Faith Without Reason (A Response to Richard Dawkins, et al)

[shunyadragon]

Hypatia wasn't hated because of her wisdom, but likely because of her association with the Christian prefect Orestes. Tim O'Neil wrote a couple fantastic articles on the subject here and here.

Nonetheless, she was hated.

[whag]

Nonetheless, she was hated.

And flayed alive. By Christians regenerated by the Holy Spirit.

[Adrift]

And flayed alive. By Christians regenerated by the Holy Spirit.

What makes you think they were regenerated by the Holy Spirit?

[whag]

What makes you think they were regenerated by the Holy Spirit?

What makes you think Calvin, who killed Servetus, was?

One of topics of this thread will be what regeneration specifically entails.

[Adrift]

What makes you think Calvin, who killed Servetus, was?

I don't remember making any claim about Calvin one way or the other. I'll take that as an omission that you don't know.

One of topics of this thread will be what regeneration specifically entails.

I can't wait.

[whag]

I don't remember making any claim about Calvin one way or the other. I'll take that as an omission that you don't know.

There's a general consensus among Christians that the reformer--who burned someone alive--is a Christian. You're delving into No True Scotsman territory. It's best not to not open this can of worms.

[Adrift]

There's a general consensus among Christians that the reformer--who burned someone alive--is a Christian.

So?

You're delving into No True Scotsman territory. It's best not to not open this can of worms.

I believe The No True Scotsman fallacy is fallacious.

[whag]

So?

So millions of people might be wrong that one of the great reformers was regenerated. That's interesting. Perhaps your friends aren't and a good portion of the 2 billion Christian demographic isn't. That's interesting.

[Adrift]

So millions of people might be wrong that one of the great reformers was regenerated. That's interesting. Perhaps your friends aren't and a good portion of the 2 billion Christian demographic isn't. That's interesting.

Matthew 7:13, 21 “Enter through the narrow gate; for the gate is wide and the way is broad that leads to destruction, and there are many who enter through it. 14 For the gate is small and the way is narrow that leads to life, and there are few who find it. . . . 21 “Not everyone who says to Me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father who is in heaven will enter. 22 Many will say to Me on that day, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in Your name, and in Your name cast out demons, and in Your name perform many miracles?’ 23 And then I will declare to them, ‘I never knew you; depart from Me, you who practice lawlessness.’

[whag]

Matthew 7:13, 21 “Enter through the narrow gate; for the gate is wide and the way is broad that leads to destruction, and there are many who enter through it. 14 For the gate is small and the way is narrow that leads to life, and there are few who find it. . . . 21 “Not everyone who says to Me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father who is in heaven will enter. 22 Many will say to Me on that day, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in Your name, and in Your name cast out demons, and in Your name perform many miracles?’ 23 And then I will declare to them, ‘I never knew you; depart from Me, you who practice lawlessness.’

Exactly. So the demographic is quite small. Perhaps it's a million.

[David Hayward]

I'll throw in for reflection two posts on aRemonstrant's blog:

The first reflects on faith, and how it arguably isn't what New Atheists such as Boghossian, Coyne, Messerly etc etc claim.

The second reflects on reason, criticising Boghossian's claim that the Hebrews usage was a departure from traditional usage.

[ShrimpMaster]

I don't take offense to that, although I do find "regeneration of the Holy Spirit" to be an empirically vague and convenient concept. Regeneration is a powerful noun, implying much has taken place that, in most cases, is barely evident except in the believer's vocal expression of faith. If it merely means moving one to accept a religious fact (e.g., Mohammed was Allah's messenger, Joseph Smith was a prophet, Christ was The Lamb), then all religious believers empirically qualify as "regenerated."

Regeneration is pretty strong vocabulary indeed, but objecting to your observance of individuals who claim they are regenerated and saying therefore, nobody is regenerated is fallacious. Regeneration as described by Plantinga is not moving toward any religious fact - it is religious facts concerning Christianity, but that is not all that is entailed by regeneration. Like I stated previously, it is both affective and cognitive. Affective in that it regenerates our hearts from the deep and radical evil that it harbors and cognitive in that it regenerates our knowledge of God and his marvelous beauty, glory, and loveliness. The sensus divinitatus is damaged in that we no longer know God in the same natural and unproblematic way in which we know each other and the world around us. Futher, sin induces in us a resistance to the deliverances of the sensus divinitatus, muted as they are by the first factor; we don't want to pay attention to its deliverances (WCB p.205). The process of regeneration as described by Plantinga begins in the present life and reaches fruition in the next. This restores the repair of the image of God in us.

Further, your objection that any religious believer (Mormon, Muslim, etc...) can claim regeneration is a misunderstanding. The model is based on the internal instigation of the Holy Spirit (IIHS), who furnishes the believer with the faith or knowledge of specific religious facts (i.e. Jesus is the divine Son of God, Jesus died for my sins, Jesus loves me, etc...). Therefore, the IIHS is a source of belief, or a cognitive process that produces specific beliefs in us that are specific to Christianity.

This I do take as an insult (though not a personal one you meant to direct toward me). I can provide voluminous examples of "regenerated" Christians who hated the wrong things (e.g., Hypatia's wisdom, Jews, homosexuals). The belief that human beings are born damaged in such a way that only the acceptance of a specific dogma can remediate is a major stretch.

We both can agree that a Christian hating a homosexual is wrong, but Christian's hating sin is not wrong, so a Christian hating homosexuality would be appropriate. Also, citing an example from history and then saying 'they aren't regenerated because they hated such and such' is a terrible argument, because a lot of the historical things you cite are controversial to say the least. Also, regeneration takes place over the course of a persons life and reaches fruition at the next life. Therefore, the conclusion of the model is not that Christians will be perfect once they become a Christian. I think more should be said about how regeneration takes place if not immediate. I am still trying to find the part in Plantinga's book where he goes over this, but I have had no luck yet. More on this later...

I always found the "regenerated" disciples bickering about who would be counted the greatest in the group as odd. Most people don't have the instinct to argue about who'll be the most famous. In the context of being in the presence of the living God, such a conversation is almost unbelievable.

That passage is prior to Jesus' death and glorification and Pentecost (the arrival of the Holy Spirit), so this model would not apply at this moment.

The majority of people simply don't have this instinct of self glorification and self aggrandizement. It actually ostracizes people, gets people fired, and makes one the butt of jokes. Your assumption that's it's the default human state is specious.

I think you are losing me here. The doctrine of original sin is probably the most empirically verifiable doctrine Christianity has when we evaluate the condition of humanity, wars, social structures, etc... Further, to say that people don't have the instinct of self-glorification and self-aggrandizement because 'it might get you fired' is not how we should think of it at all. People can withhold their opinions regarding themselves for their own benefits - this would still be self glorification. I withhold my opinion that all of my co-workers are idiots, because I don't want to get fired, but how does that stop me from committing the sin of pride?

You can't divorce the adjective from intellect. It directly pertains to intellectual processes.

no·et·ic

\nō-ˈe-tik\adjective

:of, relating to, or based on the intellect

No need to apologize. I like this discussion. That being said, madness must be rooted in cognition. It is an incoherent concept to attribute madness to will since will directly correlates to cognition.

This was a misunderstanding on my part. Plantinga actually goes further to distinguish which comes first will or intellect. I don't have the time to include it now, but just a note if you decide to read the book. Thanks

[whag]

Regeneration is pretty strong vocabulary indeed, but objecting to your observance of individuals who claim they are regenerated and saying therefore, nobody is regenerated is fallacious. Regeneration as described by Plantinga is not moving toward any religious fact - it is religious facts concerning Christianity, but that is not all that is entailed by regeneration. Like I stated previously, it is both affective and cognitive. Affective in that it regenerates our hearts from the deep and radical evil that it harbors and cognitive in that it regenerates our knowledge of God and his marvelous beauty, glory, and loveliness. The sensus divinitatus is damaged in that we no longer know God in the same natural and unproblematic way in which we know each other and the world around us.

I’m still not clear how Mormons don’t have the same perceptions of God. How do they perceive God’s “marvelous beauty, glory, and loveliness” less than you?

Futher, sin induces in us a resistance to the deliverances of the sensus divinitatus, muted as they are by the first factor; we don't want to pay attention to its deliverances (WCB p.205). The process of regeneration as described by Plantinga begins in the present life and reaches fruition in the next. This restores the repair of the image of God in us.

OK

Further, your objection that any religious believer (Mormon, Muslim, etc...) can claim regeneration is a misunderstanding. The model is based on the internal instigation of the Holy Spirit (IIHS), who furnishes the believer with the faith or knowledge of specific religious facts (i.e. Jesus is the divine Son of God, Jesus died for my sins, Jesus loves me, etc...). Therefore, the IIHS is a source of belief, or a cognitive process that produces specific beliefs in us that are specific to Christianity.

The concept is common in all religions. You’re making regeneration sound like beliefs are branded onto the cognition in a way, when they’re really just believed according to the believer’s ability to maintain them. It’s like saying there’s a magic glue that adheres forever except in the case when the magic glue doesn’t adhere. Many Christians and religious believers of all religions have deconverted. How does cognitive regeneration distinguish itself from merely strongly held beliefs? BTW, cognitive is mainly known as physical and rarely as metaphysical (thought it relates to metaphysics).

We both can agree that a Christian hating a homosexual is wrong, but Christian's hating sin is not wrong, so a Christian hating homosexuality would be appropriate.

I said “homosexuals,” not homosexuality, so I don’t know what you’re talking about here.

Also, citing an example from history and then saying 'they aren't regenerated because they hated such and such' is a terrible argument, because a lot of the historical things you cite are controversial to say the least.

What controversy? Hypatia was flayed by alive Christians and John Calvin had a man burned at the stake for heresy. My question is obviously asking if regeneration prevents these violent expressions in Christians. If it does, can we assume those people aren't Christians?

Also, regeneration takes place over the course of a persons life and reaches fruition at the next life. Therefore, the conclusion of the model is not that Christians will be perfect once they become a Christian. I think more should be said about how regeneration takes place if not immediate. I am still trying to find the part in Plantinga's book where he goes over this, but I have had no luck yet. More on this later...

That passage is prior to Jesus' death and glorification and Pentecost (the arrival of the Holy Spirit), so this model would not apply at this moment.

OK

I think you are losing me here. The doctrine of original sin is probably the most empirically verifiable doctrine Christianity has when we evaluate the condition of humanity, wars, social structures, etc...

Such would only be interesting if Christianity came before its observation of anthropic imperfection. Don’t make it sound like a prediction that was fulfilled. Moreover, the condition of humanity is easily explained by the fact that we’re primates with higher cognition but still possessing ancient equipment that prevents perfect expression of morality. The teen pregnancy rate of Christians is a perfect example of an inevitable problem stemming from our ancient drive to reproduce.

Further, to say that people don't have the instinct of self-glorification and self-aggrandizement because 'it might get you fired' is not how we should think of it at all. People can withhold their opinions regarding themselves for their own benefits - this would still be self glorification. I withhold my opinion that all of my co-workers are idiots, because I don't want to get fired, but how does that stop me from committing the sin of pride?

You’re confused. If I without a negative opinion about you, I’m not glorifying myself. You don’t want to label a thought in which you ultimately hold your tongue a sin, do you? Moreover, maybe it’s true the guy is an idiot.

The world is mostly populated by those who don’t self-glorify and aggrandize. The ones who do (non-humble politicians, actors, politicians, coworkers) are largely laughed at. It’s a taboo in society and most people regard it as tasteless.

This was a misunderstanding on my part. Plantinga actually goes further to distinguish which comes first will or intellect. I don't have the time to include it now, but just a note if you decide to read the book. Thanks

OK

[whag]

I made a mistake above. To clarify: If a had negative opinion about you or anyone, I’m not necessarily glorifying myself.

[ShrimpMaster]

I’m still not clear how Mormons don’t have the same perceptions of God. How do they perceive God’s “marvelous beauty, glory, and loveliness” less than you?

The immediate experience of the Holy Spirit would be a self-authenticating experience. To say that a Christian's experience and a Mormon's experience is the same is a misunderstanding of the model. The claim would not be that I can prove the Mormon's experience as false. The claim is that citing other religions that claim a false experience does not invalidate the existence of a genuine experience of God.

The concept is common in all religions. You’re making regeneration sound like beliefs are branded onto the cognition in a way, when they’re really just believed according to the believer’s ability to maintain them. It’s like saying there’s a magic glue that adheres forever except in the case when the magic glue doesn’t adhere. Many Christians and religious believers of all religions have deconverted. How does cognitive regeneration distinguish itself from merely strongly held beliefs? BTW, cognitive is mainly known as physical and rarely as metaphysical (thought it relates to metaphysics).

The concept may be familiar to many religions (not all), but regeneration would only occur to individuals who have a genuine experience of the Holy Spirit. Also, deconversion would do nothing to say that individuals cannot come to eventually reject the Holy Spirit. Not only that, but these individuals could not have had a genuine experience to begin with.

I said “homosexuals,” not homosexuality, so I don’t know what you’re talking about here.

My response would be to deal with those that reject homosexuality and if you are construing that as a hatred of homosexuals, then your claim would be false. If a Christian sincerely hates a homosexual, then they would be in error.

Such would only be interesting if Christianity came before its observation of anthropic imperfection. Don’t make it sound like a prediction that was fulfilled. Moreover, the condition of humanity is easily explained by the fact that we’re primates with higher cognition but still possessing ancient equipment that prevents perfect expression of morality. The teen pregnancy rate of Christians is a perfect example of an inevitable problem stemming from our ancient drive to reproduce.

You’re confused. If I without a negative opinion about you, I’m not glorifying myself. You don’t want to label a thought in which you ultimately hold your tongue a sin, do you? Moreover, maybe it’s true the guy is an idiot.

The world is mostly populated by those who don’t self-glorify and aggrandize. The ones who do (non-humble politicians, actors, politicians, coworkers) are largely laughed at. It’s a taboo in society and most people regard it as tasteless.

No, the comment is made towards a person who holds their tongue for their own personal benefit. You cited that it is 'taboo to self-glorify yourself openly', which I would agree with. That does not mean that people cannot self-glorify themselves secretly. You take self-glorify and self-aggrandizement to mean that it can only occur in an open and obvious way, but that is false. If you day dream about becoming the coolest kid in town and making other people look bad for your own benefit - you are still committing the sin of pride. In other words, the claim that it is taboo is irrelevant to that fact that humans are pre-disposed to self-glorification and self-aggrandizement.