Posted by PS on July 15, 2005 at 06:03:41:
In Reply to: Re: The burden of proof posted by Dave on July 13, 2005 at 17:48:15:
: I agree, Steve, with what I think you're saying--that all we really have in the end is experience. Problem is, how do we interpret that experience? I think you're right about that, too: we interpret it based on how we choose to do so. Still, how do we know our interpretation is valid? The alternative between either reification/anthropomorphism on the one hand or outright atheism on the other is what I term "hopeful agnosticism." That is, I still believe in God (unlike a traditional agnostic, who won't even affirm that much), but I have reached the point at which I honestly don't believe that I or anyone else has any basis for claiming to know anything about him/it beyond the simple intuition of his/its existence. And believe it or not, I have come to this place through experience.
: Maybe this forum isn't the proper place to be having a debate like this. I really am not looking to piss anyone off. I still care very much about all of my friends in the hurricane state, which is why I still visit the forum. Nevertheless I would love to have your interpretation on this:
: According to the gospels, Jesus healed people everywhere he went. According to the book of Acts, his early disciples did likewise. And according to both the gospels and many of the letters of the New Testament, healings should be the norm within the church. But sometime within the first 300 years of church history, it all stopped. Well, not entirely. There were sparse reports throughout the Middle Ages about occasional healings and even certain types of "miracles" such as the stigmata. But these occurances were nothing on the scale of the first century. Do you take the gospel stories to be literally true? If so, how do you interpret this drastic reduction in incidents of answered prayer? Did God's will simply change? Did he lose interest in this project of his we call the church, much as a hyperactive kid might lose interest in his model airplane when he's only halfway through building it? I'm not trying to be facetious.
: In modern times, the Pentecostals have tried to revive the early church experience. As you know, I was raised in the pentecostal church. But as far as I can tell, pentecostals still get sick--and die--at about the same rate as everyone else, and that despite their fervent prayer and often incredible faith. My realization of that fact, along with a more general experience of the wider world at large, has caused me to become what I am. Unlike the militant atheist, who often is simply someone who has reacted against uncertainty with anger, I just don't know. I do have a hard time with the notion of a personal, loving God who cares about each and every one of us individually, but that's only because the words "personal" and "loving" still retain their meaning for me. I'm a "hopeful" agnostic because I hope I'm wrong about that. In fact, I have gone through periods--even relatively recently--during which I would return to seeking and trying to believe in the personal God. I really do want it to be true. In the end, however, I just can't forget those ravens.
* * * * * * *
I just can't forget my experience with the personal and powerful God who revealed his love for me and continues to do so, giving purpose and meaning to my life. Ravens be damned. I too am a thinker and a skeptic, educated in a skeptical environment (studying religion to boot), yet despite all my questions, he remains with me and his presence is real. All other questions you have asked I can answer, but they are really of no consequence either in confirming or rebutting the truth of his presence in my life, and no answer will produce or reduce his presence in yours. The truth lies elsewhere.
Wish I had more time. Am in Arizona now. Take care, my friend.
PS