A Case For Christ - Strobel

[Karla & Paul DeYoung]

After some of the discussions at Pub Theology I was prompted to get out this book to refresh my memory and learn some new things regarding the origins of the new testament. It has given me some new insghts into the credibility of the scriptures. Do you think the "arguments" presented by Strobel hold up in the skeptics' mind? Or are there equally convincing contradictory matierials? Any thoughts out there? For me the book makes sense.
Paul

[Mark Hoffmann]

Paul,

It's been a while since I've read the book. What I remember about it was that it made a strong case to reinforce one's current faith in Jesus. However, I have rarely seen someone "talked" into a belief. Reason often plays a role but if seems that if one is talked into a belief, they are as easily talked out of it. It seems that the Age of Reason has become so idolized and worshiped that anything out of the scientific realm is discarded. Happily, the response to the Enlightenment was the Romantic Period. It offered a counterbalance to the focus on reason alone, honoring intuition, experience, and feelings. The other night at the pub I think we got off track just a little so I chose not to go here but probably should have. The skeptic, Brian was stuck on the scientific method as if that is the end all and no one, including me challanged him. I thought it was a potential rabit trail and there were a few of those developing.

An example of "knowing" something outside of the scientific method would demonstrated within relationships. If my child comes up to me and in an unsolicited way wraps his arms around me and gives me a big hug, without saying anything, I "know" he loves me. It's felt, it's intuitive, it's not scientific yet I know he loves me. Another thing that comes to mind is music. When I listen to certain music it moves me deep within me. What is that? Where does the power of that come from? Like Bob describe the "Book of progressive revelation" (Scripture) and the "Book of Nature", we balance these ways of "knowing".
Just my 2 cents.

[Peter Payette]

I asked brian (after the event) what would constitute evidence that my wife loves me. He suggested we might be able to develop a chemical test as a metric and that this would probably be preferable to observing her actions.

By the way, why was this a rabit trail? I was going back and forth with Steve a bit about the sufficiency of evolution as an explanation for life and the creation and I heard you say to (pastor) brian we were getting off topic. I wasn't sure exactly what the topic was at that point. I too wanted to bring up the nature of admissable evidence. I think it is right on topic.

[Bryan]

I gave Christy a chemical-metric test score I had taken for Valentine's. She preferred that to flowers and kisses. :-)

[Mark Hoffmann]

Peter,

I don't think I was refering to your exchange. If so, I apologize. The comment was based on time frame alotment and the multiple discussions going in different dierections concurrently. The rabbit trail sense I had with the challenging the scientific method as the end-all was a concern about where it would go and for how long we would stay on it. Perhaps that was a failure on my part.

[Bryan]

No failures. It was a good discussion. Fourteen people on a controversial topic is always going to get a bit crazy, especially when you throw in bright, warm lights, cameras and beer. Fortunately we can continue to wrestle with and discuss these issues off-camera. Now, how I "know" that is another topic...

[Sam Vorhauer]

In the movie CONTACT, a similar question was raised, about how could she prove her father loved her.
I would say this muddle can be cleared up by substituting the word "love" for "to value" or "to care". And the next step is to link it to action. You have heard, "love is, as love does". When we value something we take action to keep it safe and spend time with it. So positive actions, to my mind, prove our love, otherwise it is just hot air. In the movie the discussion was between a scientist and a priest.

[Bryan]

It is a good question - what constitutes 'knowing' - perhaps a good question for this week.

We've tried to address this in the past, in various ways, but of course, there are different people there every week so not everyone has been around for these conversations.

Here are some past Pub Theology questions that have approached this issue:

“Language has an inherent inadequacy. There is always something left unsaid; something that remains inexpressible.” Discuss the role of art and music in spirituality in light of this.

One skeptic says, ‘if you can’t measure it, it is a fantasy’, e.g. what is the width of God’s middle finger? Assuming you disagree, what immeasurable things are real?

Jean Jacques Rousseau said that ‘it is impossible to describe true enjoyment.’
Do you agree? Do words ever truly convey an experience?

Dr. Francis Collins says that to believe in God, ‘You have to hear the music, not just read the notes on the page.’ What music?

Are intuition and vision more adequate for discussing God than rational thought or concepts?

How do you know something is true?
By experience, by expert authority, by friends, by research, by common sense or by faith?

Do you prefer to think of faith as mainly about facts or about mystery?

How has music helped you facilitate a connection to God? How about silence?

[Brian]

Hey Mark,

I freely acknowledge that the scientific method has shortfalls. Seeing that we are not omniscient, we might draw the wrong conclusions.

I usually use the following example, a few hundred years ago, if I said that I believed that animals, smaller than we could see, were responsible for most diseases... I would have had a "supernatural" belief, outside of science. My belief would have most likely been based on faith... and yet it would have been perfectly correct. It wouldn't be until Germ Theory was proposed with supporting evidence from microscopes and experimentation that that science would have recognized my belief as true.

So, if the scientific method is so limiting, why use it?

There are tons of ideas proposed each and everyday. How do you find the truth from the not-true? How do you know whether the Loch Ness Monster or Bigfoot exist? What about the Flying Spaghetti Monster? I think you need some kind of measuring device, some method to aid in determining the veracity of statements.

Do you know that your partner loves you? Saying that she loves you because "you feel it" doesn't work. If this were true, then people wouldn't be shocked when they find out about affairs or suddenly finding their partner gone. You might "trust" your partner loves or you might "believe" they love you, but you cannot truly "know" because you are not a mind reader.

In other words, when you talk about your child loving you and saying, "It's felt, it's intuitive, it's not scientific yet I know he loves me. Another thing that comes to mind is music. When I listen to certain music it moves me deep within me. What is that? Where does the power of that come from?"... I'd like to point out the following.

1 Most people's intuition gets proven wrong all the time. Now, maybe you're the exception there, but I know my intuition has been totally off at times. It's one of the reasons that I don't usually gamble for money.

2 Love could be scientific. We're learning more and more about how the brain works. Peter later points out here about how I mentioned about measuring love. Right now, scientists are talking about making a "love potion" or a "love vaccine"; we're finding out ways to actually measure "love" via PET scanner. So, if love does turn out to be measurable... then the scientific method has gone into areas formerly claimed solely by "faith".

3. Music. Did you hear about the company that developed a computer program that analyzed thousands of popular songs (of all genres) looking for shared attributes? Turns out, there are certain rhythms that are inherently pleasing to the human ear. On the other side, computer programs have been used to analyze works of Beethoven and then write a completely new work in his style. Experts (unaware of the computer's involvement) regarded the piece as an undiscovered work of Beethoven's. So, we can scientifically study music and the HOW/WHY of it's appeal to us.

However, oddly enough, science might soon make it possible to truly "know" because of the increased use of PET scanners and the like. There was even recent talk of being able to create a vaccination against love or a love potion to make someone fall in love with another... all from a scientific viewpoint.

A future discussion topic that I'd be interested in, is "does knowledge of something lessen it's personal significance? Does knowing how a rainbow actually form seem "less" than believing it is made by leprechauns?

[Mark Hoffmann]

Hi Brian,

Thanks for your thoughtful post.

I think the uncertainty principle allows for a degree of faith.... even within the scientific method paradigm.

I agree with you that our intuition is not perfect. (My wife's is much better than mine.) That doesn't deny it's existence. Where did it come from, what are the implications? Interpretation is open. There is no ability for any of us to be totally objective within our circumstances. At some point one chooses what operating system best coordinates and centers their life based on all the information, experience, intuition, etc, they have.

I was brought up in a very scientific-centered, agnostic home. Everything we saw unfold was attributed to naturalism. I think a lot of naturalism, and I still place a great deal of respect and faith in reason and the scientific method. At some point in my adult life I simply couldn't come to grip with the idea that there is nothing "behind" it all. To me, a First Cause had to exist. Eventually I came to see that in the person of Jesus.

It's interesting that we can all have the same information but come to alternate conclussions. Perhaps experience, intuition and free will lead us to the different conclussions.

[Brian]

Thanks for responding Mark.
As to where intuition comes from, I don't know... but I think a reasonable answer is that our brains attempt to intuit things because that ability aids survival. For example, when someone throws a baseball towards us, we don't consciously use mathematical formula to calculate where it will land, instead we intuit where the ball will land. Humans are very, very good at pattern recognition. I would say that intuition is simply seeing patterns and applying the predicted outcomes of those patterns.

Can you explain how Heisenburg's Uncertainty Principle allows for faith?

Also, why do you place faith in the scientific method? That goes against the whole point of the scientific method. That's why we still run tests done by Galileo... to see if the results change.

If you don't mind me asking, how did you come to see a "first cause" as being Jesus as opposed to some other one? What if the first cause was a being we haven't even learned of yet?

[Peter Payette]

Brian,

One could also ask, does lack of knowledge lessen something's personal significance? Which is what you seemed to propose in your very precise opening to our conversation, that only materially evident things are worthy of your assent and, I assume, your actions. I don't understand this. Because, from a practical standpoint, my life goes on full tilt, in the absence of scientists and PET scanners to test every piece of "data". For example, keeping with our example of children, I have to constantly be assessing my own children based on a wide number of factors and deciding on courses of actions that are best for them. (Is there a testable theory about why I bear this responsibility?)The objective facts and interpretations based on intuition and other sources are stirred up in a complex mix of family life--that spans generations--that no scientist could unravel and "test". Social science may provide some names for patterns exhibited, which can be helpful and are in fact folded back into the mix and alter it. But scientific testablility is basically irrelavant to my family life and work for that matter. So Why all of a sudden, when deciding on first and final things do we refuse to act on anything that is not testable with physical evidence when in daily life we do so constantly?

I would go further and say faith in science is destructive in its unwillingness to recognize the dymanics of reality other than those science can isolate and measure. Again with example of children, excessive faith in science partly explains why far too many young boys are on ritalin and other psychiatric medications, because the scientists that prescribe them think "explaining" the chemicals is sufficient. So I would suggest another good question is what problems arise when our sceintific knowledge outpaces our wisdom. It's interesting that the example you give about love involves scientists wanting to manipulate love chemically when we don't even know if it is properly within their sphere of inquiry. The book to read on that problem is Wendell Berry's Life is a Miracle

Peter

[Mark Hoffmann]

Brian,

I will try to get to this asap. I just typed a couple pages and hit the wrong key and deleted it all..... drat!

My wife is just getting back from surgery so I'm not sure when I can get back to this.