My Take On Jesus

[Bruce Burleson]

OK. So your faith is an acid flashback.

That was just as full of, and lacking in, meaning as the first.

Your's may have had a lack of any lasting meaning. Mine did not. I'm not having acid flashbacks. I'm having a personal experience of God, just like the people in early Christianity did, and just like people have for the past 2000 years.

A second aspect of my subjective experience is a little more "external", if that can still be called subjective. I refer to the experience of the synchronicity of events in my life. Time after time, in response to prayer arising out of need, doors have opened for me in unexpected places that have led to the resolution of crises, financial provision, and general well-being. One specific example that stands out occurred in the 90's. My wife and I agreed together in prayer that within 2 years we would have the financial capability to build a home that would meet the needs of our family. My law practice was slow at that time and money was tight. I taped a little note to our bathroom mirror that stated a specific date by which time we were asking for an answer. 2 years came and went, and nothing had happened. On the last day of the two year period, I remember saying to myself "well, I guess that didn't work", and tearing up the note. That afternoon I received information about a source of funds that I had previously known nothing about - the amount we needed was provided, with the information coming on the very day we had set 2 years before.

Our first granddaughter was born with a brain lesion that caused infantile spasms, a form of seizures. There was a concern that she would suffer so much brain damage that she would become a vegetable. She's now in the 4th grade making all "A's", and hasn't had a seizure in 7 years. Our second granddaughter was diagnosed with leukemia at age one. She has now been in remission for 8 years. Yes, both had good medical assistance, but their good outcomes is simply another example of the general sense in my life that God guides me and takes care of me. I'm very thankful for his mercy, and for the open doors that I experience, whether in the form of finances or medical assistance for my family. Each of these open doors creates in my a sense of peace and faith, that everything works out for the best, even in trying circumstances.

My subjective experience of God is positive. I realize others do not have such a positive experience. But for me, God is real, my faith is real, and I have no reason to abandon it.

[Xamonas Chegwé]

OK. So your faith is an acid flashback.

That was just as full of, and lacking in, meaning as the first.

Your's may have had a lack of any lasting meaning. Mine did not. I'm not having acid flashbacks. I'm having a personal experience of God, just like the people in early Christianity did, and just like people have for the past 2000 years.

A second aspect of my subjective experience is a little more "external", if that can still be called subjective. I refer to the experience of the synchronicity of events in my life. Time after time, in response to prayer arising out of need, doors have opened for me in unexpected places that have led to the resolution of crises, financial provision, and general well-being. One specific example that stands out occurred in the 90's. My wife and I agreed together in prayer that within 2 years we would have the financial capability to build a home that would meet the needs of our family. My law practice was slow at that time and money was tight. I taped a little note to our bathroom mirror that stated a specific date by which time we were asking for an answer. 2 years came and went, and nothing had happened. On the last day of the two year period, I remember saying to myself "well, I guess that didn't work", and tearing up the note. That afternoon I received information about a source of funds that I had previously known nothing about - the amount we needed was provided, with the information coming on the very day we had set 2 years before.

Our first granddaughter was born with a brain lesion that caused infantile spasms, a form of seizures. There was a concern that she would suffer so much brain damage that she would become a vegetable. She's now in the 4th grade making all "A's", and hasn't had a seizure in 7 years. Our second granddaughter was diagnosed with leukemia at age one. She has now been in remission for 8 years. Yes, both had good medical assistance, but their good outcomes is simply another example of the general sense in my life that God guides me and takes care of me. I'm very thankful for his mercy, and for the open doors that I experience, whether in the form of finances or medical assistance for my family. Each of these open doors creates in my a sense of peace and faith, that everything works out for the best, even in trying circumstances.

My subjective experience of God is positive. I realize others do not have such a positive experience. But for me, God is real, my faith is real, and I have no reason to abandon it.

So he likes you and does stuff for you. I guess those poor saps in Chile and Haiti didn't pray hard enough. Perhaps they need to take acid.

Sorry, Bruce. But your subjective experiences reek of confirmation bias. Why was your granddaughter born with a lesion in the first place? Why did the other develop cancer? And why was medical assistance needed if prayer was responsible for them recovering?

I had high hopes that you might be going to offer something original and thought provoking with your thread but it just comes down to the same old delusion that I see from every religious apologist. The good things in your life you credit to god; the bad you attribute to chance, or 'the world' or to some part of god's plan that is unknowable. You'll have to do better than that here.

Nice chatting with you but I think I will leave it at that, unless you have something more substantial than that to offer.

[Chinaski]

Even if subjective experiences of immediately inexplicable phenomena are actually true, this does not, by a long shot, imply or denote that there is any level of veracity to religious explicative claims, nor is their any more reason at all to assume that these phenomena are, in fact, "arational" and necessitate relying on religion for answers- all it means is that there might exist as of yet unexplained phenomena, and all this implies is that explanations, entirely rational ones, will appear at some point in the future.

[Razor]

Your position that Paul would have necessarily mentioned more about his encounter with Jesus betrays an ignorance on your part of the nature of the Pauline epistles. They were occasional and circumstantial, dealing with specific issues. Paul generally mentioned historical facts about Jesus only as needed if they related to the issue at hand. Furthermore, Paul was more interested in his current experience of Jesus spiritually. His knowledge of Jesus physically took place before his conversion, when he would have opposed him. He had preached to most of these churches before writing to them, so all of his knowledge about Jesus would have been imparted then. Now, he had other things to speak about, such as how to live one's life in light of the resurrection.

Again, pure speculation (based on an interpretation of one line amognst thousands) presented as certainty. The only certainty here is your desire to see certainty.

Outside of that one line, the fact remins that there is no mention whatsoever from the horses mouth that he ever met Jesus. Yet you claim is as an evidenced fact. Again your low standard of evidence is coming through

There are many reasons why John would have waited. He probably knew that the synoptics were already written, so there was no urgent need to write his own gospel. He was preaching and ministering personally, and that probably left little time to write. He may have expected Jesus to return, as the other apostles did. Once he realized he was about to die, he wrote his gospel to fill in gaps in the record so the next generation would have that information. The circumstances of his writing so late are easily explained, and cancel out the issues that you raised. We are left with the fact that we have a gospel which purports to having been written by an eyewitness, and we have no contemporary evidence to dispute that. Advantage John.

"Probably" "probably" "may have" = fact to you? Again, you are creating your own certainty because you want to.

[FedUpWithFaith]

Hello. I’m from the Sam Harris “The Reason Project” forum, and just found out about you. I’m a Christian, practicing lawyer, ordained minister, husband, father, grandfather and Texan. I speak a little Spanish and Italian (lived in Europe about 4 ½ years), and I’ve studied a little Koine Greek. I play a bit of guitar, bass and mandolin, and occasionally write songs. I used to have a decent voice, but my range has decreased in the past few years. I’ve enjoyed debating non-believers on Sam Harris, and thought I would hang around here awhile. My plan is to post once every day or two, and pretty much confine myself to one thread. I look forward to the exchange of ideas and experiences, and I anticipate that I will learn a lot from you.
I’ve decided to entitle this thread “My Take On Jesus.” I’ll give you a brief overview of the basis of my faith, throw you a little red meat, and then see what happens. Bon appetit’.

I’m a non-denominational Christian, not affiliated with any church. I don’t feel bound by any particular interpretation of the Bible or any particular doctrine. I don’t really like the concepts of “Bible,” “Scripture,” “New Testament,” etc., but prefer just to look at the early Christian writings and evaluate each one of them on an evidentiary basis. Certain writings, such as those of Paul, appear to me to have a higher historical value than writings such as Revelation. The seven basically undisputed Pauline epistles have the highest historical value, with Mark, Hebrews and Luke-Acts coming second. The Pastorals, the other General Epistles, and Revelation are at the bottom as far as the historical reliability of Christian writings is concerned.
The Jewish writings known as the Old Testament are of less historical importance to me. While some of them appear to be accurate, many are not, and many fall in the symbolic or mythical class of writings. I don’t see the OT as having much value today as far as how I live my life. And, by the way, my interpretation of Christianity is just that, my interpretation. No attempt will be made to argue that it is binding on anyone else.

Generally, my faith has two prongs: 1) an objective prong based on what I understand to be historical facts about Jesus found in early Christian writings, which is subject completely to rational analysis; and 2) a subjective prong, based upon my own personal experiences and those of others whom I know, which I will discuss as a form of revelation. I’ll discuss these more as time goes on, but for now it is appropriate to point out that I neither consider the subjective, revelatory aspect of my faith to be 100% rational, nor do I consider it to be irrational. I like to use the term arational, simply meaning that it, like other aspects of the human experience, is in a different category in which reason is not the primary consideration. However, that does not mean that it should be shielded from rational analysis and critique, and I expect that you will do plenty of that.

Well, that’s enough to get started. I hope someone is interesting in engaging me in a lively discussion.

Hi Bruce,

What kind of guitar do you play?

[Loki_999]

You've already declared that you use rational analysis when it suits you, and ignore it in favour of subjective acceptance of personal experiences when it suits you.

A bit late with a response to this point, but i'm sorry to inform you we are all guilty of that from time to time in our lives. Seriously, i bet even the more rational-than-rational Richard Dawkins is guilty of it on occasion.

We don't throw christians to the lions here

We don't? What happened to the lions? Maybe we can throw them to the cheese instead?

Argumentum ad verecundiam is perfectly admissible in the case of informal logic, for example, where no direct testing of results is possible. This is usually, if not always, the case with historical evidence. It is akin to expert testimony in a court of law - not to be given the same level as credence as direct, deductive logic from direct evidence, but certainly admissible.

Besides, what is an argument based upon the unverifiable, second-hand testimonies of the bible if not an Argumentum ad verecundiam at best - at worst, mere hearsay.

The letters of Paul are not hearsay. They are his personal testimony. In the US, his letters would be admissible in a court of law under an exception to the hearsay rule relating to ancient documents. Neither Paul's writings nor John's gospel are "second-hand testimonies."

They are an account that may or may not have been written by Paul. Please provide evidentiary proof that he was the author. The fact that the legal system in a single country says they are admissible says nothing about their provenance, let alone their veracity as an accurate witness-statement. If you wish to base your case upon legal precedents, I don't believe that arational thought transference is recognised in law anywhere.

There is another problem with this argument in that a lot of what Paul wrote is unverifiable. Even if we accept that Paul wrote them, it doesn't mean he was writing the literal truth. There have been a few posts about Paul taking the idea/ideas of Jesus and twisting them to his own needs. At the end of the day though it could have all been pure fiction anyway.

The argument that i would be admissible in court is a bit funny. Imagine if in 2000+ years a religion sprouted based on fragments found of L. Ron Hubbard's cult of Scientology. Imagine if people started claiming that Xenu was real.... would it be allowed in court as evidence? Evidence of what? Insanity?

Let's say I wrote a book today, my own personal testimony, about some mythical man and it was resdicovered many centuries later and it obtained a cult following. Would this be admissible?

I always liked the point from i think it was Red Dwarf where there is a news report going on where they said that researchers had found the missing first page of the bible. It starts : "For my dear wife. All characters appearing in this work are fictitious. Any resemblance to real persons, living or dead, is purely coincidental."

[Pombolo]

Sorry I haven't been active in this thread for a bit, but I hope that explains why I will be responding to messages a few pages back - as well, of course, to the original topic. I'll not bother with a lot of stuff, so as not to dredge up half the thread With that said, I may as well address this post right now:

I hail from the Reason Project as well, and I am here as a simple spectator. I just want to intervene momentarily and say that it'd be great if we kept the useless inner arguments among us skeptics to a minimum as to make things easier on Bruce. It doesn't help when he has to shift through useless posts about aggression. I agree with Xamonas' method. Just voice your opposing view and state why Bruce fails in his reasoning and he will reply (trust me, he won't shy away).

I trust the irony of your own post, and your belief about Bruce having to sift through the thread for on-topic posts, is not lost on you? Also, since his actions have validated what I suspected would happen (I'll go into that later), I think it is a very good thing to post in such a manner. Personally I don't think it would be "great if we kept the useless inner arguments among us skeptics to a minimum": we're supposed to be skeptics Let's not mirror the "present a unified front" model of various religions. I agree with you that Bruce certainly has an intention to reply, but the way he replies has, in my view, confirmed what I originally said.

It is your last paragraph that I object to the most. You have not heard all of Bruce's argument, only a broad-strokes outline and his promise to elaborate further, and you are already making the judgment that "There is nothing to debate with someone who does that" and making a before-the-fact assumption that he will dodge any arguments placed before him.

Firstly, although I this is a bit late, thank you for responding. As to your response: I disagree, although I suspected that was the paragraph being focussed on. My reasoning is, when someone declares that they have their own personal category that allows them to hold certain classes of evidence as outside a binary position (rational/irrational): you have to resolve that first. I would even go so far as to say that it doesn't matter what he then goes on to say, this is such a key point that constructing more of an argument around it does nothing.

Your tone came across as aggressive and dismissive to me when I first read it. It still does. I find it difficult to read your post without hearing you shouting. If it was not intended that way, I apologise, but in that case, perhaps it could have been worded better.

That disturbs me, as it was not written to convey a shouting or hectoring tone. I feel the statement is still factually true, and that subsequent responses from other forum members are letting Bruce of way too lightly here, but I accept that it could should have been worded better.

Allow Bruce the chance to elaborate... [snip]

This was due to my sparse wording, but I did not intend to imply that I was dismissing everything Bruce might then go on to say. When someone makes, what I see as, a central flaw in their opening then that has to be ironed out first.

This site is not a student debating chamber where you 'win' arguments by scoring points. Think of it as a coffee shop where you exchange views and end up agreeing to disagree. This is what I meant when I said it was not RD.net.

If this is in reference to my tone, then I hope that my, comparative to yours, harsher tone will be something you and I can agree to disagree on. If this was in reference to the point I made, then I still think it was correct to point this out straight away.

[Responses to Bruce's content to come]

[Pombolo]

I will be brief on this, since so many other people have competently detailed what is wrong with this 'arational' category.

Firstly, you have to 'get in peoples' face' over such a self-serving category. Bruce wasn't really picked up on this early on, and so he has merrily gone onto the historical case for Jesus. I knew in advance that this is the way it was going to go, and this is why I believe his subsequent posts to this thread fully deserved to be preempted until he had explained the irrationality of his arational category.

His subsequent reponses to people trying to provide analogies for him further suggest that this was the correct approach to take. The reason? Most of us will realise that to make the case for a god you would have to prove the supernatural first. Then prove that this supernatural existence can host a god, then prove that this god interacts in our lives and universe, then prove this god is the Christian god, then prove that the bible is an accurate representation of what this god wants. Bruce has got this completely ass-backwards.

Now to be fair to him, he didn't come here trying to convert us, which the above applies to, only to set out his case. But even so he should not, in my view, be starting out with the historical case for Jesus: he should be able to explain why he believes any god exists before he then proves his one through that god's messiah. Hence, I challenged the arational category before he even got started.

Bruce, you claim that the arational category is not an end point, but a startng point of a conversation. However you are phrasing it as something constructed for a pre-defined purpose. By claiming that something can be arational - you are prempting those that will use rationality.

When we rebut something, you will say 'Ah, you're using rationality to prove my experiences wrong... but my experiences fall into the arational category, don't you see" Indeed, you specifically defined it like that from the very beginning. It is defined for a specific purpose, and being advertised as a "starting point".

Consider what Oldskeptic said:

My understanding of “arational” is in the consideration of emotions, such that having an emotion is arational as in it is neither rational or irrational to have an emotion. Where rationality comes into play is what is done with the emotion. The emotion originates in the limbic system, but the response to the emotion is handled in the frontal cortex. The limbic system cannot be said to be rational it is only responding to sensory or hallucinatory input.

... but that IS irrational. Yes, that word has huge pejorative undertones to it - but that does not diminish its accuracy. Emotions are useful to us, they have a function, but they are still irrational, since they do not rationalise in their 'operation'. You see it really is a binary position. If it is not rational, it is irrational. That does not mean it is bad or stupid or lacking in function. Which brings me on to:

Several posts questioned my "arational" category, and one said that if something is not rational then it is irrational by definition. This is a false dichotomy, based on faulty binary reasoning. It's like saying if something is not black, it's white. There are third options, like gray or blue.

That is a false analogy. Black and White are subsets of a group called colour. The accurate analogy would be 'Something is a colour or it is not a colour'. Things that are 'not colour' may have colour as a property, but the analogy still fits. All you are doing here is picking somehting you already know is not a binary statement, drawing an connection to something that is a binary statement, and then pointing at the difference. I trust you see what is wrong with that?

Ternary logic is called for in examining truth claims. So there is the rational (based on the logical), the irrational (based on illogical), and arational (based on the non-logical).

You've done it again! you have shifted your mis-definition onto 'logical'. If something is illogical it is, by definition, non-logical. Why not just invent another one... unlogical? Your justification for these definitions falls down:

Something is rational if based on evidence and sound logic.

No, rationality does not depend upon evidence or logic. Rationality can operate perfectly well within the confines of suppositions or claims which are entirely untrue. Something can be illogical whilst being rational. I can rationalize something I know to be wrong - I cannot make a logical base out of it.

If something is based on faulty logic, it is irrational.

No, see above.

If something relates to true information that is transmitted apart from the logical process, it is arational.

False premise. That sentence only seems to make sense to you if you already know that the transmitted information is true - indeed you stated the sentence in that order. You pre-suppose it is true in order to construct that claim.

That does not mean that you cannot go back and subject it to rational analysis - it's just that it originated by something other than rational processes...

So why not call it irrational? I mean this very seriously, what is it that stops you from using that word? You have no reason for arational.

... - like when you hear the phone ring and know who it is, and then pick it up and your revelation is confirmed.

No, when you believe you know who it is, and that happens to be the case. It would not be a revelation because no information was revealed to you. This brings up the next point, that you have a serious problem with analogies.

Really weak. You know from the beginning that Jane Austen is writing a novel. You know from the nature of the Pauline epistles that Paul is not writing a novel. You must do better than that... [snip]

Just like the colour analogy and the telephone analogy, you completely miss the mark. The analogy being offered was one of internal consistency. Regardless of whether or not this was an apt analogy, you are focussing on a literal point of the analogy which has nothing to do with the issue. The supreme irony of this, Bruce, is that you end up demonstrating that the analogy is true. You have let slide the fact that a human wrought work of fiction can be internally consistent. Do I need to take that farther? That was the point being made! So the internal consistency of a text is evidence only of its internal consistency - nothing else.

[Pombolo]

[CRAP, the third huge post in a row from me, on this page. I must reply more often to seperate this out!]

Reading Bruce's latest addition, it reminded me of something. I've heard another atheist remark that when they ask theists to explain why they origianally believed in Christianity, the theists unknowingly give wrong answers. What the theists usually respond with is a reason that they now think is convincing: whereas what they were asked for is what they found convincing at the time. This throws fresh light on the historical case Bruce has posted over the preceeding pages, and what he has now more recently posted.

I think, we are getting closer to the truth:

Having been brought up Baptist, I had a New Testament, even though I was not practicing any religion at the time.

So you were raised in a Christian culture most, if not all, or your life.

In search of some relief from the effects of the acid, I opened the book to Matthew 1:1, which says "The beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ." My eyes locked on the name "Jesus Christ," and vibrating flames started to emanate from it. Immediately, the "bad trip" was gone, and I had the experience of being in the presence of Jesus.

You had a visual hallucination after taking a hallucinatory drug. The hallucination was also fixed upon the name of a major historical and cultural figure you had been raised with most of your life. So far, so understandable.

(Oh, and the bad trip vanishes immediately after looking a the name of a reputed magical healer. Again, understandable)

Do you see how the same event can have another interpretation? Please understand, I am not trying to be a smart-ass. I only want you to see how the same experience can be interpreted differently. So the experience itself is not evidence of what is real.

The phrase "Jesus is the Son of God" began repeating itself in my mind, and I had the subjective sensation of something grabbing me and entering me in the area of the solar plexus. Accompanying subjective sensations included overwhelming awe, surges of joy and power, and deep peace.

And what do you think these subjective experiences say about reality? Please note, I know that you are aware of the fact that personal experiences cannot be proof to anyone else, you have said so yourself. I am asking what you think these experiences suggest about reality?

To say that an occurence is connected to the reality we all live in, we have to be outside those experiences. If we are enmeshed within a personal subjective experience then we are the least qualified preson to decide what that says about reality - since we can no longer know if what we are experiencing is real, or part of a feeling that seems real. You stated in a subsequent post that this was an experience with God: but you have nothing to distinguish such a thing from a subjective and intensely transcendent feeling that you were with God.

Experiences are evidence of experiences: not of what caused the experiences.

[Oldskeptic]

Bruce wrote:
I tried to post this account previously, but it was lost, so I'll try again. In the summer of 1971, I was 18 and a student at the University of Texas in Austin. That summer I occasionally supplemented my studies with experimentation with hallucinogenic drugs. One evening I and a couple of friends had taken some LSD, and they decided to go to a movie. I wasn't up for the movie, so I stayed at our apartment. I began to have a "bad trip," and felt that I was losing my grip on reality. Having been brought up Baptist, I had a New Testament, even though I was not practicing any religion at the time. In search of some relief from the effects of the acid, I opened the book to Matthew 1:1, which says "The beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ." My eyes locked on the name "Jesus Christ," and vibrating flames started to emanate from it. Immediately, the "bad trip" was gone, and I had the experience of being in the presence of Jesus. The phrase "Jesus is the Son of God" began repeating itself in my mind, and I had the subjective sensation of something grabbing me and entering me in the area of the solar plexus. Accompanying subjective sensations included overwhelming awe, surges of joy and power, and deep peace.

See? That’s what I was talking about. You experienced some powerful emotions that emanated from the limbic system because of a hallucinogen and your frontal cortex being impaired wasn’t able to deal in a rational way with them.

Bruce wrote:
This experience lasted over an hour. Without going into any great detail, the immediate after effects of that experience were 1) I had a hunger for studying the bible that I had never experienced before; 2) I had the daily experience of the presence of God in my life, including surges of joy and peace and the sense that Jesus was present in my life; and 3) I began having the experience of speaking in tongues, which is like a spring bubbling up from the chest and issuing out the mouth. These experiences have continued, to one degree of intensity or another, for the past almost 40 years. I haven't taken any hallucinogenic drugs since that time, and I don't hear audible voices or see visions. I simply have a subjective experience that convinces me that Jesus is real and that what is written about him is true. Specifically, the experience of the baptism and indwelling of the Holy Spirit, explained in the early Christian writings collectively known as the New Testament, is a real experience for me.

So under the influence of a hallucinogen you experienced overwhelming pleasurable emotions and did what you could to keep them coming. But you did not attribute them to the effects of the drug because then they would not be real only chemically induced. So you decided subconsciously that they came from Jesus and not from the drug.

You can’t see some kind of cause and effect relationship here that could better explain this episode than having experienced God?

[Bruce Burleson]

Hi Bruce,

What kind of guitar do you play?

Hohner acoustic 6-string; Fender electric bass; and some kind of old mandolin with an "A A" at the top that my brother found for me.

[Bruce Burleson]

His subsequent reponses to people trying to provide analogies for him further suggest that this was the correct approach to take. The reason? Most of us will realise that to make the case for a god you would have to prove the supernatural first. Then prove that this supernatural existence can host a god, then prove that this god interacts in our lives and universe, then prove this god is the Christian god, then prove that the bible is an accurate representation of what this god wants. Bruce has got this completely ass-backwards.

This is simply incorrect. If the events recorded about the life of Jesus are historically true, then the possibility of the existence of another reality is opened. It is valid to start with the historical, not with the "supernatural" (I don't like that word). If I make the case for Jesus first, the case for God follows.

Now to be fair to him, he didn't come here trying to convert us, which the above applies to, only to set out his case. But even so he should not, in my view, be starting out with the historical case for Jesus: he should be able to explain why he believes any god exists before he then proves his one through that god's messiah. Hence, I challenged the arational category before he even got started.

Bruce, you claim that the arational category is not an end point, but a startng point of a conversation. However you are phrasing it as something constructed for a pre-defined purpose. By claiming that something can be arational - you are prempting those that will use rationality.

Again, you are mistaken. I made it quite clear that I do not discount the possibility of you giving a critique my claims of arational experiences by rational means. Just as the Duckphup Effect was confirmed by simple inquiry, any revelatory experience may be subject to the same inquiry. Oldskeptic says its all in my limbic system - I disagree with him, but that does not prevent him from analyzing my experiences that way.

When we rebut something, you will say 'Ah, you're using rationality to prove my experiences wrong... but my experiences fall into the arational category, don't you see" Indeed, you specifically defined it like that from the very beginning. It is defined for a specific purpose, and being advertised as a "starting point".

How do you know what I will say? We just met. We haven't been married for 30 years.

... but that IS irrational. Yes, that word has huge pejorative undertones to it - but that does not diminish its accuracy. Emotions are useful to us, they have a function, but they are still irrational, since they do not rationalise in their 'operation'. You see it really is a binary position. If it is not rational, it is irrational. That does not mean it is bad or stupid or lacking in function. Which brings me on to:

Several posts questioned my "arational" category, and one said that if something is not rational then it is irrational by definition. This is a false dichotomy, based on faulty binary reasoning. It's like saying if something is not black, it's white. There are third options, like gray or blue.

That is a false analogy. Black and White are subsets of a group called colour. The accurate analogy would be 'Something is a colour or it is not a colour'. Things that are 'not colour' may have colour as a property, but the analogy still fits. All you are doing here is picking somehting you already know is not a binary statement, drawing an connection to something that is a binary statement, and then pointing at the difference. I trust you see what is wrong with that?

It is the "huge pejorative undertones" that cause me to seek another term. You want to use "irrational" so you can end the discussion. I see a range of meanings that justify the use of another term. You want to use binary logic to categorize things in a way that makes it easy for you to dismiss them. "Something is a colour or it is not a colour" is an example of this. A number is not a color (American spelling), but synesthetes see certain numbers in colors - a third option opened to them because of the way their brain is wired. For us, a 5 is a 5; for them a 5 is red. An argument over semantics is really not my purpose here, but forgive me if I don't want to fall into the trap you want to set between the toothed jaws of rational vs. irrational. There is that which is based upon reason (rational); there is that which is unreasonable and logically faulty (irrational); and there is that which is simply not part of the rational process at all but can still result in a truth statement (arational).

If something relates to true information that is transmitted apart from the logical process, it is arational.

False premise. That sentence only seems to make sense to you if you already know that the transmitted information is true - indeed you stated the sentence in that order. You pre-suppose it is true in order to construct that claim.

No, the Duckphup example demonstrated that I am correct. The information came to him, and then he confirmed that it was correct. He did not know by rational means that the information was correct until he confirmed it. Until he confirmed it, he believed it to be correct, but he did not have final confirmation.

That does not mean that you cannot go back and subject it to rational analysis - it's just that it originated by something other than rational processes...

So why not call it irrational? I mean this very seriously, what is it that stops you from using that word? You have no reason for arational.

You are the one who pointed out the pejorative connotations attached to the word "irrational." You've answered your own question. A third category is needed to distinguish between various nuances of meaning. You like to trumpet the word "irrational" to nudge the reader in your direction. It's like having a debate and calling one team the Geniuses and the other team the Idiots. Which side will the judges vote for?

Just like the colour analogy and the telephone analogy, you completely miss the mark. The analogy being offered was one of internal consistency. Regardless of whether or not this was an apt analogy, you are focussing on a literal point of the analogy which has nothing to do with the issue. The supreme irony of this, Bruce, is that you end up demonstrating that the analogy is true. You have let slide the fact that a human wrought work of fiction can be internally consistent. Do I need to take that farther? That was the point being made! So the internal consistency of a text is evidence only of its internal consistency - nothing else.

I will grant you that internal consistency is not proof by itself of historicity. But you have to look at the genre of literature under consideration. In a book that everyone knows from the outset is a novel, internal consistency is basically meaningless. In a group of letters intended to be a communication of truth statements, internal consistency is a hallmark of authenticity. The genre provides the context which determines the applicability of the proper standard of evaluation.

[Bruce Burleson]

Reading Bruce's latest addition, it reminded me of something. I've heard another atheist remark that when they ask theists to explain why they origianally believed in Christianity, the theists unknowingly give wrong answers. What the theists usually respond with is a reason that they now think is convincing: whereas what they were asked for is what they found convincing at the time. This throws fresh light on the historical case Bruce has posted over the preceeding pages, and what he has now more recently posted.

I think, we are getting closer to the truth:

Having been brought up Baptist, I had a New Testament, even though I was not practicing any religion at the time.

So you were raised in a Christian culture most, if not all, or your life.

Yup.

In search of some relief from the effects of the acid, I opened the book to Matthew 1:1, which says "The beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ." My eyes locked on the name "Jesus Christ," and vibrating flames started to emanate from it. Immediately, the "bad trip" was gone, and I had the experience of being in the presence of Jesus.

You had a visual hallucination after taking a hallucinatory drug. The hallucination was also fixed upon the name of a major historical and cultural figure you had been raised with most of your life. So far, so understandable.

(Oh, and the bad trip vanishes immediately after looking a the name of a reputed magical healer. Again, understandable)

Do you see how the same event can have another interpretation? Please understand, I am not trying to be a smart-ass. I only want you to see how the same experience can be interpreted differently. So the experience itself is not evidence of what is real.

Of course I see that. That is what I have been evaluating for the past 40 years. I've given you my first experience. "Magical healer" is your assumption, of course.

The phrase "Jesus is the Son of God" began repeating itself in my mind, and I had the subjective sensation of something grabbing me and entering me in the area of the solar plexus. Accompanying subjective sensations included overwhelming awe, surges of joy and power, and deep peace.

And what do you think these subjective experiences say about reality? Please note, I know that you are aware of the fact that personal experiences cannot be proof to anyone else, you have said so yourself. I am asking what you think these experiences suggest about reality?

These experiences, along with many, many others that I have had over the past 40 years, convince me personally that the indwelling presence of the Holy Spirit, explained in the early Christian writings known as "the New Testament," are valid and real.

To say that an occurence is connected to the reality we all live in, we have to be outside those experiences. If we are enmeshed within a personal subjective experience then we are the least qualified preson to decide what that says about reality - since we can no longer know if what we are experiencing is real, or part of a feeling that seems real. You stated in a subsequent post that this was an experience with God: but you have nothing to distinguish such a thing from a subjective and intensely transcendent feeling that you were with God. Experiences are evidence of experiences: not of what caused the experiences.

So to whom do I go for enlightenment? If I associate with Christians, they confirm my experiences as valid manifestations of the presence of God. If I associate with Atheists, they tell me that it is my limbic system, and that I am interpreting my experiences based upon my cultural heritage. I'm the captain of my own ship, just as you are. I associate with both, and do my best to evaluate and interpret what I have experienced. After 40 years, I'm in the middle - rejecting large portions of the dogma of my upbringing, but concluding that I am experiencing the presence of God. The general course of events in my life plus the descriptions of the experience of the Holy Spirit in the NT lead me to this conclusion.

[Bruce Burleson]

See? That’s what I was talking about. You experienced some powerful emotions that emanated from the limbic system because of a hallucinogen and your frontal cortex being impaired wasn’t able to deal in a rational way with them.

I've only given you chapter one. I've been experiencing things and analyzing things for 40 years. All experiences are in the brain. The question is what causes them.

So under the influence of a hallucinogen you experienced overwhelming pleasurable emotions and did what you could to keep them coming. But you did not attribute them to the effects of the drug because then they would not be real only chemically induced. So you decided subconsciously that they came from Jesus and not from the drug.

You can’t see some kind of cause and effect relationship here that could better explain this episode than having experienced God?

And totally apart from any drug I have experienced many other things over the past 40 years. If that first experience was the only one, I would agree that it was probably all drug induced. But like I said, that was only chapter one. The constant over four decades has been the inner experience of the presence of Jesus.

[Bruce Burleson]

double post