Christian and Skeptic??

[IIRichard]

There are 3 types of Christian commentator on the paranormal. (I’m not Christian or anything else but I think some psychic phenomena is real - unlike the vast majority in here)

********************snip
To sum up in conclusion
Type 1 attacks type 2 and tries to save type 4
Type 2 tries to reinvent Christianity, annoys type 1 and puts type 3 right off all paranormal claims
Type 3 attacks type 2 but tolerates type 1 (They believe faith is OK)
Type 4 attacks type 1 and type 2 but can tolerate type 3 (because they remain silent)

So the effect of Christian influenced opinion on paranormal investigation is a sort of ...... er ... war .... er, no ... total chaos

There you go, solved

OK, 3 or 4?

Your catagories are much too broad. There is, of course, the struggeling (sp) Christian. That is, one who is constantly examining his faith and what it means and also trying to put it in the context of the physical world. There is a lot of doubt for him. Paranormal events, upon investigation, turn out to be fraud or mistake but the (slight) possibility remains.

 

[jmercer]

Even on this board you can see there are some (big) differences between Members who proclaim "I'm a sceptic". So considering there does not seem to be a sense of an absolute sceptic or Christian then I'm sure there are many ways the two can be reconciled in one person.

I would say you could call yourself a "Sceptic and Christian" if you have a belief in God (and accept the meaning of a belief), yet are willing to change your mind if evidence is presented that proved your belief was wrong.

As a "for instance". Consider someone who believes that God exists because they had a "spiritual" moment and. A few years pass and a friend said "Hey let me hook you to this machine, whenever I press the red button you'll have a 'spiritual' moment". Suddenly you learn of a new explanation for your experience and one that fits the facts even better so you change your mind.

Another great comment, and I find myself 100% in agreement with the first and second paragraphs. You really have a knack for putting my views into clear words.

What you said in the third paragraph has merit - and I understand the point you were making, especially since you went out of your way to say it was a "for instance". But I've noticed that things here seem to be often taken at face value in these forums no matter how carefully it's put as an analogy, so I hope you don't mind if I add my comments about the "red button" POV. (Especially since there have apparently been demonstrated examples of being able to reproduce NDE's, etc. And who knows? Maybe non-NDE spiritual experiences can also be reproduced some day, too.)

Simply because we can demonstrate a mechanism of the body that duplicates (or permits) an experience doesn't automatically invalidate the original event.

In a way, it raises more questions that it would settle - such as "What the HECK purpose would this kind of ability serve for furthering reproduction? (evolution)", and "What kind of outside stimulus could have happened to activate this mechanism when you had your apparently spontaneous 'spiritual moment'?"

Now, in the case of NDE's, the outside stimulus is clear - the person is dying. But that doesn't apply to someone simply having a "spiritual moment" while looking at a sunset, praying, walking in the woods, reading a book, meditating, sleeping, etc. So in those cases, the question of stimulus would be critical - was it looking at a beautiful sunset that triggered it? Was it the intensity of emotion while praying? A passage in the book that triggered a memory or other response? Or was it God?

Regarding the question of how such a mechanism would fit into Darwin's theory (which I ascribe to, btw) - damnfino. I can't think of a single reason why having a spiritual experience would increase the likelyhood of taking a dip in the gene pool. (Although I have to admit that the name "God!" does seem to crop up during those dips. )

There are sects that believe that sexual relations is a way of communing with God... but I don't think that many people (including myself) view sex as a spiritual experience.

Please forgive the rambling and possible derail...

 

[Traveller]

- Christianity believes in eternal damnation (or non existence) of non believers …. Spiritualism believes in eternal progress of every soul
-
- Christianity says only Jesus saves ….
-
- Christianity believes in Genesis creationism…
-

Open Mind, this is nonsense. Go find yourself a Christian to explain it all to you. Although I no longer count myself a Christian I was raised as a Catholic and went to a Catholic school until I was 18, so I have a good grasp of Christian teachings.

Firstly, while there may indeed be some Christians who believe that non-believers (in God, presumably, although that isn't clear from your post) will suffer eternal damnation that is very far from being the mainstream belief, which is that anyone who leads, by their lights, a good life and refrains from doing what they consider wrong makes it into Heaven, or at least into Limbo, which is defined as a place of purely natural happiness, as opposed to the supernatural spiritual happiness of communion with God.

Secondly, not only Jesus saves. Few Christians would believe that devout Moslems, for example, would suffer eternal damnation.

Thirdly, I suppose there are christian creationists, but I would bet they would be outnumbered by the christian evolutionists. As far as the catholic church is concerned the present Pope declared in (I think) 1996 that evolution was perfectly compatible with christianity.

 

[jmercer]

There are 3 types of Christian commentator on the paranormal. (I’m not Christian or anything else but I think some psychic phenomena is real - unlike the vast majority in here)

Generalizations are kinda dangerous tools, O.M. ... and since I don't fit into any of those catagories, I suspect you're missing a few of us.

 

[rppa]

This thread is a great illustration of how easy it is to make generalizations from one's own beliefs, to extrapolate from a data point of one. When discussing religious topics we seem especially prone to do this kind of one-point extrapolation.

There are sects that believe that sexual relations is a way of communing with God... but I don't think that many people (including myself) view sex as a spiritual experience.

Then maybe you're not doing it right .

If "communing with God" isn't a spiritual experience, then what is?

As a matter of fact, I *do* think sex is a spiritual experience. But while I can't comment on how prevalent a view that is, I don't think you can either. And if you are implying that nobody in their right mind does, I'll take exception.

 

[jmercer]

This thread is a great illustration of how easy it is to make generalizations from one's own beliefs, to extrapolate from a data point of one. When discussing religious topics we seem especially prone to do this kind of one-point extrapolation.



Then maybe you're not doing it right .

Heh... maybe I am, and maybe I'm not.

Granted, I was generalizing, and you called me on it. Fair enough. So, let's look at the major world religions... which would be Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism and Christianity, I believe. That should account for the majority of people who would consider the question of spirituality and sex.

Setting aside oddball sects, which of these mainstream religions has a generally accepted written tenet that sex is specifically a spiritual experience?

If "communing with God" isn't a spiritual experience, then what is?

Who said it isn't? Communing with God would certainly be a spiritual experience. However, spiritual experiences are not limited to Godly encounters.

As a matter of fact, I *do* think sex is a spiritual experience. But while I can't comment on how prevalent a view that is, I don't think you can either. And if you are implying that nobody in their right mind does, I'll take exception.

Hey, I'm not implying anything about people's sanity re: sex & spirituality, nor am I stating that sex is absolutely not a spiritual experience. Admittedly, I don't view it that way - but I recognize that the intensity, rapture and feelings generated by good or great sex are decidely similar to strong spiritual moments. But I certainly can't state it as a fact.

However, I still don't see how spirituality (sexual or otherwise) fits in with the theory of evolution.

 

[Open Mind]

I didn't say I didn't like Christians, some of the nicest people I have had the pleasure to meet.

Nor was my post that serious, and yes there are more than 3 types of Christian. Feel free to define these other types

- Christianity believes in eternal damnation (or non existence) of non believers ….
-
- Christianity says only Jesus saves ….
-
- Christianity believes in Genesis creationism…

Originally posted by Traveller
Open Mind, this is nonsense. Go find yourself a Christian to explain it all to you. Although I no longer count myself a Christian I was raised as a Catholic and went to a Catholic school until I was 18, so I have a good grasp of Christian teachings.

Firstly, while there may indeed be some Christians who believe that non-believers (in God, presumably, although that isn't clear from your post) will suffer eternal damnation that is very far from being the mainstream belief, which is that anyone who leads, by their lights, a good life and refrains from doing what they consider wrong makes it into Heaven, or at least into Limbo, which is defined as a place of purely natural happiness, as opposed to the supernatural spiritual happiness of communion with God.

But does the bible actually say that anywhere? A link would be cool, where does it mention this limbo state? (New Testament?)

Secondly, not only Jesus saves. Few Christians would believe that devout Moslems, for example, would suffer eternal damnation.

But does the bible actually say that? I do know part of the bible says eternal damnation (torture?) and other parts suggest they cease to exist altogether.... again if someone could rpovide al ink that would be cool, I might learn something

Thirdly, I suppose there are christian creationists, but I would bet they would be outnumbered by the christian evolutionists. As far as the catholic church is concerned the present Pope declared in (I think) 1996 that evolution was perfectly compatible with christianity.

It does not appear compatible to me.

 

[tommyz]

Wow, what a great thread you've started here J-No! Seriously, there have been some really brilliant replies in response to your post which I'll address in a bit, but before I do let me just throw in my 2 cents here...

I like to think of myself a "skeptical Christian," and here's what I mean by that term: Do I believe in Jesus Christ, His teachings and my eternal salvation through belief in Him? Of course. But at the same time I also acknowledge the distinct possibility (notice here I did not say "FACT" and there is a difference!) that it could be nothing more than an elaborate hoax, created by megalomaniacally power hungry political and religious despots as a dangerous mind control device designed to do nothing more than to usurp every once of life from otherwise decent, hard working and unsuspecting individuals. Even if Jesus Christ did exist (and I would like to think that He did) I find it utterly offensive and sacriligious to have his legacy corrupted in such an insidious manner as to justify fear, weakness and inadequacy on a mass level...sometimes even to the point of justifying acts of violence and aggression.

This is where skepticism becomes an absolute necessity. Not too sound kooky or irrationally religious, but doesn't Revelation 20:8 say "Satan will be released from his prison and will go out to deceive the nations???" I'm NOT trying to promote the bible as "truth" per se to anyone, nor do I care how vehemently opposed anyone is to it --that's entirey YOUR business. But for the lack of a better term, century after century, "satan" has been doing a pretty darn good job of fooling the blindly religious, that's for damn sure. And while atheism is the most effective weapon in compating His/Her/It's Thier nonsense (whatever you perceive "satan" to be) the only problem with that is it also indavertently blinds you to the grace, power and beauty of all that God has to offer (if indeed there is such an entity).

Hence my term "Skeptical Christian." You see, any moron (no offense to any of my fellow atheists) can outright deny the existence of God just as easily as blindly and fanatically following a rigorous and dogmatic code of religious tenets without question. My challenge always has and always WILL be to be a fair minded, rationally thinking and level headed sceptic....without being a bitter, pessimistic cynic --while at the same time-- being a mature, responsible and respectable believer...without being a zeolously fanatical extremist.

NOT an easy job my friends...

I've always held you can be sceptical and religious; I don't think they are, neccessaily, incompatible.

To say "I believe in [a] God" does not have to mean the same as "I know [a] God exists".

Couldn't have said it any better myself, Darat.

One further comment from me about this... I don't generally engage myself in debates about God's existence, since there's no way to satisfy the question. Belief in God (or in invisible pink unicorns, for that matter ) should be a personal matter, in my opinion. It becomes a problem when it becomes institutionalized.

I wholeheartedly agree, jmercer. Good luck trying to convince a die hard fundamentalist Christian of that!

As opposed to simply discussin the existence of God, how do skeptical Christians describe the way in which they practice their faith?

Very simply: Respect and Love one another. Or at the very least be tolerant of other people's opinions and lifesytles in a way that's non intrusive, non violent, non insulting and non aggressive.

Are you a religious person if you simply say "I think that my social existence should maximize the happiness of humanity while minimizing it's sufferings" ?

Religion is based on rules, and rules say "you have to do this and that to know God."

Spirituality is based on principles, and principles say "this is what WORKS...and has for centurys that helped people to know God. How you work it is all up to you."

By principles I mean the ideals of Love, respect, compassion, tolerance, honesty, integrity, and fairness (to name a few).

So to answer your question, no...you'd be considered a spiritual person.

You are sceptical on a case by case basis. No reason why you can't a sceptic in general but also believe in some things.
B]

Right on...

I consider myself a Christian and a skeptic as well. Our patron saint Randi considers the two to be incompatible

People can think and believe in whatever they want; I don't care, and it's not worth my time and effort to get upset at someone who doesn't see things in the same way that I do. But I can't help just to ask this one question:

Does anyone think that Mr. Randi (a proclaimed atheist) would be offended at someone who looks up to him as a "saint?"

Ironically, I think people like James Randi, Robert Ingersoll and Betrand Russell are by far MUCH closer to God than someone like Jerry Falwell, Benny Hinn or Tim LaHeye ever will be in a million years. And if their is such an entity, I would like to think of Him/Her/It as the master of universal intelligence.

And the development of refined critical and analytical thinking skills through skepticism is by far the best way of becoming one with God.

 

[Darat]

...snip...

But does the bible actually say that anywhere? A link would be cool, where does it mention this limbo state? (New Testament?)

But does the bible actually say that? I do know part of the bible says eternal damnation (torture?) and other parts suggest they cease to exist altogether.... again if someone could rpovide al ink that would be cool, I might learn something

...snip..

Just a note that the bible is not "everything" to most Christian denominations. Whilst it is (probably) the most important document in their belief system many other aspects of their churches, leaders, prayers, ceremonies and so on form what they would recognise as their Christianity.

 

[Ashles]

Does anyone think that Mr. Randi (a proclaimed atheist) would be offended at someone who looks up to him as a "saint

Nobody would do that.
A saint has a specific religious connotation. No-one would ever view Randi in that way.

If they did I think Randi would view them as very confused about their beliefs.

Anyway, don't you have to be dead to be a saint?

 

[Chimera]

One further comment from me about this... I don't generally engage myself in debates about God's existence, since there's no way to satisfy the question. Belief in God (or in invisible pink unicorns, for that matter ) should be a personal matter, in my opinion. It becomes a problem when it becomes institutionalized.

I hear what you guys are saying. I thought, though, that when you call yourself a skeptic, you don't take things on faith. I understand that belief in God is personal, but my world is being shaken here when I hear some people on the skeptic board admitting to believing in something that cannot be proved. Institutionalized view or not, that seems against everything talked about here!

BTW, know that I mean no disrespect.

 

[TLN]

Wow, we just had this conversation at Skeptical Community. Rather than repeat myself I'll just post a link to the discussion:

http://skepticalcommunity.com/phpbb2/viewtopic.php?t=5127

 

[Chimera]

I like to think of myself a "skeptical Christian," and here's what I mean by that term: Do I believe in Jesus Christ, His teachings and my eternal salvation through belief in Him? Of course.

OK, I'm with you. Jesus was, or could have been, a real human being who modeled spiritual ideals and behavior that could benefit those who chose to follow his example. But...how about the part where he is the son of God and rose from the dead and all that stuff?

Not too sound kooky or irrationally religious, but doesn't Revelation 20:8 say "Satan will be released from his prison and will go out to deceive the nations???"

Eek. The bible. Maybe just a wee bit kooky. ; ) I have a really tough time taking any bible quote with anything less than several thousand grains (pillars?) of salt. = )

My challenge always has and always WILL be to be a fair minded, rationally thinking and level headed sceptic....without being a bitter, pessimistic cynic --while at the same time-- being a mature, responsible and respectable believer...without being a zeolously fanatical extremist.

I heard "believer" in there. Why are you a believer? Is it a "feeling" you have? Because I've read some biting commentary in here about believing strongly in something based solely on "feelings".

Respectfully,
Jen

 

[The Mighty Thor]

There certainly have been various Gnostic Christian sects that believed sexual experiences lead to salvation. Often, the theology is rather convoluted, but no more so than, let's say, the trinity.

These sects were eventually purged as heretical by the Roman Catholic Church. The brutal Albigensian crusade is just one example. Rasputin was a member of a sect of wandering priests, known as the Kristi. The sexual-salvation theology seems to be based on dualism. So:

Spirit (your god part) is imprisoned in human body for your life on earth..
Spirit is good -- the material body is bad

BUT

The greatest gift from God (Christ) is salvation -- i.e. forgiveness of sins
Therefore, salvation is good.
The bigger the sins, the greater the degree of forgiveness needed to be saved.

Therefore, like Rasputin, you abuse alcohol and sex to make yourself more holy.

Sounds like wishful thinking to me

 

[TLN]

Just a note that the bible is not "everything" to most Christian denominations. Whilst it is (probably) the most important document in their belief system many other aspects of their churches, leaders, prayers, ceremonies and so on form what they would recognise as their Christianity.

Wow, so much for not repeating myself.

The problem with this is that we can indeed throw out most of the Bible the way many modern Christians do, but there's one part we must keep to call ourselves Christians.

Jesus Christ was the Messiah and the Son of God who rose from the dead.

This is a very specific claim to knowledge without a shred of supporting evidence outside of the Bible which is anecdotal and hence worthless. Christianity doesn't withstand even the most casual skeptical scrutiny.

Not to mention the complete hypocrisy of pointing at, say, John Edward, dowsing, crystal power, homeopathy, or whatever, and declaring it a silly belief because it doesn’t withstand your skeptical scrutiny, only to selectivly turn off that scrutiny because it suits you and your belief of choice.

Christian skeptic is the very definition of oxymoron.

 

[jmercer]

I hear what you guys are saying. I thought, though, that when you call yourself a skeptic, you don't take things on faith. I understand that belief in God is personal, but my world is being shaken here when I hear some people on the skeptic board admitting to believing in something that cannot be proved. Institutionalized view or not, that seems against everything talked about here!

BTW, know that I mean no disrespect.

Oh, I don't take it as disrespectful at all. In fact, quite the opposite - you're clearly not ranting or condemning people here.

As to whether or not it's an issue... while I won't discuss it, as I said, I have personal (and obviously anecdotal/subjective) experiences which allow me to believe in God. Darat's put it as clearly as possible... I can't really add to what he said, so I'll leave it at that with one final comment: I believe that skepticism is wonderful as long as it doesn't turn into fanaticism... because then I believe that the skeptic is no longer being skeptical. Weighing the evidence means that there is room for doubt until the the evidence is conclusive.

As far as I'm concerned, no one's produced any conclusive evidence that God doesn't exist... and I have to balance that against my own personal experiences that He does, in fact, exist. Therefore, I remain a Christian, and a believer in God.

This of course still leaves me free to consider the rest of the world skeptically, and draw my conclusions from the evidence available as a skeptic.

 

[TLN]

As far as I'm concerned, no one's produced any conclusive evidence that God doesn't exist... and I have to balance that against my own personal experiences that He does, in fact, exist. Therefore, I remain a Christian, and a believer in God.

This of course still leaves me free to consider the rest of the world skeptically, and draw my conclusions from the evidence available as a skeptic.

If you indeed understood skepticism you'd know that we can't prove God doesn't exist; it's up to you to prove he/she/it does.

You'd also understand that your personal experiences are not evidence of any external reality.

You have no business "considering the rest of the world skeptically", then selectively turning that skepticism off because it suits you.

This isn't fanaticism on my part; it's just hypocrisy on your part. Sorry...

 

[drkitten]

The problem with this is that we can indeed throw out most of the Bible the way many modern Christians do, but there's one part we must keep to call ourselves Christians.

Jesus Christ was the Messiah and the Son of God who rose from the dead.

This is a very specific claim to knowledge without a shred of supporting evidence outside of the Bible which is anecdotal and hence worthless.

Discounting the "who rose from the dead" part, the claim that Jesus Christ was the Messiah and the Son of God is not the sort of claim for which "scientific" evidence can be amassed, either for or against. Skeptical inquiry cannot be brought to bear on this question at all.

By contrast, the claims of "John Edward, dowsing, crystal power, homeopathy, or whatever" are typically the sort of claims that can be studied skeptically -- a dowser, for example, might claim that he can find water flowing through buried pipes. He either can, or he can't, and his success/failure can be observed by other people at the time. Homeopaths claims that certain substances will produce health benefits can be studied and compared against the effects of non-treatment or of conventional treatments. Again, the success or failure can be observed.

But there's no observable consequence of the statement that "Jesus Christ was the Messiah." Nor is it possible to disprove a single "miracle" -- such as the Ressurection -- that occurred so long ago.

I can't prove the claims of Christianity, but I can't disprove them, either. By contrast, I can easily disprove the claim of any dowser who is willing to cooperate -- and the mere fact that the dowser is unwilling to cooperate in a test is itself evidence.

 

[roger]

I absolutely agree with TLN that if you are a Christian in the sense of absolutely believing in Christ as a Messiah, then you are not being sceptical.

But, let's look at a different example. I believe in a single universe, as compared to a multiverse. I'm probably not using the exactly precise physics terms, but I'm talking about the multiworlds interpretation of QM that came about due to the result of Everett's work. You know, the idea that for each quantum event all possibile events occur, each bifurcating into it's own universe. So, under that interpretation, there is probably a Roger that was just killed by a plane that had it's navigating system shot by a stray gamma ray.

I just don't buy it. Besides not being parsiminous, it just doesn't sit right with me. So, I believe in a single universe, despite lacking any backing evidence.

Now, am I being sceptical? I say yes, in that I believe with a small b. It's my best guess, and I'm comforable with it. But show me evidence for the multiverse, and I'll change my tune. Because evidence trumps everything.

So I can understand how somebody can claim to be a Deist and a sceptic. The idea that there was a creator sits right with them, but they don't have any evidence to prove it.

I suppose you could bring up the invisible pink unicorn argument, calling belief in an IPU is equally ridiculous as believing in a God, but I feel that is a stretch. It's somewhat reasonable to believe the universe was 'created', whether by a random quantum fluctuation or a God. Of course our intuitive notion of "creation" probably bears little resemblance to how it really works, much like our intuition about how speeds sums doesn't work when moving at relativisitic speeds. And it begs the question of where the creator came from, or why it is eternal but the universe isn't eternal. But, that is okay with me. If your gut says it seems like a better answer to you, and you realize you have no proof, and could be wrong, then I don't see the difference between that and my believe that the universe is not a multiverse in the Everrett sense.

 

[TLN]

Discounting the "who rose from the dead" part, the claim that Jesus Christ was the Messiah and the Son of God is not the sort of claim for which "scientific" evidence can be amassed, either for or against. Skeptical inquiry cannot be brought to bear on this question at all.

Why would we discount the resurrection? It's the core of Christianity.

There's no supporting evidence for any of the claims of Christianity. It's that simple.

If skeptical inquiry can't be brought to bear on a question at all then all you have left is faith. That's fine, but it isn't skeptical.