Is There Any Objective Or Scientific Method To Prove That Jesus Dwells Within You?

Many evangelical seminaries offer degrees in the philosophy of religion, including specialized programs like a Ph.D. in Christian Philosophy or a Ph.D. in Philosophy of Religion. Institutions such as Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary, The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, Southern Evangelical Seminary, and New Orleans Baptist Theological Seminary are examples of evangelical seminaries that provide such doctoral programs.

Why are evangelicals scrambling to obtain PhDs in philosophy? Has the Gospel become so unconvincing and irrelevant among the educated class of modern western society that evangelicals are forced to resort to complicated philosophical smoke and mirrors to defend it?

1 Like

And this is supposed to challenge me how?

You appear to think that, because I am a Christian, I think that God can only be found and identified through Christianity. I do not limit God.
I am convinced that God will accept any genuine approach to Him even if the method or theology is flawed or different to mine. There are genuine believers within all faiths that God will recognise. A person brought up in the Hindu faith, whose family has believed Hinduism for generations will believe that faith to be genuine. That is pragmatism beyond Christian doctrine and theology, but in keeping with my understanding of God. I would not expect someone to suddenly believe that all their family and History is not only false but rotting in Hell. It is the difference between doctrine and knowledge of God. (And I am not alone with these thoughts) And Religion will believe it is exclusively right. Anything else is self defeating, but that is the difference between religion and faith. Religion introduces us to God. Once the relationship is established, God can teach us the folly of religion. We need religion to make that first step and convince us of God’s existence, but one we have opened the parachute we might see different designs or methods of descent that also work. But then again, “if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it”. I am still a Christian. My parachute works fine.

Richard

1 Like

That sounds a lot like the boat I am in too, kind of.

We see examples of accomondationism in the Bible. Biblical seams of different traditions being stitched together side by side despite not perfectly blending together. We see examples of works from other religious traditions being reworked into the Bible. Many just in Genesis 1-11. Redactions are all throughout the Bible. Some passages even seem to be remnants of before El and Yahweh were merged into one god.

So if all of that happens , all of this accomondationism and blending to me it seems that we can apply that to all faiths. That Hinduism, Zoroastrianism, Shintoism, Odinism and so on were all accomondations to ancient people. To god reaching out to all these people in ways meaningful to them at that time and place. The differences are meaningless to me just like the laws of the tanakh is vey different from the laws of the New Testament. It’s why I believe that all faiths can help us care more about ourselves, the planet and each other. That scholars will be able to forever reinterpret the message in a meaningful way and see how it can be understood in ways that we see it now that someone 2,000 or even 4,000 years ago could not. It’s why religion is one of my favorite things to study.

1 Like

I guess it is difficult for many to separate the investments they have in their own faith and the cold analytic study of other faiths. I congratulate you on being able to do so. It is a shame really that others find it so hard. We can lean so much both about God and other cultures if we decide that God is big enough to look beyond our limited doctrines and culture.

Richard

2 Likes

Is that because they were philosophers first and foremost and reasoned to religion? Or vv?

As I was thinking if and how to answer your questions, I realized that how to answer depends on what is your motive behind the questions?
Why are you asking these questions? What do you hope to achieve through them?

Answering without knowing what you are actually wanting to know or search just seems to be a waste of time, both yours and mine.

1 Like

This isn’t sound. No reason has been given why there cannot be two or more undifferentiable entities. The claim that they would have to have differentiating features is an unsupported assertion.

Feser’s ‘logic’ is flawed.

This flaw, like most flaws in such ‘proofs’, is easily seen by applying the ‘logic’ to something other than “purely actual actualizers”. Red snooker balls, for example.

I’m influenced by Wright (among others) in this. It is this recent manifestation of Gnosticism that has so many Christians here in America buying into every last “left behind” or “rapture” trope and conspiracy theory. Everybody is thirsty to imagine they are holders of “some secret knowledge”. Of course, it doesn’t go by that name; nobody attends a church called “First Church of Gnostic Heresy” - but that doesn’t make the actual content of that heresy any less potent or present; in fact its stealth status makes it even more so. Deism could be a thing too among some for all I know - nothing surprises me among the American “Christian” crowd any more. But I do know that a couple centuries back, deism was embraced by many of the American founding crowd. Here is a sample of what N.T. Scholar, Wright, has to say about Gnosticism.

From N.T. Wright in “Surprised by Hope”:

Gnosticism is always an eclectic phenomenon—are found in some of the seminal thinkers and writers of the last two hundred years in our culture. The writer and playwright Stuart Holroyd, himself an unashamed apologist for Gnosticism, lists Blake, Goethe, Melville, Yeats, and Jung among others as representing this stream in the modern West, and though their insights have often been cross-fertilized with other types, he has a point that should not be ignored. Basically, if you move away from materialistic optimism but without embracing Judaism or Christianity, you are quite likely to end up with some kind of Gnosticism. It should be no surprise that certain elements of the Romantic movement, and some of their more recent heirs, have been prone to this. The discovery of the Nag Hammadi scrolls (a library of Gnostic texts found in Upper Egypt) has in our day fueled a desire to reinterpret Christianity itself in terms of a supposedly original Gnostic spirituality that contrasts sharply with the concrete kingdom-of-God-on-Earth announced by the Jesus of the canonical gospels. Travel far enough down that road, and you will end up with the blatant and outrageous conspiracy theories of a book like The Da Vinci Code. But there are many who without going that far now assume that some kind of Gnosticism is what genuine Christianity was supposed to be about.

Most Western Christians—and most Western non-Christians, for that matter—in fact suppose that Christianity was committed to at least a soft version of Plato’s position. A good many Christian hymns and poems wander off unthinkingly in the direction of Gnosticism. The “just passing through” spirituality (as in the spiritual “This world is not my home, / I’m just a’passin’ through”), though it has some affinities with classical Christianity, encourages precisely a Gnostic attitude: the created world is at best irrelevant, at worst a dark, evil, gloomy place, and we immortal souls, who existed originally in a different sphere, are looking forward to returning to it as soon as we’re allowed to. A massive assumption has been made in Western Christianity that the purpose of being a Christian is simply, or at least mainly, to “go to heaven when you die,” and texts that don’t say that but that mention heaven are read as if they did say it, and texts that say the opposite, like Romans 8:18–25 and Revelation 21–22, are simply screened out as if they didn’t exist.

Wright, N. T.. Surprised by Hope: Rethinking Heaven, the Resurrection, and the Mission of the Church (pp. 89-90). HarperCollins. Kindle Edition.

2 Likes

Stating that arguments are better than appeals to authority immediately after appealing to authority shows far more laziness, and indicates you comments about philosophers being hacks is badly mistargeted.

That’s not true - other creator gods are said to have created the universe out of nothing. Yahweh is not unique in that respect.

If, like @St.Roymond you are going to claim that God cannot be identified other than by Christianity (and reluctantly Judaism) then his statement is valid. However, if there are other views of the same God then it becomes more problematic

Genesis only denies the idea that Heavenly bodies or other inanimate objects made themselves instead of God making them. Philosophically science actually contradicts this view by excluding God from any of it.

Both Abiogenesis, and evolution attack that view of God head on. Claiming that “God did it” is just Politics, to allow Christians to be Scientists. Once they have decided that science is just understanding how or what God did then they are free to indulge in the scientific view and put any other considerations of God aside.

The claim that God set evolution in motion is really taking that accommodation to the limit.

At least I am honest when I admit that I am using my faith and beliefs of God to argue with even though scientists see to think that is an invalid approach.

Richard

@moderators

Evangelicals are scrambling to obtain PhDs in philosophy? The Gospel is so unconvincing and irrelevant to educated Westerners? That’s why religious people study religion?

This guy just attacks our beliefs with nonsense after nonsense. He offers nothing of substance but moves to the next sound bite.

Let me remind you Gary:

  1. You pointed to and used a philosophical consensus as evidence for atheism or against actual philosophical content I posted. Your argument was “this hasn’t convinced atheist philosophers.”

  2. I pointed out why so many atheist philosophers were that way in my opinion with two specific examples. You and @Roy can disagree but it happens a lot.

  3. I also pointed out that philosophy has specializations and all those that specialize in studying religion specifically, the consensus is that God exists. I even pointed out that this stat should not be used for anything even though it “supports” my beliefs.

  4. I sense an implicit ad hominem implying all these philosophers of religion must be conservatives from seminaries rushing to defend a risible gospel. So what? Does going to seminary axiomatically make their philosophy of religion incorrect?

You appealed to a consensus which you found probative and once shown that the actual specialized consensus shows the exact opposite of what you believe, you did a complete 180. When the consensus seemingly supports what you want to believe it is you who scramble to tout it, but when it doesn’t, you dismiss it in your haste to attack Christian belief on a Christian message board that it attempting to discuss the interconnections between faith and science.

Maybe religious people like studying religion. Maybe historians like studying history. I am not sure why you even brought the consensus (which doesn’t actually exist) up. Maybe because, like atheism itself, you have nothing to offer but emptiness. You, sir, are a joke.

Did I not say;

Or maybe, since I have higher standards than you when it comes to seeking truth, maybe more theists are drawn to philosophy of religion.

IOW, I, unlike a village atheist thumper or a pious pastor, would make no arguments based off this consensus. I prefer to let the arguments speak for themselves. I didn’t bring up consensus and use it as ammo for anti-Christian ideology.

Vinnie

4 Likes

Some.

                     

2 Likes

Pantheon is of course a Greek word, but in the main Greek philosophy was quite compatible with monotheism, and the concept of God was somewhat elevated from the operatic squabbling deities of Olympus. Aristotle was virtually canonized in Christendom.

1 Like

I wish that were actually true in any widespread way. I’ll believe it when I see it. Many Christians here in the U.S. would love the reputation boost of having more letters behind their name, but the actual education itself seems to have become anathema to them. Because it might actually involve becoming informed. And that is understandably viewed as fatal to the strands of indoctrination and conspiracy that they chase with much more passion than anything of truth or reality.

4 Likes

I’m sure you did in your pious grandiosity, or is it grandiose piety?

  • 69.5% of philosophers of religion lean toward theism.
  • This contrasts with the broader philosophical community, where 66.7% lean toward atheism

Well fancy that!

Not surprising at all, really.

True faith in God goes beyond simple philosophy, but God or theism is not a particularly comfortable or desirable notion. Just the thought of God invokes emotions from fear, to inadequacy, to awe and insignificance. There may or may not be a latent need for a god in our lives but religion rarely produces one that we are attracted to automatically. Religion s full of self sacrifice or debasement, and concern for others, forgiveness and humility. They are not things we humans like to strive for.

Richard

1 Like

I’m not going to claim that, and I doubt he claims that.

What is true faith in God? Does it exclude certain aspects of evolution? Religion might be theoretically full of those things, on paper, but not statistically. Criminals often get religion in prison which averages them out. Religion is powerfully group cohesive, for good an evil.

70% does not make a consensus.