’s view makes a good indication of what is and what is not a mystical experience. That means we can study the effects of having it. Now other scales have been attempted and none of them had the kind of verification that the M scale does, but taken together the whole body of work for the last fifty years or so (since Abraham Maslow) shows that religious experience of the “mystical” sort is very good for us. People who have such experiences tend to find positive, dramatic, transformation in terms of outlook, mental health and even physical health.

Over the years numerous claims have been made about the nature of spiritual/mystical and Maslow's “peak experiences”, and about their consequences. Wuthnow (1978) set out to explore findings regarding peak experiences from a systematic random sample of 1000 persons and found that peak experiences are common to a wide cross-section of people, and that one in two has experienced contact with the holy or sacred, more than eight in ten have been moved deeply by the beauty of nature and four in ten have experienced being in harmony with the universe. Of these, more than half in each have had peak experiences which have had deep and lasting effects on their lives. Peakers are more likely also, to say they value working for social change, helping to solve social problems, and helping people in need. Wuthnow stressed the therapeutic value of these experiences and also the need to study the social significance of these experiences in bringing about a world in which problems such as social disintegration, prejudice and poverty can be eradicated. Savage et al., (1995) provided clinical evidence to suggest that peakers produce greater feelings of self-confidence and a deeper sense of meaning and purpose. Mogar's (1965) research also tended to confirm these findings.[28]

There is much more to this essay, for the rest click on link: http://religiousapriori.blogspot.com/2012/10/the-m-sacle-and-universal-nature-of.html


Notes

[1] Joseph Hinman, Trace of God:Rational warrant for Belief. Colorado Springsmm,2014.
[2] Evelyn Underhill, Mysticism: A study on the Nature and Development of Man’s Spiritual consciousness. New York: Dutton, 1911.
[3] W.T. Stace, Teachings of the Mystics: Selections from the Greatest Mystics and Mystical Writers of the World. New American Library 1960. A good General overview of Stace’s understanding of mysticism is Mystical Experience Registry: Mysticism Defined by W.T. Stace. found onine at URL: http://www.bodysoulandspirit.net/mystical_experiences/learn/experts_define/stace.shtml
[4] Ralph Hood Jr. “The Common Core Thesis in the Study of Mysticism.” In Where God and Science Meet: How Brain and Evolutionary Studies Alter Our Understanding of Religion. Patrick Mcnamara ed. West Port CT: Prager Publications, 2006, 119-235. Google books on line version: URL http://books.google.com.cu/books?id=0bzj3RtT3zIC&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_ge_summary_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q&f=true visited 8/20/2012
[5] Robert J. Voyle, “The Impact of Mystical Experiences Upon Christian Maturity.” originally published in pdf format: http://www.voyle.com/impact.pdf. google html version here: http://64.233.161.104/search?q=cache:avred7zleAEJ Voyle is quoting Hood in 1985, Hood in return is speaking Stace. :www.voyle.com/impact.pdf+Hood+scale+and+religious+experience&hl=en&gl =us&ct=clnk&cd=2&ie=UTF-8
[6] Matilal (1992) in Hood, ibid, 127.
[7] Hood, ibid.
[8] ibid.
[9] ibid.
[10] JL Hinman, the Trace of God, Studies chapter, also Hood ibid, 128.
[11] Find, John Hick
[12] Dale Caird, “The structure of Hood's Mysticism Scale: A factor analytic study.”journal for the Scientific study of religion 1988, 27 (1) 122-126
[13] Burris (1999) quoted in Hood, ibid, 128
[14] Hood, ibid, 128
[15] ibid.
[16] ibid, 129
[17] ibid
[18] ibid
[19] Bernard Spilka, Ralph Hood Jr., Bruce Hunsberger, Richard Gorwuch. The Psychology of Religion: An Empirical Approach. New York, London: the Guildford Press, 2003.
[20] Ibid, 323
[21] ibid
[22] ibid, Hood in McNamara.
[23] Find trace of God J.L. Hinman, fn 47-50 are original fn in that source
, [24] Ralph Hood Jr., W.P. Williamson. “An empirical test of the unity thesis: The structure of mystical descriptors in various faith samples.” Journal of Christianity and Psychology, 19, (2000) 222-244.
[25] R.W. Hood, Jr., N.Ghorbani, P.J. Waston, et al “Dimensions of the Mysticism Scale: Confirming the Three Factor Structure in the United States and Iran.” Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 40 (2001) 691-705.
[26] R.K.C. Forman, Mysticism, Mind, Consciousness. Albany: State University of New York Press, (1999) 20-30.
[27] F.S. Brainard, Reality and Mystical Experience, Unvisited Park: Pennsylvania State University Press. (2000). See also D.Loy, Nonduality: A Study in Comparative Philosophy. Amherst, New York: Humanities Press.
[28] Krishna K. Mohan, “Spirituality and Wellbeing: an Overview.” An Article based upon a Presentation made during the Second International Conference on Integral Psychology, held at Pondicherry India 4-7 January 2001, published in hard copy, Cornelissen, Matthijs (Ed.) (2001) Consciousness and Its Transformation. Pondicherry: SAICE.On line copy URL: http://www.ipi.org.in/texts/ip2/ip2-4.5-.php website of the India Psychology Institute. Site visited 9/3/12.

A Global approach to knowledge, Part I

I. A Global approach to knowledge enables us to understand the inadequacy of the scientifically based view that writes God out of the picture.

II. Understanding the need for the global approach to knowledge gives us the understanding of the link between ground of being and the divine.

III. Understanding these two points gives us the basic realization of the reality of God that frees us from the need to prove

. Since Laplace uttered those fateful words, “I have no need of that [God] hypothesis” God has been disassociated from science. Just why he uttered them is another matter but the upshot seems to be that those who find their hobby if not their profession in doubting the reality of the divine do so on the grounds that its not “officially backed” by science. The constant refrain of atheists heard around the net every single day “there’s no proof for YOUR God” echoes the call for scientific evidence as the only form of knowledge. The success of the “Back to God movement” in philosophy, stunning though it has been, nevertheless is tainted with the dismissal on the part of atheists, skeptics, and some agnostics that God arguments are not “scientific.” The God argument as a species is broadly criticized for not being science and for being philosophy. The point of this work is to demonstrate the notion that belief in God is rationally warranted, but that it need not be demonstrated with scientific rational. The purpose here is to forge a new apologetics.

This new apologetics focuses upon knowing in a deep personal way that can’t be denied by the one who comes to know, rather than wasting one’s time trying to prove things to those who do not wish to know. What we need to do is to make the proper tools availed to the seeker, to do that we have to disabuse seekers of the benighted notion that the only way to know something is through scientific data. The aim here is to demonstrate the basis for a phenomenological and existential realization of the reality of God and how to put oneself in a position where that realization becomes real to the experincer and can be validated by logic, reason, and other sources in a global understanding of all our knowledge.

As the alternative to the atheistic view of scientism I will propose a theological approach centering upon phenomenology, and culminating in theological method. The point is to produce an apologetical approach that makes the process of God realization transparent to the seeker. The way to do this is to understand the connection between an understanding of human being and it’s relation to being itself. I will defend a notion similar to that of Paul Tillich’s idea that God is being itself, or the ground of being; that I equate with the super essential godhead of Dionysus the areopagite. Tillich said that if you know being has depth you can’t be an atheist. He equates the depth of being with the realization that God is the ground of being.[1] Thus, if he’s right, all one need to do is to understand what that means, then observe the depth of being. Understanding the relationship between the ground of being and the question of the divine, from the outset, is crucial because how we understand the concept of “God” will make all the difference in what we seek and what we find, and what we reject. If we are looking to prove the existence of a big man in the sky and we don’t understand the concept of God as the ground of being, or being itself, we are going to miss the whole point of belief and write God off because there’s no big man in the sky. Being is all around us and we are in it, so we tend to take it for granted and we are going to miss what being is and how that relates to God if we don’t understand Tillich’s concept.

A silly little analogy that I use to illustrate this notion is about a fish scientist who was hired by the high council of Tuna to find the strange substance humans believe in called “water.” The fish had never seen any water so they wanted to know what it is. The fish scientist examined every puddle and depression he could find but found no water. He eventually concluded that humans are deluded about water because he could find no examples of it. Of course that’s because it never dawned on him that this state of normality in which he is submerged and is surrounded by all the time could be illusive substances humans’ thrive on, water. As a fish empiricist our scale clad investigator was certain that what he was looking for had to be an object that he could see, he forgot to look at the substance he was always looking through. So it is with being, we write it off as “just what is” and go on looking for this “God” who can’t be found because we don’t understand he’s nearer than our inmost being. Such is the pitfall of scientific empiricism.

the best apologetics website on the net

https://religiousapriori.blogspot.com/2021/05/welcome-to-religious-priori.html The religious a priori is an apologetics website. It is designed to present an intellectual defense of the christian faith, We have a huge amount of material. It's an excellent resource for anyone seeking to defend faith.It covers every major issue from the historicity of Jesus to science and religion.  Books Frederich Schleiermacher, (1768-1834) in On Religion: Speeches to it's Cultured Despisers, and the Christian Faith. (aka The Glaubenslehre) sets forth the view that religion is not reducible to knowledge or ethical systems. It is primarily a phenomenological apprehension of God consciousness through means of religious affections.... in the Christian Faith he argues that there is a greater sense of unity in the life world and a sense of the dependence of all things in the life world upon something higher.

Merry Christmass!

Back to blogging next week

the Israel in Egypt debate

My friend "I'm Skeptical," who is a valued member of my blogger community,l did a comment on my position about the Exodus it calls for an involed amswer. So I am amsweromg it here

: The thesis I will defend: I don't know about miraclesor pleagues, orr Mses or partimgofthe seabut I am arguimg simply that there are good reasons to suspect that some Hebrews were at one time slaves in Egypt.

Skep: Archaeological data? You mean because there were 4-room reed dwellings in Egypt, and Israelis also used 4-room dwellings? But we don't know who built them or who lived in them. So your contention is that they could have been made by Israelis, but there is no proof of that, and they could just as well been made by native Egyptians.

It is the opinon of professional archaeolosits. they could compare with other Egyptian dwellings, and if the only one's like that are cannonite. that's reaspn to think Cannanites were there. That's not the only support.

Skep: Furthermore, there is not one single written record to corroborate that, in a land where they kept records of everything.

I think there is. One source, Dr. Douglas Petrovich’s book Origins of the Hebrews:claims new evidence Proving Hebrews lived in Egypt,But how would they know? Are they going to say "the people who will become the nation of Israe"? they would not know. Remember I am not defending the pleagues or any of the detials of Exodus.

Skep:There is no record of the mass enslavement, or the exodus, no names mentioned. There are no artifacts left behind that are distinctly Israeli. There is nothing in the archaeological record that clearly indicates their presence there.

I am not defindibg their mass enslvement but they could have been in Lowli position they would latter descriobe as slavery the Israelites I mean.There references to the Eperou which may be Hebrew. But if they were just canonites the Egyptions would have no resom to call them Israelites.
>

Skep: If there had been millions of them enslaved in Egypt, there would be some trace of that. If those millions made spent 40 years in the Arabian peninsula, there would be some trace of that. But there's nothing. That's archaeological data. And that's why the greater archaeological community doesn't believe it.

I never said there were millions, the Bible doesn't say that either,but how would they have a trace? If therewas No Jospeh and no Moeses how are goigto identify a bucg if Cabbiutes as futrue Israelites? The appeal to "they greater cheologocal community" is ideological not logical. Foirst the gratercomunity ismade up of secularmimded people who ho rleigious alloence. They have o stidiedit, they haveproofit's not true, they only react it an ideologocal princkple they clig to naterialist assumptions.

Hey Skep please try to remember this. I have ebough respet for archaeology and scientific method to doubt theexistenceo of Jophen and Moses,or at least to ut the in a faith only caegry. But there is noway they can bw there no Hebrews im Egyt. Skepers: "Let's face it. This is a mythological story, and whatever happened way back in pre-history, that might have been the seed of the myth, is lost to us." Now you need to face the reality about myth: they are often based upon truth. I think there is alost no dfference i what I am saying and your statmemt: "...and whatever happened way back in pre-history, that might have been the seed of the myth, is lost to us." is that I stick on a probability argummt that soe Hebrews were iEgypt at sme t,oe, nothing e. You aresso hyterical about the Buble you can'taccepttheinocous posiotoon

. the thing you have never answered, why is the sojourn i Egypt so foundational to thwe Hews? why do

The True Religion of The Bible

Dr. Francesca Stavrakopoulou is billed as having peeled back the the mythological "biases" of the Bible to expose the "likely archeological truth behind the text."[1]  This euphemism "bias" is their term for lie. Since she doesn't believe in God (her own admission) she assumes the roots of biblical history are merely like all other ancient world mythology. In other words that's all the bible is, just another set of myths illuminating the misconceptions of ignorant and primative people. Her method does revolve around the assumption that since there is no God the truth behind the bible must be the same as that of any culture and ut's mythology..Now her work is extremely interesting to listen to. It  is very popular.It also gives great comfort to atheists. It has the efect of saying"ah ha just what I always suspect about the Bible."=

I have no doubt that the people who wrote the bible lived in the same mythological universe as the Ugaretic or Canaanite or any other anciet world people. Yet she overlooks the fact that the OT is offered as an alternative to pagan mythology. Despite the cultural background of the Bible, God,rather than erase the Pagan milue, speaks through it. The voice of God resounds above the pagan historical epoch and cuts a clear path from the shadows and types to Jesus and the empty tomb.

Let's look at a couple of examples: Genesis 1:6-8,  it states: "And God said, “Let there be a vault between the waters to separate water from water.” So God made the vault and separated the water under the vault from the water above it. And it was so. God called the vault 'sky.' And there was evening, and there was morning—the second day."[2] He is not talking about dividing oceans from contenants on earth. He's talking about waters above the earth.For the ancient world the fermament was a vast dome that streached over earth and was behind the sky.It had doors in it and through those doors angels shoveled water which was rain, or snow. That's the way the authors of Genesis saw the world. In Canaanite mythology the battle between Baal and Yom is referenced.God did not instruct mankind in the nature of the universe,so without changing their understanding he just spoke his will anyway.

Ugaritic mythological tablets describe the activities of the main gods and goddesses of the Canaanite pantheon. Although there existed no single state theology, the major gods reflect local geographical concerns about the fertility of the earth and the importance of water as well as relationships to the sky and the underworld. The universe was believed to be ruled in tandem by the older god El and a main warrior-god, Baal, surrounded by a council of deities and a lower level of attendant gods. The divine council included the older generation of the god El and his wife Athirat, known in the Bible as Asherah[3],

El was a Cannanite God his cult pre dates ancient Israel. That  does not mean that the ancient Israelites thought they worshiped that same El, nor does it mean that the El mythos is the basis of Israelite worship. They used the name El because it was like our term "God," it can be used by any number of cultic practitioners. If God is real they must have applied that name to him because it is a general term much like our term God.

"While the cosmologies of other ancient societies share much in common with biblical cosmology (the ordering of chaotic waters, rival serpents, judgment of humanity by flood), key differences surround the nature of the creator. For instance, the Egyptian creator, Atum, is not an uncreated, eternally preexistent being (like Yahweh). Atum created himself from the chaotic waters. Atum is the first self-caused cause, which is a form of pantheism."[4] The common cultural background was neither misunderstood by proto Israel nor was it something they fled

.

"No doubt there is a common cultural heritage behind the first chapter of Genesis. But this legacy or common cultural baggage wasn't "misunderstood" by the author of Genesis 1. It was "reinterpreted", reconfigured in an enduring, perpetual process of cultural assimilation and differentiation, the very lifeblood of religious exegesis. Some people call this the 'invention of tradition'. I prefer to see it as traditional inventiveness.[5]

Here are three examples of God speaking to authors of the OT that are not derived from pagan mythos.

Genesis 12:1-7

12 The Lord had said to Abram, “Go from your country, your people and your father’s household to the land I will show you.

2 “I will make you into a great nation,     and I will bless you; I will make your name great,     and you will be a blessing.[a] 3 I will bless those who bless you,     and whoever curses you I will curse; and all peoples on earth     will be blessed through you.”[b] 1 Kings 19:11-14

Then a great and powerful wind tore the mountains apart and shattered the rocks before the Lord, but the Lord was not in the wind. After the wind there was an earthquake, but the Lord was not in the earthquake. 12 After the earthquake came a fire, but the Lord was not in the fire. And after the fire came a gentle whisper. 13 When Elijah heard it, he pulled his cloak over his face and went out and stood at the mouth of the cave.

Then a voice said to him, “What are you doing here, Elijah?”

  This passage tells us God does not speak through fireworks and big events but to the heart. That is not derived from myth, There is no myth of God speaking to the heart and there are no prophets in mythology.

jer 20; 7-9

7You deceived[a] me, Lord, and I was deceived[b];     you overpowered me and prevailed. I am ridiculed all day long;     everyone mocks me. 8 Whenever I speak, I cry out     proclaiming violence and destruction. So the word of the Lord has brought me

    insult and reproach all day long. 9 But if I say, “I will not mention his word     or speak anymore in his name,” his word is in my heart like a fire,     a fire shut up in my bones. I am weary of holding it in;     indeed, I cannot.

This is really anti-mythological because it records the psychological feelings of the first person on the purpose who must speak the word of God. It's a psychological experience he can't shut up. There is nothing like that in mythology, This totally authentic historical rendering of ancinet's Israelite relationship with God on a personal level.

Notes

[1] Dr. Francesca Stavrakopoulou, "The REAL Israelite Religion: Interview with Dr. Francesca Stavrakopoulou" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A-nM3-QE2V4&t=240s Dr. Stavrakopoulou, professor of Hebrew Bible and Ancient Religion at Exeter University, and star of the BBC's "Bible's Buried Secrets", Digital Hammurabim 2021..

[2]NIV.

[3] Ira Spar, "The Gods and Godesses of Canaan," Heilbrunn Timeline of Art History, the Met april 2009 https://www.metmuseum.org/toah/hd/cana/hd_cana.ht.

m [4]The Buble Project,"Does the Bible Borrow From Other Creation Stories?" Ancient Cosmology Episode 2m May 24, 2021 https://bibleproject.com/podcast/does-bible-borrow-other-creation-stories/.

[5] Ibid.

Don't be fooled by Trump's Lies

God did not want Israel to have a king because God ran things. But Israel wanted a king so God gave them a kigm the kings of Israel were terrible. Here is a fine summary of this segment of the Bible.[1] We see this same thing today in the evil Trump. Every time I see people hoodwinked by histories asserting he has a divine calling and he's helping christianity I think here is a deluded person who has not read the bible. We see the same thing in Trump's election as the setting up of Saul as King. God allowed the King Even though he was a disaster. ;listen to that guy's summary lt's a real good summary. Trim[ sahs I am the only one who can fix it." Obviously thatis bull shit, Trump has solved nothing, he created the mess at the border. He uses it as his major issue. but he created it too, The flow of illegal migration had declined a trickle and Trump got it going by talking about closing the border.[2] See my essay "Trump's war on breathing"[3] hid quashing of environmental regs costs thousands of lives in air pollution. Trump put up a big thing about supporting the coal industry he called it clean coal.That is the most vociferous of fossil fuel pollutants, It's too expensive to scrib the coal and it's the number one killer in air pollution.   When Trump was President he used Department to justice to cover up his election losses and tried to ignore the outcome.[4] He has no understanding of fairness nor does he accept democracy as a valule.NPR:"Senate report details Trump's efforts to use DOJ to overturn election results"

An interim report from the Senate Judiciary Committee provides the most detailed look yet at former President Donald Trump's attempts to enlist the Justice Department in his efforts to overturn the results of the 2020 election. The report from the panel's Democratic majority documents the chaotic final weeks of Trump's presidency following his loss to Joe Biden, and how Trump tried to force Justice Department officials to help him keep his grip on power. Department leaders ultimately resisted Trump's pressure, but it took threats of mass resignations across the department to get him to back down. A key moment that emerges in the report is a Jan. 3 meeting in the Oval Office between Trump and senior Justice Department leaders, including then-acting Attorney General Jeffrey Rosen and his top deputy, Richard Donoghue.

Trump continues to lie, says 'real insurrection' happened when he lost the election POLITICS. Trump continues to lie, says 'real insurrection' happened when he lost election Rosen told the committee that Trump opened the three-hour meeting by saying: "One thing we know is you, Rosen, aren't going to do anything to overturn the election."   He is essentually saying forget the will of the people, make me king. He wants to be dicktator. Hw is still in full control of the repubs, Dutch tight control the got no votes to remove him from office. A vote for the repubs is a vote for Trump. Trumpies are always saying he had doe so much for Christianity when he had done nothing,Nonefthen has ever told me what he's done. Don't hoodwinked by this lying bag of hot air. He's done nothing to help anyone. He is a criminal. notes [1] Spoken Gospel, Pod cast, 1 Sam 8=12 "Israel demands a King," not date Bible study, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_jil42Tx7C4 [2]ALAN BERSIN, NATE BRUGGEMAN and BEN ROHRBAUGHm Politico Magazube, "Yes there is a criss on the boarder anditis Trump;s Fault" April 05, 2019, https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2019/04/05/border-crisis-donald-trump-226573/ [3] Joseph Hinman, "Trump's war on breathing," Metacrcok's blog,October 06, 2024 https://metacrock.blogspot.com/2024/10/trumps-war-on-breathing.html [4] Joseph Hinman, "Trump Used DOJ to overtrun election results." Metacrock's blog, October 13, 2024 https://metacrock.blogspot.com/2024/10/trump-used-doj-to-overturn-election.html

I need help

I have a problem on facebook if anyone knows whatI should do let me know. The problem: I can't make y own posts. when I try there is not place to write on the post and it wont take the words.I can answer people om their thread but can't startmywn, I looked for phone mi,ber for Faceboo, they did everytyingto hide it. I found a number but can't find the area code. can anyone help?

Does Presence of Pain Mean Absence of God?

"Whatever arguments you use, they are all excuses or rationalizations for the pain and suffering we see in this world where God is the ultimate expression of 'love.'"

This statement is made by our friend Skepie. The equation says "if Pain, then no God." The rationale is that loving parents would never subject their children to pain.Neither would a loving God. The very presence of pain disphttps://www.economist.com/cdn-cgi/image/width=1424,quality=80,format=auto/content-assets/images/20240608_ASP002.jpgroves the existence of God because loving God would never allow pain. Should we think that's true?

The rationale behind the equation (if Pain then no God) is the assumption that the most important value in all of existence is to be free of pain, or to be comfortable.God would never allow extreem discomfort. Is this true? No, I think there is a higher value. It's More important to be free than to be comfortable.

These are competing values so comfort is not the highest value. But there is a reason to think freedom is a higher value than comfort, and this can be proven. The reason is because without freedom, and I include free will, you can't have love and you can't have a moral universe; and that would negate what I think are God's two major reasons for creating.If true this means freedom is a higher value a priori.

At this point the regular Free will defense kicks in. God must allow free will, which means he risks causing pain through our bad choices, and thus free will necessities pain and freedom outweighs comfort as a value.

Skeptics often make the argument that no parent would willingly subject his/her child to suffering. Thus God, being the ultimate parent, would never subject his children to pain. That is directly contradicted by many examples where parents do subject their children to pain. Parents regularly subject their children to emotional pain not understanding  what it means to be a child. they do this because they love them and whatever the issue is, the parents are doing what they think is best for the child. Forbidden friendships they think are harmful when the child is emotionally bound to that person, all kinds of embarrassment from going to school to getting off drugs and so on. The drug example, if a child is known to the parent to be a drug addict the parent will insist the child get off drugs. Of course this could be very painful. It is a pain a loving parent would impose it doesn't make the paret less loving.

I hear the skeptic saying all of those examples are done for the good of the  child. How is a world of pain for the good of humanity? I am dealing with pain related to the choices we make. Natural disasters are a different issue* Freedom, including free will, is for the good of humanity. God has to allow pain as a consequence of free will,  They might ask why does God allow natural disasters? That is not a question of will But it is a consequence of a naturalistic world

. A Naturalistic world (although one in which God intervenes at times) is necessitated by the search for truth and good. This is why God keeps a world that can run on its own by naturalistic laws. If we were super naturally protected from all pain we should have no need to search for the truth of God. But in searching one develops the values of the good. That's why the search is important.A naturalistic world where there is no pain and suffering negates the need for a search for thinking God's action would be obvious.This all indicates that the existence of pain in the world is not proof against God's existence,especially when he provides the means to endure.

Twelve Angry Steriotypes: answering atheist parody theodicy probelm

from the play "12 angry nen."

A Friend from CARM emailed me this article found on Internet Infidels.Its' a parable (or anti-parable) about the problem of pain. It supposedly critique twelve different views of God and the approaches taken by those who hold said views, and the inadequacy thereof. I promised this friend a critique. But I will only defend the views that I find close to my own. I may make comments on some of the views, but not all. I see no point in defending views I don't hold. Apparently this essay is a "must read" according to HRG (Hans R. Groum) the star of the atheist board on CARM

Before getting started I have one general observation. The argument made here uses the medium of parable, and thus uses the idea of policemen watching a murder and not intervening as the analogy. The problem is, we hired cops to do a specific job, they are regular men and they have limited understanding. They are put up to a specific task which is understood of them and they have our own limitations in understanding the nature of the task or how to carry it out. This means the analogy is limited and dubious as analogous of God and the world. God is not hired to carry out a specific task. God allows things to happen in relation to divine wisdom, which is not something we understand well. We have to allow God to use his own judgment in how he things things should go. We can say to a cop "you know your job is to keep the pace and you allowed this crime to transpire right in font of your face" but we do no know God's role. We do not know God's understanding. We do not know God's limitations (if any). Thus this means there is no analogy. Where there is no analogy there is no argument.

Secondly. This essay carries the same weakness as the design argument. It doesn't outweigh God arguments it falls to them because it argues from the state of the world to the existence of God. If that is a mistake for design arguments, it's a mistake for theodicy arguments. If it is not a mistake for theodicy it is not a mistake for design; moot point at best.

thirdly, of course, I have made my own theory of theodicy, the "Soteriological Drama." Of cosrue this essay makes no mention of it. So any argument gleaned from this parable is countered by my essay. Please read it!

now to the parable:

The Tale of the Twelve Officers (2002) the Tale of Twelve Officers by

Mark I. Vuletic

Previously "The Five Officers" (2000), and then changed to "The Nine Officers" (2001), Vuletic has now made the final update to this essay to include a total of twelve points of view.

The First officer:

It was, of course, sad to hear that Ms. K had been slowly raped and murdered by a common thug over the course of one hour and fifty-five minutes; but when I found out that the ordeal had taken place in plain sight of twelve fully-armed off-duty police officers, who ignored her terrified cries for help, and instead just watched until the act was carried to its gruesome end, I found myself facing a personal crisis. You see, the officers had all been very close friends of mine, but now I found my trust in them shaken to its core. Fortunately, I was able to talk with them afterwards, and ask them how they could have stood by and done nothing when they could so easily have saved Ms. K. "I thought about intervening," said the first officer, "but it occurred to me that it was obviously better for the murderer to be able to exercise his free will than to have it restricted. I deeply regret the choices he made, but that's the price of having a world with free agents. Would you rather everyone in the world were a robot? The attacker's choices certainly weren't in my control, so I can't be held responsible for his actions."

I'm not correcting his spelling. If there is a misspelling in the block quote the atheist put it there.

Of course here we see the mocking of the Free will Defense. My Soteriological Drama is a free will defense. I urge the reader to read it as an answer. But notice here there is no reason for free will given. No attempt to weight the consequences of not having free will vs having it and having to suffer because of it. So no decision cam be made about the wisdom of such a course. The empty mocking of the position says it wall, "would you rather everyone be a robot?" Of course they would. atheists wish they were robots. rather they wish everyone else was a robot. So much for their disingenuous concern for humanity. They can't even understand the basic condition necessary for their own rebellion. if they were robots of God they could not be atheists. But that would suit them, they want to be absolved built and responsibly

The Second Officer:

"Well," said the second officer, "my motivation was a little bit different. I was about to pull my gun on the murderer when I thought to myself, 'But wait, wouldn't this be a perfect opportunity for some unarmed bystander to exercise selfless heroism, should he chance to walk by? If I were to intervene all the time like I was just about to, then no one would ever be able to exercise such a virtue. In fact, everyone would probably become very spoiled and self-centered if I were to prevent every act of rape and murder.' So I backed off. It's unfortunate that no one actually showed up to heroically intervene, but that's the price of having a universe where people can display virtue and maturity. Would you rather the world were nothing but love, peace, and roses?"

spoiled self centered people always mock those who lecture them on being responsible and selfless. I don't really know of any position that says God allows pain so we wont be selfish. I guess its' closest to the old "pain builds character idea" but I don't of anyone who is really willing to argue that seriously. C.S. Lewis argues something similar in the Problem of Pain But he is sophisticated enough to develop it into something more than that. Since I'm not defending Lewis I'll move on.

Third Officer:

"I didn't even consider stepping in," said the third officer. "I probably would have if I hadn't had so much experience of life as a whole, since Ms. K's rape and murder admittedly seems pretty horrible when taken in isolation. But when you put it into context with the rest of life, it actually adds to the overall beauty of the big picture. Ms. K.'s screams were like the discordant notes that make fine musical pieces better than they would have been had all the notes been flawless. In fact, I could scarcely keep from waving my hands around, im

agining that I myself was conducting the delicious nuances of the orchestra." This is really a straw man argument. I don't know of any Christian apologist who argues that pain adds to the beauty of life. I sometimes tell myself "it's all part of the rich pageantry of life," but only as a facetious commentary on how generally screwed up things are. This is really a major misunderstanding that atheists have about Christian positions. I guess they must think Christians have to think everything is huncky duncky. I don't think that. I think the world is screwed. That might go along with the Christian concept of a fallen world. I certainly Don't blame God for it. But then atheists are looking for things things to blame ;God for. Then they catch themse lves and say "but I don't believe in him." but they blame him for everything.

Fourth:

"When I first arrived on the scene, I actually drew my gun and pointed it right at the rapist's head," confessed the fourth officer, with a very guilty look on his face. "I'm deeply ashamed I did that. Do you know how close I came to destroying all of the goodness in the world? I mean, we all know there can't be any good without evil. Fortunately, I remembered this just in time, and a wave of such strong nausea came over me when I realized what I had almost done, that it knocked me to my hands and knees. Man, was that a close one."

This is a misapplication of several arguments none of which say that if God stops evil good will be destroyed. I have argued against atheists views that try to make evil into an essence. Thus many times they will argue that some contradiction obtains because God is good and evil exits, thus God is contradicted by evil or some such idea. Sometimes they push this to the point of making evil an essential quality. I say evil is not a positive thing. It's the lac of good. But that doesn't mean that in space somewhere there's this big "lack of good" sitting around. The lack of Good is in the heart, the human heart, or the attitudes. That is not an argument that evil is in anyway necessary to good. The relationship of good to evil is like that of light to shade. Light does not depend upon shade for its existence. Shade does depend upon light.

Fifth

"Look, there's really no point in my trying to explain the details to you," said the fifth officer, who we had nicknamed 'Brainiac' because he had an encyclopedic knowledge of literally everything and an IQ way off the charts. "There's an excellent reason for why I did not intervene, but it's just way too complicated for you to understand, so I'm not even going to bother trying. I mean, you admit you are nowhere near as knowledgeable as I am, so what right do you have to judge? Just so there's no misunderstanding, though, let me point out that no one could care about Ms. K. m

ore than I did, and that I am, in fact, a very good person. That settles that." this one is typical of the atheist not willing to allow God to be God. They can't allow that anything anywhere could know more than we do. I can't blame them entirely for this answer since I don't like mystifications either. Too often Christan will slough off an answers with this "no one knows the mind of God" sort of thing. On the other hand it is arrogant and stupid to pretend that we do know everything. We have to allow God to be all knowing and ou to be very ignorant. We ave to accept that we don't see the big picture. HOw could we? why shouldn't the big picture be beyond our scope?

There the atheists are looking for an all purpose handy dandy god defeater argument that has to be true. They use the excuse of point as a kings x. o God allowed this so there cant' be a God. It' just a big atheists Kings X.

Sixth!!!!

"I would have defended Ms. K," said the sixth officer, who was notoriously careful about staying out of the public eye, "but it simply was not feasible. You see, I want everyone to freely choose to believe in me. But if I were to step in every time someone was about to be raped or murdered, then the evidence would be so clear-cut that everyone would be forced to believe in me. Can you imagine a more diabolical infringement upon their free wills? Obviously, it was better for me to back off and let Ms. K be raped and murdered. Now everyone can freely choose to believe that there is this extraordinary cop out there who loves them like his own children."

Ok now we are getting someplace! Even though he doesn't say it, this is aimed at me. this is my view which is unique. This means I've had an impact such that they have to answer my own view. Yeah yip yip ypiee!!! (exuse my outburst). This is based upon my view in Soteriological Drama

If one will read the link one finds that there is much more to this view that is left out of the atheist frame work He just said "I didn't help because I want people to believe in me." what's is missing is the all the analysis about how why direct intervention would negate belief and what that means.

(1) It totally misses the point that what would be negated is not just belief or not belief at all. I state explicitly we would all believe in God if God make it plain enough. Not the point.

(2) We would believe but at the price of resentment. If we felt that we had to be good no matter what, there's no ambiguity, God is watching at all times and if we screw up we are in trouble, we would resent it. We would resent God.

(3) God wants more than just belief. He wants us to internalize the values of being good.

(4) The only way

to do that is to instill these values in such a way that we want to believe them. (5) That's the logic of the search. If we have to search for the truth we embrace the truth we find. If part of that truth is the values of the good then embrace them. we internalize them.

(6) If God stopped based stuff all the time there would be no need for a search. there would be no internalizing the values. This involves an answer similar to no 4, but if we are not careful we might think that this is no. 4. But it is not. I am not saying Good requires evil. Nor am I saying suffering builds character. thse are answered specifically on the page linked to above.

seventh

"What are you complaining about?" exclaimed the seventh officer when I turned to him, his eyebrows shooting up in exasperated disbelief. "I just saved a woman from getting raped and murdered last week! Do I have to jump in every time I see something like that about to happen? I would say the fact that more women are not raped and murdered in this city is almost miraculous testimony to my goodness.

" eight

The eighth officer, too, looked frustrated. "Nothing I do is good enough! Do you know how much worse it could have been? The thug actually had a blowtorch with him when he started out, but I said 'No way, not on my watch,' and knocked it away from him with my nightstick. Sure, I let him keep the switchblade, the pliers, the coat hanger, and the vial of

acid, but think how much worse it would have been with a blowtorch! Ms. K should have thanked her lucky stars that someone so loving was there to watch over her." both are highly inadequate parodies of positions I've given in the past. These answers were specific to certain atheist arguments. they are not meant to be general answers to the entire problem of pain. Atheists wont allow an honest answer. They can't take anything seriously and they can't represent an argument fairly. They always leave out the crucial bits that make so much difference. See above on Six see what was left out that makes a fine response look idiotic. Seen and eight do not represent views

of God. They are taken of out context. Which is what I would expect from atheists. Ninth:

"I'll let you in on a secret," said the ninth officer."Moments after Ms. K. flatlined, I had her resuscitated, and flown to a tropical resort where she is now experiencing extraordinary bliss, and her ordeal is just a distant memory. I'm sure you would agree that that's more than adequate compensation for her suffering, so the fact that I just stood there watching instead of intervening has no bearing at all on my goodness."

here he's not even trying. Just mocking the concept of after life. I could make a better parody of the "God will make it up to us in heaven" mentality. Tenth

The tenth officer gave us all quite a start when he revealed a surprising secret about Ms. K. "I genetically engineered her from scratch. I made her, therefore she's my property, and I can do whatever I want with her. I could rape and murder her myself if I were so inclined, and it would be no worse than you tearing up a piece of paper you own. So there is no question of my being a bad person for not helping her."

Of course here we have the atheist inability to argue within the guidelines of a position. I've seen them do this over an dover again. They think 'well it doesn't matter if those guys believe God created us, I don't believe th so he didn't." Then you get this sort of wired argument that doesn't quite accept the premise of it's opponent, even for the sake of argument, and yet expects one to go along with the argument anyway even though tit's not really Germain to anyone's actual belief. Why would we be surprised to find that God created humans? If a real cop said this of course it would be delusional, but not if God say sit. I can just hear the atheists missing the point and saying "but there is no God to say this."

Eleventh

The eleventh officer chimed in, gesturing at the tenth officer "I hired him to create Ms. K for me, because I wanted someone to love and worship me. But when I approached Ms. K about the matter, she actually turned away from me, as though she could find meaning and happiness with someone else! So I decided the loving thing to do would be to break her spirit by arranging to have her raped and murdered by a common thug, so that she might turn to me in her extraordinary suffering, thereby fulfilling the purpose for which she had been created. Well, mission accomplished, I'm happy to say! A few seconds before she died, she was so insane with terror and pain that she actually convinced herself she loved me, since she knew that only I could end her ordeal. I'll never forget the love in her eyes when she looked up at me the last time, begging for mercy, right before the thug bent over and slit her throat. It was so beautiful it still brings me to tears. Now I just have to go to that island so she can claim her prize of servitude."

I don't know of anyone who says that God allows pain so that we will have to love him. This is seems like the typical atheist misrepresentation and distortion they are constantly into. As I say they can never really gasp what an argument is about and they can never represent a Christian view point accurately.

Twelve:

"Well, this is quite a coincidence," chuckled the twelfth officer. "It looks like the thug got himself double pay, because I actually hired him to carry out the murder, too! Why? Oh, well it was just a test. Ms. K and I had been dating for some time (no offense, I didn't know she was someone else's property), and one beautiful night she finally told me she loved me. So, naturally, I wanted to see whether this was indeed love - that is, whether she would continue to adore me even while drowning in a pool of her own tears and blood, with me standing before her doing nothing."

I have to had it to him on this one. This is pretty much why I reject the "this is all a test" theory of spirituality. But of course their fuming hatred at people who say this marks their inability to empathize.

By now, it had become clear to me that any difficulty I might have had in reconciling the presumed goodness of the officers with their behavior that day was unfounded, and that anyone who sided against them could do so only for love of evil over good. After all, anyone who has experienced their friendship in the way I have knows that they are good. Their goodness is even manifest in my life - I was in a shambles before I met them, but now everyone remarks on what a changed person I am, so much kinder and happier, apparently possessed of an inner calm. And I have met so many others who feel exactly the same way about them - so many who, like me, know in their hearts the truth that others try to rationalize away with their cold reason and sterile logic. I am ashamed that I ever doubted the entitlement of the twelve officers to my loyalty and my love. As I was getting ready to leave, the first officer spoke up again. "By the way, I also think you should know that when we stood there watching Ms. K. get raped and stabbed over and over, we were suffering along with her, and we experienced exactly the same pain she did, or perhaps even more." And everyone in the room, myself included, nodded his head in agreement.

Of course this is not kind of answer to the process theology position that says God suffers with humanity but can't save 100% of life. Pain and suffering are those things cannot be saved. The assumption made here by the author is that they could stop such things. Thus it fails to even speak to views such as process, or deism or a view of an impersonal God (the God principle) which assert that God cannot stop such things.

The usual atheist mentality is to mock and blaspheme such a God and to assert that he's not worth worshiping. Then they turn around and idealize Buddhism as atheist spirituality even though its essentially offering the same thing as an impersonal God principle, even though they don't' say that. Now comes the passive aggressive bit.

Postscript

Religious readers, do not take offense. I have made this parable as brazen as I could, but my purpose is not to insult or blaspheme. I just got through distorting and insulting your view of life, but I don't mean to insult you.

I have found that religious believers are often conditioned to accept trite solutions to the problem of suffering, and that it is all but impossible to shake that conditioning through dry analysis. The temptation to offer to an entity a moral blank check simply because it sports a nametag with "God" written on it, is overwhelming in our theistic culture. Hence, this attempt to make the point through a medium as far removed from dry analysis as possible. But again, it is all to make a point, not to cause anyone harm. I have not written anything that I would not have wanted directed at me when I myself was a believer.

yes I think you are a perfect idiot to hold your beliefs but don't' be offended.

Atheists are really stuck with the need to reduce answers to pablum because theodicy is one of the major arguments they possess. They can't prove there is no God, they can't win a God argument to save their lives. About the only thing they can do si throw up sweeping objections to the concept of God based upon the nature of the world. Of course we need to be aware of The reverse design argument. (see up top) The best they can get out of it is a moot point because it is either outweighed by God arguments, or equal tot hem; can't reason form the state of the world to God or rule out God's existence for same reason.

comparing God to a big cop in the sky is just another version of thinking of God as a big "guy in the sky." This seems to be about the only way atheists can think about god.

Oddly enough I was thinking of doing an argument along these lines. I don't think sufficient attention is given to the impersonal God option. Even though that is not my view I will do one on it, the impersonal God as an answer to theodolites. I'll put that up in a couple of days. I'll how it relates to a valid Christian position. In the mean time we should recognize that we don't need a definite answer tot he great oceanic questions to justify belief. If I' don't know why God allows pain" is the only answer, they must show why this is not good enough. Because they can't answer other oceanic questions without appealing to God. why aren't we robots? why do we have wills, why do we find meaning in belief? why is the human brain wired to respond to God talk? They can't answer that. At that level all of it has to reduce to personal decision.

The atheist fails to secure his big all purpose God beater argument.