Posts by hmike

23

Seeing Patterns That Aren't There?

by hmike in

in his book, how we believe, religious skeptic michael shermer states "in our complex and contingent world, random events often happen in seemingly peculiar sequences that cry out for meaning.

we usually rise to the occasion, finding patterns in nature even when they do not exist or have no real significance...." a claim somewhat along this line was made in the tv show numb3rs by mathematics professor epps--that people look for, and think they find, patterns in random events.. you can't watch a movie or tv show about crime without seeing detectives attempting to solve crimes by trying to find patterns in a collection of information.

they work backwards from the end result to find links between the pieces of information and possibly back to a cause.. yes, we look for patterns.

hmike

In his book, How We Believe, religious skeptic Michael Shermer states "In our complex and contingent world, random events often happen in seemingly peculiar sequences that cry out for meaning. We usually rise to the occasion, finding patterns in nature even when they do not exist or have no real significance...." A claim somewhat along this line was made in the TV show Numb3rs by mathematics professor Epps--that people look for, and think they find, patterns in random events.

You can't watch a movie or TV show about crime without seeing detectives attempting to solve crimes by trying to find patterns in a collection of information. They work backwards from the end result to find links between the pieces of information and possibly back to a cause.

Yes, we look for patterns. It's part of our survival instinct. With this ability, we can make sense of things that happen. It helps us understand our world, and--most importantly--make forecasts about events. It's a good thing. It can become a problem, though, when we see events as part of a pattern without enough evidence to justify a relationship. Thus, we may make false connections between events, or assume cause-effect relationships that may not actually exist. Some say this error is the origin of Christianity and all other religions. The thinking is that ancient people attributed to the work of God events which were really random, natural events that seemed to be related in some unknown way, and that they created God as the master orchestrater. The beliefs that formed have been perpetuated even to this day by what some call "subjective validation." It would go something like this: Say that I am in the midst of a crisis. I am told that God will help me if I pray (or make a sacrifice, or do a good deed, or whatever). I do that, and the crisis is alleviated, or at least I feel better about it. Thus, I conclude that God is real and helps those who meet whatever conditions are expected. Now, if I had not done anything, the crisis may have cleared up naturally, or maybe I did something that changed circumstances in a natural way, but there was no God involved. Then I spread the error by telling others that God helped me, encouraging others to take the same. All this gives our society whatever evils are attributed to religion, or at least causes people to be dependent and order their lives based on that which doesn't exist.

OK, some may see patterns that others consider random events. But what about the other side of this coin--what about NOT seeing patterns that actually DO exist? Most of us have taken some kind of test where we've had to look at a field of numbers and pick out the ones that are part of a sequence. In some cases, we succeeded, but in some, we didn't. How successful we are depends to some extent on natural perceptual ability (such as that exhibited by John Nash played by Russell Crowe in the film "A Beautiful Mind"). The size of the field and the complexity of the relationships also affect our ability to find the numbers. In the case of a word jumble--a field of letters in which words are planted in vertical, horizontal, or diagonal lines--we are normally given the words we are to look for, which makes the task much easier. If we have some kind of key, or know what we are looking for, we are much more effective with these puzzles.

So, even though we look for patterns, and while we may find patterns that don't really exist, we also don't always find ones that may actually be there. Moreover, we may find patterns that aren't supported by clear evidence, and the events may appear to others to be random, but actually, a relationship between the events may exist on some deeper level we can't perceive at the time.

The skeptic may say, "The events you claim to be the work of God, and therefore used to support the existence of God, are actually random, natural events with no relationship to each other or back to any deity. You see patterns that don't exist." The Christian could say, "There is a pattern--you simply fail to see it." Considering how we are, either proposition could be true. Just because we don't see the pattern doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

All this doesn't prove anything, and it's not my intention to prove anything. I want to point out that while the Christian's interpretation of personal experiences may be considered problematic, the argument that Christians always see patterns that don't exist has problems of its own. It seems to me that If we approach this without any presumptions, both sides carry equal weight. It's just another case of not having enough data to draw any firm conclusions, so we have to make decisions with the small amount of data we have--something we do all the time in many areas of life.

Any thoughts?

141

Maybe There's a Heaven...

by LittleToe in

i don't often open up discussions on my beliefs or experiences in life, but i feel a need, so please excuse me if you feel it untoward.

neither is this a poxy swan-song, i'm just opening up my heart a little.. today i had cause to reflect on a conversation i had with my [now ex-]wife shortly after my epithany.

everything was so new and unknown.

hmike

How refreshing to read this testimony here! And how refreshing--and surprising--to see the overwhelming response of support and acceptance--even from skeptics. Even the objecting comments were mild, and I did not see them as critcism.

This thread developed the way it did not only because of the way you wrote, but, even more importantly, because of the reputation you have established here. I doubt anybody else here would have gotten the positive reactions from so many as you did. Not only is this a tribute to you personally, but do you realize it speaks for all of us who consider ourselves to be level-headed, intelligent Christians? In your time here, you've helped demonstrate that Christians are not simply brainwashed people out of touch with reality, surrendering their abilities to investigate, question, and reason. A lot of non-Christians do have this opinion about us, as can be seen in posts that have appeared in this forum (but not in your thread), and, yes, there are some bad witnesses (not referring to JW), so it's always great to see a counter-example like yours. There is no need to defend your words to critics.

Your post does raise a legimate question, namely, what is the significance of personal experience to others? Both the experience and interpretation are subjective, and the experience cannot be tested, measured, or even verified. And for yourself, did you ever see this experience as a kind of call on your life? For an experience so powerful and unique, do you ever ponder what it means, or why it happened?

24

Jesus .... the first great magician?

by collegegirl21 in

i was talking with one of my guy friends because i'm not sure what i believe right now and he asked me this question, "what if jesus was just the first great magician?

" he pointed out that magicians now could walk on water, and do other miraculous things that "ordinary" people couldn't normally do.

so i pose the question to you: what do you think about jesus being the first great magician?

hmike

If it is, that's one of the deepest paradoxes of Johannine theology: the highest Christology goes hand to hand with the strictest sense of dependence -- apart from the Father he is, stricto sensu, nothing

Both John and the Synoptics mention the selecting or annointing of Jesus by the Holy Spirit. In Luke 4:18-19, Jesus quotes Isaiah to say the Spirit has annointed him. In the Synoptics, power and insight come to Jesus by the Spirit, so he is dependent on the Father in that regard. Then John writes,

For the one whom God has sent speaks the words of God; to him God gives the Spirit without limit. The Father loves the Son and has placed everything in his hands. John 3:34-35

Jesus was operating in somewhat the same manner as an OT prophet, yet it appears that Jesus, by virtue of his will being fully aligned with the Father and being loved and chosen in this unique way, has full authority and full access to power to use as he sees fit, since it would be used to do the Father's work according to His will.

The intent of the gospels appears to be to show Jesus was not separate from the Father--not a renegade, or independent agent setting up a new order--but that he had full approval and backing of the Father. The Laws of Moses were going to be set aside in the church, so Jesus not only had to serve as the fulfillment of the Law, but also as one fully approved to authorize the changes.

24

Jesus .... the first great magician?

by collegegirl21 in

i was talking with one of my guy friends because i'm not sure what i believe right now and he asked me this question, "what if jesus was just the first great magician?

" he pointed out that magicians now could walk on water, and do other miraculous things that "ordinary" people couldn't normally do.

so i pose the question to you: what do you think about jesus being the first great magician?

hmike

When I look in the gospel accounts, I see the words Jesus speaks when performing miraculous acts are in the form of simple, brief, straight-forward commands--to evil spirits, living things, or elements in nature--or proclamations that the situations had been altered to his will. There are no incantations, no formulaic recitations, no rituals, no preparations, no preparatory meditation, no calling on other powers (except in one case, where Jesus makes it clear it was not for his benefit, but rather for the listeners)--just simple commands given to deal with situations encountered in the course of normal activities, in public areas with witnesses, with no indications that the commands were given in any language other than what would have been common there at the time. He acts with compassion, not for spectacle, even if some would take the spectacular as proof (he resisted the challenge to provide a "sign"). His words are given with the appropriate firmness of an imperative statement, perhaps much like one of us telling a stray dog to "Go home!"

I see that words are a part of the action, but not the essential ingredient. Anybody can say the words. Anybody can give the commands. But enlisted men can't command officers, and slaves can't command their masters. What makes things happen is the authority behind the words, as the sons of Sceva learned (Acts 19).

I see the accounts of the miraculous works of Jesus are meant to testify to the authority of Jesus, whether we believe them to be real events or not--authority over the spiritual realm, over the plant and animal kingdom, and over the forces of nature. Those familiar with the Scriptures would recognize the parallels with the works of Yahweh:

Then he got up and rebuked the winds and the waves, and it was completely calm. Matt. 8:26b

You rule over the surging sea;

when its waves mount up, you still them. Ps. 89:9

He [Yahweh] stilled the storm to a whisper;

the waves of the sea were hushed. Ps. 109:29

And if Jesus had Yahweh's authority over creation, certainly he had authority to forgive sins and teach about how to live.

I don't know the whole significance of speaking the words. Words are how we communicate information to others. It's only meaningful if the communication is accurately understood by the hearer. Do spirits, plants, and inanimate objects need physical communication? I can't see how, but the words do serve as a perceivable link between the source and the object of the power. The words of Jesus expressed his will, so when circumstances were altered, it's clear to those present that Jesus was the initiator of the change--there's no question of who was responsible.

I think this is the same intent of Genesis 1--to show the authority of God. I think this account is about the authority of God over nature which the ancient author wrote about in a way he and others understood, rather than about the process of creation. (It would be interesting to speculate about how this might actually represent physical processes in the formation of the universe. What are words but sound generated by vibrations of the vocal cords. Sounds are waves traveling in a medium. These waves transfer energy. What if the medium was a cloud of hydrogen gas--"without form and void"--in empty space. Wavefronts of certain frequencies propagating in this medium…molecules absorbing energy...well, pure speculation, and maybe no scientific principles we know of to explain it. I'm just suggesting the ancients may have written down something that had an alternative scientific meaning they would never have comprehended. Of course, that would have required some kind of divine influence on the original human source.)

24

Jesus .... the first great magician?

by collegegirl21 in

i was talking with one of my guy friends because i'm not sure what i believe right now and he asked me this question, "what if jesus was just the first great magician?

" he pointed out that magicians now could walk on water, and do other miraculous things that "ordinary" people couldn't normally do.

so i pose the question to you: what do you think about jesus being the first great magician?

hmike

Narkissos,

Do you think the Jewish writers got the idea for this creative aspect of Elohim from the Egyptians' Ptau?

Even though the references to Ptau predate E, or even the time of Moses, I wonder where the Egyptians got that concept (creation by the spoken word) from.

24

Jesus .... the first great magician?

by collegegirl21 in

i was talking with one of my guy friends because i'm not sure what i believe right now and he asked me this question, "what if jesus was just the first great magician?

" he pointed out that magicians now could walk on water, and do other miraculous things that "ordinary" people couldn't normally do.

so i pose the question to you: what do you think about jesus being the first great magician?

hmike

Magic arts, sorcery, etc. were an important part of the ancient cultures, so it makes sense that the Jews and, later, Christians, would promote their God by including accounts of how His power was shown superior to other powers. Whether these events actually occurred or were made up is an issue that can't be answered here. In either case, I think the imitation of methods employed by other groups was all part of showing up the others, and it works both ways, as in the case of Pharoah's magicians trying to match or outdo Moses. Perhaps the gospel accounts show Jesus using methods that were in use by other practioners at the time. Maybe he praised the centurion's faith because, instead of asking Jesus to use one of these methods, he expected the authority of his word would traverse the distance to produce the desired effect (as the word of God did at creation).

24

Jesus .... the first great magician?

by collegegirl21 in

i was talking with one of my guy friends because i'm not sure what i believe right now and he asked me this question, "what if jesus was just the first great magician?

" he pointed out that magicians now could walk on water, and do other miraculous things that "ordinary" people couldn't normally do.

so i pose the question to you: what do you think about jesus being the first great magician?

hmike

Magicians provide entertainment in a performance by controlling what we are allowed to see, then allowing our own minds to explain what we have seen in a way that leads to a false conclusion about what we have seen. They use illusion to get us to think they have done something which seems to violate natural laws, but they actually have no power to suspend or violate the laws of physics. A magician may appear to have made a person dematerialize from a stage before our eyes, but somehow, that person has simply been moved, or is still there, or never was there to begin with. If the subject was ever really there, eventually that person has to turn up somewhere--the effect doesn’t continue.

It looks like you’re suggesting that Jesus fooled everybody into believing he did miraculous things--fooled not only the public, but even his own disciples. If the gospel accounts have any credibility at all, this cannot be the case. The people he healed, for example, seem to have had their conditions for quite some time, even an entire lifetime in at least one case, and their conditions were known to others. All indications are that when Jesus healed them, they were able to do things they could not do before, and they stayed healed--these were not just brief illusions. All this would have been done without access to technology available to magicians now, nor were these things done in a controlled setting like a stage. The case of healing the centurion’s servant would have been a real trick, since the subject was at a remote location. We can also see that what Jesus did was not just for show anyway--it changed peoples’ bodies and their lives for the better.

Of course, for anyone who thinks Jesus is a myth and the gospels are a fabrication, the question is meaningless, since Jesus can be whatever someone wants him to be.

32

What Happened to the Body?

by hmike in

i'm fairly new here, so please excuse me if this has been discussed before.

it seemed like an appropriate time to bring this up.. suppose we accept that there really was a man jesus, rabbi, teacher, etc., but just a mortal man.

so if he didn't resurrect, what happened to the body, and how was the "myth" of the resurrection perpetuated, especially in light of the numerous "witnesses" (some of whom were still alive when the accounts were written, if we can believe that part of the accounts) and the effect this had on their lives?

hmike

What if he wasn't resurrected? .... Well, many of those crucified as criminals by the Romans would be thrown into common graves (usually lime ones which did a quick job of decomposing the flesh). There'd be no way to easily point to a body to refute the claims. I don't find that a very inspiring ending to a life that meant alot to so many - but its one possible (and also a likely) scenario.

Well it is all just speculating on plausibilities. But assuming the crucifixion really did happen to this man Jesus, and the gospels give an accurate portrayal of his socioeconomic status , its not too much of a stretch to presume that his fellow low class jews, or even his family had no real influence to get permission from the Romans to take possession of the body right away. Kinda hard then to pick it out of a common grave without modern day DNA forensics. I don't want to make his followers out to be opportunists or cynical in that scenario. Its only one possibility. Again, if real, I like to think that someone did get possession of the body so that it was given a decent burial.

Hi,

I brought back this ancient post to speculate about this specific issue brought up by Midget-Sasquatch. Some time ago, I was watching a show on the History Channel about Jesus, and they mentioned the idea that his body was dumped in a mass grave for criminals and lost. After working on the posts I made in the "Historical Jesus" topic, I got to thinking...

Let me make the assumption that there actually was a 1st C. Jew named Jesus who went around teaching about God, love, mercy, and forgiveness, and who did many good things for people (not necessarily of the miraculous type, as we would consider a miracle to be). This man made enough of an impression in the area at the time for people to write about him and his deeds, even if I were to concede that the written accounts were a generation removed and based on oral transmission, in which case they could have been embellished along the way. It seems reasonable to me that he would have attracted at least one, and probably a few, wealthy, influential benefactors who had been personally touched by his work, or at least wanted to support his efforts for whatever reason (this sometimes happens with independent, charismatic leaders). These benefactors may have been unwilling or unable to prevent the execution of Jesus, but, considering him to have been a good man who was unjustly killed, and perhaps out of gratitude and a desire to honor him in some way, wouldn't have wanted him treated as a common criminal in death, and so took possession of the body for an honorable burial.

To me, this is more reasonable than losing track of the body in a mass grave.

57

What the Quest for the Historical Jesus Missed

by yaddayadda in

as part of my journey into scrutinising the evidence for and against the reliability of the gospels, i've just finished reading "a new perspective on jesus - what the quest for the historical jesus missed" by james d.g.

dunn (phd, university of cambridge).

(have so far also read n t wright's "who was jesus" - and now making my way through "the incredible shrinking son of man" by r m price - so far it's disappointing.

hmike

Thank you. I know about the time demands of obligations. That's why it took so long for me to research and respond.

Pete's contributions here must have taken a lot of time and effort, which means he had interest and motivation. It doesn't seem like this interest is something a person can just turn off. I'm wondering what place he will give it from here on.

Thanks for the info on Cephas/Peter. If the Catholic church wanted to protect Peter by manufacturing text, it seems there's a lot more they could have done.

57

What the Quest for the Historical Jesus Missed

by yaddayadda in

as part of my journey into scrutinising the evidence for and against the reliability of the gospels, i've just finished reading "a new perspective on jesus - what the quest for the historical jesus missed" by james d.g.

dunn (phd, university of cambridge).

(have so far also read n t wright's "who was jesus" - and now making my way through "the incredible shrinking son of man" by r m price - so far it's disappointing.

hmike

I didn't check in for a while and I missed Pete's farewell. Even though our perspectives differed and I sometimes thought his line of reasoning was open to question, I did consider him a scholar, and I enjoyed his presence on the forum and the discussions I had with him. His departure seemed unexpected and his explanation strangely short for one who contributed much and often for a long time. It leaves me wondering what all has been going on with him, beyond what he disclosed.

Narkissos, thanks for picking this up. I didn't know that some have wanted to protect Peter's reputation, particularly among the Protestants. All the messages I've ever heard about Paul's confrontation of Cephas have indentified this Cephas as Peter and were used to demonstrate that even Peter was subject to lapses.