Deciding on the Basis of Research

by hmike 5 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

• 

  hmike

  Hi all,

  For those of you who aren't familiar with Lee Strobel, he is the author of Christian popular apologetic books. His releases include The Case for Faith, The Case for Christ, and, most recently, The Case for the Real Jesus. A journalist with a legal background, his Case books contain interviews with scholars and experts who give scholarly defenses of the Christian positions to which the books are devoted. Of course, since he is presenting a case for the Christian side of the issue, he consults those who are known to support these positions. He does ask those he interviews about the alternate (opposing) viewpoints advocated by others. Strobel is a former atheist.

  I recently got to see Strobel in person where he spoke about his odyssey from atheist to Christian. His wife had become a Christian during their marriage and challenged him to examine the God-issue for himself. He took up the challenge, expecting to be able to discredit the Bible. For two years, he did research and interviewed scholars and experts (a method that would be expected of someone with his legal and journalistic backgrounds). At the end of his quest, he became convinced that the Bible is reliable and accurate, and particularly, that the accounts of Jesus, as written, were trustworthy. At that point, he acted on what he learned, he prayed, turned his life over to God, and his life was changed significantly for the better. That his life changed by turning to Jesus is not an unusual testimony, but that he arrived at that point by an intellectual route is interesting.

  In his latest book, The Case for the Real Jesus, Strobel mentions author Anne Rice, who also went from atheist to believer on the basis of her investigations. These testimonies also sound much like that of Josh McDowell, author of many popular apologetics books. So there have been those who have gone from atheist, agnostic, or skeptic to believer based on what they learned about the Bible in their investigations. Yet there are those, like Dr. Bart Ehrman, who went basically in the opposite direction—from Christian to agnostic—on the basis of investigating the evidence.

  For some of us, deciding for or against the God of the Bible is purely an emotional decision—evidence either way is not a factor. For others, our positions may originate with emotions—maybe subtle and developing over a period of time—and historical, literary, or textual evidence provides support for what we feel.

  From what I've read, it looks like some of you have come to your conclusions about God and the Bible through an intellectual route—research, questioning, and reasoning. I'd like to see what any of you who reached your position based on serious investigation would like write about your personal search, and what points were the most significant in bringing you to your conclusions.

  Thanks,

  Mike
• 

  hmike

  I'm disappointed that there weren't any responses. From what I've read, I think there are at least a few members here who've settled on their positions on the Bible, God, and Jesus based on an intellectual process rather than on a purely emotional reaction. I had hoped to get responses from different sides of the issues on what were the critical pieces of information that lead to faith or no-faith.

  For something so potentially important, it's hard to imagine settling for the default position (whatever that may be). Why let someone else decide? We already give up that freedom too often when it comes to deciding what to buy or who to vote for, but this...it's just too important, isn't it?

  It does seem to be virtually impossible to make this decision starting from a pure, neutral position and using only information collected and reasoning from it. It would be very hard to come to a conclusion contrary to what one's feelings. Emotions have a lot to do with what we do with information: is it threatening or affirming? Often, we just use information for justification to make us feel better about what we feel is true.

  It's interesting to observe what we do with evidence. I've been on a few jury panels, and have had the opportunity to evaluate evidence along with others. All panel members had access to the same information, yet we didn't all come to the same conclusions. In our modern culture, we all evaluate evidence pretty much the same way—with the same reasoning process (attorneys request removal of anyone who sounds like they may be deviant during the interview). In considering the evidence, what seems to differ is what weight we give various types of evidence, and this can be based partly on how our individual brains work and what experiences we have had. For example, attorneys often call on expert witnesses—people who, by training and experience, can offer expert testimony regarding other testimony or material evidence presented. How much weight each panelist gives to a particular appeal to authority can depend on many factors, but it may be as simple as how the panelist feels about those who claim to be authorities or experts. Someone who has had good experiences, who has found authorities trustworthy, will probably give expert testimony more weight than one who has felt deceived, misled, or even abused by those they trusted. The problem comes when, as is often the case, expert testimony is given on behalf of both sides.

  To set out to prove one side of an issue and end up concluding the other side is correct would require a commitment to truth over comfort (assuming the person believes that information can lead to truth). Those who change sides as a result of their investigations would probably not be ones who feel happy and fulfilled where they are. A change of position may simply be an abandonment of something that has caused frustration and confusion in favor of hope of something better.
• 

  pseudoxristos

  hmike,

  Interesting post.

  The one thing I noticed that I felt was rather unusual was that Mr. Strobel claims to have been an Atheist first and then became a Christian after his research. This sequence of events is the exact opposite of my experience and nearly every other Atheist I have ever spoken with.

  I was raised a Christian, accepting all of the basic beliefs with little question. Like many others I was a Christian purely on an emotional level. It wasn’t until I was forced to research the Bible and Christianity that I became an Atheist.

  If there are any other Atheist on the forum that did not arrive at their position in a similar manner, I would be very surprised.

  pseudo
• 

  R.Crusoe

  Most ex JWs have had Bible literature in the extreme and so whatever point people are at who come here is usually with that in mind. A key difference to JW thinking though is that it invites the kind of inquiry you mention but then when the wheels are in motion ensures all roads lead to Rome. In this respect it has an agenda. In this respect it is dictatorial. In this respect it veers away from the holistic approach of engaging the individuals thoughts, feelings and lifestyle in a way which liberates and incentivizes autonomous spiritual/intellectual growth. It offers freedom but takes away free will. So whatever research offers, it does not necessarily ensure freedom of thought if there are influences and traditions which impact on the perspective of the researcher. I wonder if someone were to seriously research another faith or ancient culture with the same high degree of selectivity as to what can be currently adopted, and whether one may convince oneself it was workable and hence plausible as a way forward for humanity. This is the motive I believe underlies all belief systems and hence the overwhelming subliminal desire of humans to want it to be God sent!
• 

  serotonin_wraith

  hmike:

  I'd like to see what any of you who reached your position based on serious investigation would like write about your personal search, and what points were the most significant in bringing you to your conclusions.

  ...

  I'm disappointed that there weren't any responses. From what I've read, I think there are at least a few members here who've settled on their positions on the Bible, God, and Jesus based on an intellectual process rather than on a purely emotional reaction.

  Until someone else here presents good reasoning to believe the Bible was inspired by the creator of the universe, are you able to share some of what you have learned about the validity of the Bible?

  I should bring this up first though. There are real historical people and places in the Bible. But thinking the entire book was divine would be like someone in a few thousand years finding the Empire State building and thinking King Kong happened. The BFG (by Roald Dahl) has Queen Elizabeth II in it, yet that story didn't happen either.
• 

  hmike

  Thanks for the replies! I really do think this is a worthwhile topic to explore.

  Pseudo,

  it looks like your experience may be similar to Dr. Ehrman's. There are different reasons people change from the Christian persuasion to atheist. Sometimes, it is the response to a trauma, such as the death of a loved one. Sometimes, it is due to a gradual erosion from a string of minor disappointments. These are emotional reasons. What I'm looking for are the academic reasons, and why they are particularly important.

  Seratonin,

  I'm not a good example of what I'm looking for because my reasons include more than academic research. The many years of commitment to the teachings of the Bible and the reality of God and Jesus have produced many reinforcing experiences. Most of the reasons I would give wouldn't mean much because they could surely be explained some other way. I understand that. Unlike some Christians you may encounter, I am not ignorant of the problems, and I do not isolate myself from those with objections. Whether this is good or bad, right or wrong, this is the path I travel. I'm not here to overwhelm anyone with my faith or arguments. At most, I'm here to present Christianity as a viable alternative for those who would be open to it.

  That leads me into my answer to your question as best as I'm able to give. I once said in a post that I believe because I am able to. Some have dictated terms and conditions for evidence so high, they can never be met (in some cases, intentionally so because there is an emotional resistance to facing the possibility of being wrong). They have required the evidence to come to them instead of going out to meet it as it is. So, for me, it begins with the willingness to accept the reality of something that is outside of my experience. That's a sticking point for some—"it hasn't happened to me, it hasn't happened to anyone I know, it doesn't fit into my model of the universe, therefore, it doesn't exist." Akin to that is the assumption "if it can be explained by natural, human means, that is to be accepted." For me, just because events can be explained another way doesn't automatically mean that is what happened. Just because other cultures have developed religions and gods in their ways doesn't mean Yahweh and the Bible had to develop the same way. Apparent similarities aren't enough. It's all circumstantial evidence, and not particularly strong IMO.

  Finally, as most Christians will tell you, the key point is not the creation account, not the plagues of Egypt or the parting of a large body of water, or a fish swallowing a man, it is the death and resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth and his subsequent existence in another realm invisible to us as historical fact. I've seen and read all kinds of alternative explanations, but I just haven't found anything that would convince me to disregard the accounts we have available to us. Any alternative explanation put forth seems to be based on the assumption that it didn't happen—that it couldn't happen. The resurrection and Lordship of Jesus as Messiah isn't a problem for me, so I'm not committed to disproving it. Maybe that's lame to you, but I said I wasn't a good example of what I'm looking for.

  I'm planning on posting a topic related to what Dr. Ehrman said in Misquoting Jesus. If I do it, I'll give my understanding of inspiration. That may also help answer your question.

  I've read enough of your material to know I can't give you any magic answers that will persuade you. My purpose with this post is not to argue with anyone. I just find it fascinating that, given access to the same information, people will come to different conclusions about this. Dr. Ehrman's mentor was the renowned Christian scholar Dr. Bruce Metzger, who remained adamant about the reliability of scripture (despite not being an inerrantist). I'd bet they had some very interesting conversations.

  Regards,

  Mike