Saturday 23 July 2011

What is convincing ….to me

I was asked the basis on my confidence of my belief. In a nutshell, I like to relate this in three parts; the initiation, the maintenance and the testing.
Before I was introduced to the belief, I was a troubled youth. I hurt and disappointed my parents in my violent ways, stealing, cheating and gambling. Within me, the guilt and the despair of hurting the very people I love and who loves me. That had not been enough to turn me around.
When I was introduced to the teaching of God’s love and forgiveness through the bible in one particular instance, I responded. Although there was a fair bit of emotion at that moment, the greater joy was a year later when my parents remarked that they saw a total change in me after I started going to church. They did not know the conversion incidence. It was the joy of seeing the joy in my parent.  They even started to direct troubled kids to get help from me.
After this, the reading and study of the bible had been a constant part of my life. That is what can be seen from the outside. On the inside, I become more convinced of the reality of a living God who is active in my life (see blog about the accident). Although many people and Sunday’s sermon had helped, it was the authority of the Bible that these are measured against. I pegged my belief not on people or the churches, but the Bible. That was a journey of about forty years. The troubled youth had so far got a degree in engineering, a master of science, married and with children.
Since the last twenty years (and still doing), I had ventured out to explore other beliefs systems. It cannot be said to be comprehensive. Most people only hold lip service to a belief system, and there are many systems of beliefs. I read about their belief from their literature, and appreciated the honest interactions with some who valued their belief to go beyond superficialities. In this limited study, I analyze each belief’s answer (view) to the four questions of origin, ethics, meaning of life and destiny. I was willing to give each a best shot to the answer. I have found in this journey (so far), the bible had been the best to give a reasonable answer to each and that it also knitted them together as coherence whole.
Each of the above can be taken apart and be explained away with counter perspectives by some cleverness.  It is really personal, and only referenced to me. But for me, in parts and as a whole, it is real and convincing.

32 comments:

  1. Thank you for sharing, it's a really nice post.

    You intimated that your faith is indeed personal. What are your views on the act of evangelising and proselytising?

    Could you please elaborate on how Christianity ties in with origin, ethics, meaning of life and destiny, and how these become the exclusive domains of Christianity and Christianity alone?

    ReplyDelete
  2. Perfect answer! By 'perfect' I just meant that it was pretty much the answer I wanted to give too. That in "settling on" my belief system,
    1. Logic (or lack thereof in some other systems) played a little role... and
    2. I chose the most 'ethical' (or once again, lack thereof) one. I find nothing Christianity teaches to be out of line of my moral conscience... (is any of it out of line for you, Irrational?) and
    3. Admittedly 'personal experience', or moreso, personal change, similar to Andrew's, played the most significant role in 'confirming' this belief system for me...

    ReplyDelete
  3. “chose the most 'ethical' (or once again, lack thereof) one. I find nothing Christianity teaches to be out of line of my moral conscience... (is any of it out of line for you, Irrational?)“

    If you CHOSE your religion based on ethical considerations and your own moral conscience, in your opinion, is God the Lawgiver (hence rendering morality arbitrary), or is morality sovereign from God (therefore we can be moral without God)?

    Yes, I take issue with viewing holy books as the source of objective morality. The Bible/Torah/Quran documented a God who condones genocide, rape, slavery and unequal treatment of women. Moderate Christians read the Bible with a black marker in hand, censoring unsavoury parts of the Bible which do not conform to their moral views. Such cherry picking of scriptures only serves to undermine the Bible as a sacred, infallible Holy Book.

    “3. Admittedly 'personal experience', or moreso, personal change, similar to Andrew's, played the most significant role in 'confirming' this belief system for me...”

    Sure. One certainly has the right to believe in any religion that happens to appeal to one’s sense and sensibility, however personal.

    ReplyDelete
  4. About people sharing their worldviews (aka religion), I think it is a privilege to hear what holds them up in the frailty of life. Maybe sometimes it get a little uncomfortable due to the serious issues involves and the sharing is from the heart (and it should be) and also disagreement (sure there are). I do enjoy hearing them as I enjoyed your comments.
    For a Christian, it is about a hungry beggar showing another hungry where he had found food.

    ReplyDelete
  5. About the exclusivity of claim.
    A believer, by definition would have made a choice in what he believe in. Sometimes this could be transient, but in that instant, the choice is held to be the ONLY true. A choice is a limitation, and it excludes others.
    Do not judge me to be arrogant, but in my journey I have found Christianity that pegged on the authority of the bible to be true. In my life and mind small crucible I have put it to the test, still open to weightier indication that it is not.
    I hope this makes some sense.

    ReplyDelete
  6. "In my life and mind small crucible I have put it to the test, still open to weightier indication that it is not."

    In your opinion, what is the best argument against the Christian God, to date? (you don't have to be convinced that it is true)

    ReplyDelete
  7. "For a Christian, it is about a hungry beggar showing another hungry where he had found food."

    That's fine, as long as no one is trying to force feed the other party.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Argument against the God of the bible. There are a lot, but I consider the ones that I am still struggling are the weightier ones.
    1. Presently I am trying to understand and reconcile the acts of hostilities of wars and even genocide recorded in the bible. God was involved. I am reading and pegging all those incidences and then followed up with a study.
    2. Loss in natural calamities.

    May share this journey in a blog later.

    ReplyDelete
  9. About force feeding.
    You resonates the teaching of the bible( John 1:12). Infant baptism, desiring the dying to mouth some words of faith etc is a false platform of believe. It amounts to nothing however good the intention of a third party may be.
    My children may be influenced by our involvements in the church, they go to Sunday school and youth camps. But when it comes to their wanting to confirm the faith they come to trust in baptism, they decided for themselves.
    The bible define believe, not just in the mental capacity, but on relationship base. So this cannot be forced. To not believe is also relationship based.

    ReplyDelete
  10. If you CHOSE your religion based on ethical considerations and your own moral conscience, in your opinion, is God the Lawgiver (hence rendering morality arbitrary), or is morality sovereign from God (therefore we can be moral without God)? ---- I just meant that I wouldn't be inclined to believe in a God who has any moral standards that seem to be any lower than mine...so yes and no to what you asked me. I can be moral to some degree 'without' God - everyone has some morals, believers or not, but I'm not claiming to be as moral by nature as God. But if I found an instance where I was more 'moral' than God then

    I don't really understand the 'Lawgiver' thing you said though.

    Arguments against God... Off the top of my head, I've always been quite similar to Andrew on his first one, that, like you said, Christianity seems to dismiss the yucky parts of the old testament, but http://www.comereason.org/bibl_cntr/con090.asp seems to have settled me thus far (i.e. still subject to your response!)
    Although as for 'hate' and 'crusades' of the AD church, I don't have any confusion over that - because I believe that e.g. modern 'Christian gay haters' *are* wrong, not that God is telling them to hate.
    I think that's the only argument specifically refuting (this) God that I've gotten stuck over thus far...actually, one of the only ones I can think of :S

    Also I agree with Andrew's last point about childhood impression-ing or whatever. Just as some non-believers come to believe at a certain point (e.g. me), some church-raised children also stop believing at a certain point.

    ReplyDelete
  11. *then God wouldn't have any higher standards than me, which wouldn't answer the 'question' of morality.

    ReplyDelete
  12. "I don't really understand the 'Lawgiver' thing you said though."

    @Rachel

    I was attempting to articulate the central premise of Euthyphro Dilemma. If God conforms to a set of moral standards then he is not all-mighty (He cannot change what is right and wrong). If morality came from God then He could just as easily decreed abhorrent acts, such as murder, to be right.

    ReplyDelete
  13. "Although as for 'hate' and 'crusades' of the AD church, I don't have any confusion over that - because I believe that e.g. modern 'Christian gay haters' *are* wrong, not that God is telling them to hate."

    Homosexuality is deemed as an abomination according to the Bible. The "haters" are merely following certain Biblical passages, which in their mind, make them better Christians.

    ReplyDelete
  14. http://www.comereason.org/bibl_cntr/con090.asp seems to have settled me thus far

    Thanks for the link.

    My thoughts after reading the article:

    1) It all depends on the context, though the context is not always made clear to us and open to misinterpretation.

    2) It is paramount to protect Israel,at the expense of others.Clearly the Israelites are superior to other races, because God is on their side and they have been shown special favours.


    3) God doesn't owe us an explanation. He can annihilate an entire race or city, no justification necessary. Yet we must remain obedient to God despite His arbitrary and excessive punishment.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Continuing on the topic of "force feeding"

    Religious dogma, when inculcated early amongst young, impressionable, pliable children, could be extremely stifling.

    ReplyDelete
  16. I thought I might share this here

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dx7irFN2gdI

    ReplyDelete
  17. "Religious dogma, when inculcated early amongst young, impressionable, pliable children, could be extremely stifling."

    May need you to explain this. What are your observations? What are the support to this? All religions? Any exceptions? What are the alternatives?

    ReplyDelete
  18. Some examples, hope they capture the gist

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LACyLTsH4ac

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4zZytbe1a9s&feature=feedbul

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1Rwioe1SGkQ&feature=relmfu

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pIAoJsS9Ix8& (Part 1)

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nHuagL7x5Wc&feature=related (Part 2)

    In my opinion, children should be taught comparative religion, ethics, logic and philosophy. Whatever "truth" is to them, they shall embark upon a journey of their own to seek it. (Note: I am not advocating at all that children should not be exposed to religion. Quite the contrary, children should not be deprived of the opportunity to learn about various religions, of which most of our fellow humans are adherents).

    Children inherit many of our characteristics, but we have no right at all to impose upon them our prejudices, ignorance, fear and hope.

    ReplyDelete
  19. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  20. I agree with you. In my observation, most teachers in Sunday school also do, and would question the method applied in the first video.The exploitation based on feelings over mind. I admit that such do go on. I also question the effectiveness of such in the long term (the second video's understatement is that when people grow up they can change). Almost all drop off in their teen years when tested in a secular world. The bible have a parable of the sower and seed that illustrate this.
    Can children be brain washed? Yes. I think one particular belief in the middle east managed to do that. The oppression (using fear and law) to critical thinking and individual freedom to seek answers are society wide. The cost of breaking free therefore could even mean death.
    Thanks for the video.
    BTW, will you be considering reading the bible? I would enjoy hearing your perspective especially on the person of Jesus.

    ReplyDelete
  21. I must say that a certain religion (if it is the one that you referred to) is rather maladjusted to, and incompatible with, the modern world. Whilst the rest of the world yearns for more progress and seeks to forge new bonds of humanity, this particular religious sect stubbornly and petulantly insist on returning to the Dark Ages. They mistook archaic and perhaps barbaric, moral codes as virtues.

    I have recently purchased a copy of the King James Bible but am yet to peer into its contents. I consider it a long term project of mine to read the Bible.

    Should I read it from cover to cover,in chronological order, or should I skip certain chapters (or the Old Testament altogether)?

    ReplyDelete
  22. @irrational
    I was totally ignorant of anything biblical as I was not from a Christian background at all and only started reading the bible when I was about 19 years old and embrace the Christian faith ever since.

    I suggest we read the bible all through from cover to cover. Yes there are some gory bits, but it is worth it even just for its literary value. The Old Testament was brutally honest as to the deprave human nature blinded by pride, self-will, blood lust, greed and vindictiveness. Some books order are not strictly chronological but close enough. Read it from Genesis' creation to the fall,through flood, the aimless wandering of the descendents of Abraham, the constant brutal warfare and treacheries, see how the fearless prophets who stood up to the despotic kings, through the inner world of praise, angst, anguish and laments of the Psalms, the existential musings of Ecclesiastes, the wisdom of the Proverbs, the sensual love language of the Songs of Songs, the cry for social justice, the rebuke for apostasy of the minor and major prophets like Jeremiah and Malachi. Indeed much of the Old Testament was very poetic and rhymes very well in the Hebrew language.
    There are pages of names and genealogy which may be skipped if we want to gain speed as it seem meaningless to most. But they were there for a reason.

    All these will give us a background setting for the exceptional grace,radical ethics and gospel message of Jesus Christ and the apostles in the New Testament.
    This will ensure that we don't just quote passages out of context. I think we will always benefit from reading the primary sources instead of relying of secondary comments. I read it with a open mind and was persuaded.

    ReplyDelete
  23. Since Jesus said "All the scripture (bible) are pointing to him", I would suggest the gospel of John.
    As Jeremy said, question everything your read there. I agree. No need to skip or justify any passage if it is unreasonable.

    ReplyDelete
  24. By the way...read it at your own risk.

    ReplyDelete
  25. Don't worry, God respect us enough to give us free will. It took me ages to accept the bible as I was such a skeptic and had my prejudice against the bible before.

    I also had great pride at Eastern religions and Chinese philosophies such as Confucianism, Taoism, and did some cursory investigation into Islam.

    ReplyDelete
  26. Just some quotes for thoughts:
    1. To paraphrase Bono when it was suggested to him that believing in Christ was a bit outrageous, “think of the alternative – the fact that millions of people through the ages have had their lives turned upside down by a madman, now that’s outrageous!”.
    2.It was C.S. Lewis who said that we should stop this nonsense of seeing Jesus as a great moral teacher. He did not leave that open to us.
    3. And as Bryan Patterson from the Herald Sun has said, it is not very moral to claim to be the Son of God, unless it’s true.

    Worth some thoughts...

    ReplyDelete
  27. I humbly thank you for the pointers.

    I am only 20 pages into the Book of Genesis. My thoughts so far: I find it extremely hard to suspend disbelief. There are claims and inferences aplenty, but none verifiable, and at best, inaccurate.

    "To paraphrase Bono when it was suggested to him that believing in Christ was a bit outrageous, “think of the alternative – the fact that millions of people through the ages have had their lives turned upside down by a madman, now that’s outrageous!”.

    This is essentially a logical fallacy called argumentum ad populum ("argument from popular appeal"). Having a huge number of followers doesn't necessarily make a religion true. Islam is poised to overtake Christianity as the largest religion on Earth - does that make Islam any truer than Christianity, or Buddhism, or Zoroastrianism?

    "It was C.S. Lewis who said that we should stop this nonsense of seeing Jesus as a great moral teacher. He did not leave that open to us. "

    What happened to free will?

    "And as Bryan Patterson from the Herald Sun has said, it is not very moral to claim to be the Son of God, unless it’s true."

    This is a false dichotomy. There are plenty of hypotheticals that should be given equal consideration, such as
    - Jesus was psychotic and mentally ill
    - Never existed
    - Misquoted and misinterpreted
    - His life and work were exaggerated by those who have their own set of political and religious agenda
    - He lied


    I look forward to finishing the rest of the Bible, and I have a huge task ahead. Only 1100 pages or so to go!

    ReplyDelete
  28. 1. Appreciate your point of views. As I try to understand others by understand the worldviews they hold, it is also a privilege to know how they view mine (especially when on what I held as the authority of my faith, the bible). This will help me evaluate my stand and my 'confirmation bias'.
    2. Admire your industry in trying to read from page 1. It would take a huge stamina to run through the 66 books. May want to read the gospel after you read Genesis.
    3. Comment by Bono, CS Lewis and Patterson. True, the person of Jesus will polarize opinions into strong camps.
    4. Agree that truth is not based on a popular vote. A thing remains to be true even if it is undiscovered truth, or nobody believes it to be so.
    5. Can I add to another of the hypotheticals...he is true.

    ReplyDelete
  29. Thank you for your kind encouragement. I am not the most avid of readers but will endeavour to stick to the task of finishing the bible.

    A sizable percentage of the human population believes in one form of deity or the other. We should at least try to be literate in the scriptures and holy books.

    On the topic of competing theories, here is an informative link on Occam's Razor

    http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/simplicity/

    ReplyDelete
  30. Sorry, I tried but failed. Was not able to follow the argument put forth on 'simplicity' after trying twice over.
    Is there a simpler version?
    I wonder how the writer would put out the argument on 'complicated' ? :-)

    ReplyDelete
  31. I agree, as a layman I had great difficulty digesting its finer points and a great deal of time was spent ruminating over them.

    This article, by comparison, is much more accessible http://wiki.ironchariots.org/index.php?title=Occam%27s_razor

    Btw, Iron Chariots is a very informative website and a useful resource, even to a Christian like yourself.

    ReplyDelete
  32. After a busy month, sat down and tried the occam razor again through the ironchariot. Less mathematical symbols, a little clearer, but suspect a lot of presuppositions in the examples. Though maybe I google occam razor and found one for dummies like me. http://www.sntjohnny.com/index/essays/occamsrazor.html
    Although this is just as complicated, I suspect he reasoned against the views on ironchariots. I may be wrong as all these writings are against the principle it wants to put forward. It is far from simple to understand and compare.

    ReplyDelete