BillM

To me, friends, part of the problem is the binary approach that we often tend to take towards beliefs or claims of knowledge. We often say, "I believe" or "I don't believe". Or we say, "I know" or "I don't know". Discussions on many things, from science to politics to religion to social issues, tend to become polarizing, wanting us to "choose sides" before all the data is in. IMO, very little data is in. We are left to make our very best guesses based upon what little evidence or "proof" we have available to us. I strive to make the best guess that I can, but they don't call me, "Often-Wrong-But-Seldom-Unsure" for nothing. To me, knowledge and beliefs are best considered in binary terms. I'm more comfortable with a sliding scale which ranges from "highly improbable" on one end and "highly probable" on the other end. This allows me to move what little I think I know or believe in accordance with new evidence, with new experiences, with new growth. One of the tenets of PC (my paraphrase) is that we, if we label ourselves as PCs, know that we don't own the Truth. We seek it. We stay open to it. We may even strive for it. But to think that we have arrived and completely know all Truth is, IMO, overstepping our bounds of human knowledge and experiences.

Yes, Romansh, that's what I meant. My own approach to religious agnosticism is an extension of my philosophical and experiential agnosticism. Like everyone else, I certainly have beliefs. But they are my own (usually) and very much subject to revision. I don't hold to agnosticism as some kind of "ace in the hole" card that I can play at life's end. I hold to it because the more I know (which isn't very much), the more I discover that I don't know. So it is, for me, simply a matter of intellectual honesty. I also suspect that the flavors of gods might include pantheism and panentheism. Even pandeism and panendeism. There is much to choose from. The fun part is the exploration and building (if we so choose) of our own philosophy/theology.

Not to contentiously resurrect or derail a thread, but agnosticism is, IMO, simply a humble approach to what we limited humans can claim to know. Scientists say that we currently probably know (scientifically speaking) about 0.08% of what can be known about the universe. That leaves an awful lot to what we don't (yet) know and to our claims of objective truth. Objective truth (reality as it really is) may exist, but we only know it through our subjective senses and ponderings. Most agnostics are reluctant to claim to know for certain, as certain knowledge seems to imply omniscience, something that we don't have. So most of our knowledge centers on probabilities, on what seems most likely. For instance, as an agnostic, I don't know for certain that there is not some kind of consciousness that created the universe. I suspect that maybe there is. But it is highly improbable, IMO, that it is the deity of the bible. On the other hand, there have always been mystics who claim to "know" the sacred through experience. I find such claims interesting and worthy of serious consideration. But I don't find them to be binding on me.

Welcome, Anthony. I'm a progressive whose background is Christianity. Though I've never been clergy, I was trained for it in Bible College and spent many years as a Sunday School/Small Group leader. In my journey, I've moved past supernatural theism, a stance which usually puts me outside of the walls and borders of churches and many forms of Christianity. Like you, I still have a passion for the dream that Jesus called "the kingdom of God", but I've given up any hope of the institutional church or of institutional Christianity helping that dream "come to earth as it is in heaven." I find myself much more at home amongst agnostics and many non-theists than I do amongst the religious or churched. To me, the kingdom is not what we believe, it is not our theology, it is not our doctrines and dogmas. Rather, it is what we do, it is how we live. As you say, the sharing that only love brings.

My son was "warned" at his place of employment that the end was nigh. I've lived long enough to see this kind of thing come around and around every few years. In fact, when I was very young, the film "A Thief in the Night" (about the rapture) scared the dickens out of me, so much so that I questioned my salvation and rightness with God for quite a while. As PaulS pointed out, even Jesus taught that he would return in his generation to establish the kingdom of God on earth. So far, he is still a "no show". Personally, I have no need or use for fear-based religion and, perhaps like you, Joseph, I would simply wait for the steam to run out. To me, there is no sense in arguing with those caught up in end-of-the-world scenarios or fear-based faith. Fear is seldom rational. To me, if/when the end does come, it will be due to our own short-sightedness as human beings or due to the natural course of nature (our sun becoming a red giant). I no longer fear or expect God's intervention.

What can we truly know? One last comment and then I will indeed clam up. At the heart of supernatural theism is the belief in a personal God who cares about each person and will answer their prayers. Given the amount of suffering and needless death in the world, I don't find it convincing that God cares about each person. Here in the United States where we have 3 hots and a cot each day (and usually much more), it is relatively easy to believe in a caring, loving God. But in Haiti where entire cities are torn apart by earthquakes, it is a bit more difficult to convince those people that God loves each and every one of them. Where suffering is almost a daily way of life, the doctrine of a caring God stands in stark contrast to struggling to survive for just one more day. Where disease and death reign, it is hard to convince people that the kingdom of God is among them. A 24-million-dollar study on the efficacy of prayer was done a few years back. There were 3 groups of heart-surgery patients, all with similar prognosis. The first group was not in any way prayed for. The second group was prayed for by evangelical Christians but the group was not told that they were being prayed for. The third group was prayed for by evangelical Christian but this group was told that they were being prayed for. The results? All 3 groups did almost the same in recovering. In fact, the group that knew that they were being prayed for did a bit worse in recovery. Those involved in the study think it was due to the stress of knowing that they were expected to recover in order to live up to the efficacy of prayer and the notion that God is a prayer-answering deity. There is, scientifically, no evidence that prayer changes anything in the natural world. All we really have are anecdotal claims from Christians who count the once-in-a-blue-moon hits but ignore the everyday misses. On a more personal note, there was no personal, caring God there for me the night Moriah died. During the car accident, her tiny brain was pushed into her fragmented skull into the rear of the front seat. If there was a personal, caring God there, he could have surely whispered to the driver responsible to stop face-timing on his phone and to put his mind on the road. He could have easily caused the SUV to hit the car in another location that would have spared Moriah's life, or even to miss the car entirely. He could have surrounded the car with angels that Christmas Eve so that nothing bad would happen. He could have granted their prayers for "traveling mercies." Perhaps the demons were stronger that night? Perhaps the personal God was punishing me for no longer being a "Bible-believing Christian"? Perhaps the accident somehow escaped his all-seeing eye because he was caught up in the euphoria of hearing all of the Christmas carols being sung to him from people all around the world proclaiming peace on earth and good-will toward men? I don't know. But I feel no peace from this theistic God. I feel no good-will towards me. To me, an invisible God and a non-existent God look very much the same. To me, the God of Christianity doesn't care and doesn't answer prayers. But that is me and my journey. I'm sure others have had different experiences. Two billion Christians couldn't be wrong, could they? Thanks for listening. I will now zip my lip.

Soma, yes, my path is a bit different. I know that you are sincere also and I respect your path. IMO, you are a fine example (as are a few others here) of the kind of mysticism that doesn't try to force everyone into the same mold. So I appreciate you and respect you in that. In fact, given the opportunity, I would love to spend some real face-to-face time with you to hear your journey more fully. For better or worse, my path has moved me past theism. I no longer believe that God is a being out there who controls the world. If others do (and there are many, many who do -- they are usually called Christians - ha ha!), that is fine as long as they don't try to force other into their mold. And PC was a bit influential in my path in this direction when it decided to drop "God language" from the 8 Points. Being human, I, of course, have a personal relationship with the Universe. But I don't call it God, at least not in the way most Christians would interpret God. I suspect, as I have for a while now, that I'm probably not a Progressive Christian. And I know that there needs to be room for theists here on this message board. Christianity is, by most definitions, theistic. So it is probably best if I clam up. My wife agrees with that also.

...and Einstein's religion: "I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it."

Yes, I would agree with this. Those with a mystical bent do, in fact, claim to have experiences that are ineffable, that go beyond words and descriptions. I'm no authority on mysticism, but the kind that I think deserves serious consideration is the kind where the mystic does not "lord it over" others, or look down on those who have not had the same experiences, or who think that they are mediators. The kinds of mystics I'm drawn to are those who, metaphorically, simply say, "Come and see!" Seeing as these experiences may not be directly testable by science, how much weight should be given to them as "truth claims"? Are they true only for the one having the experience? Or are they universal truth? Should we trust the revelations of others? Scientists have said that we most likely know only about 4% of the knowledge available to us. I don't know where they get this figure from. What I do know is that the rate of gaining new knowledge is increasing exponentially. But we certainly don't know everything. I admit that. My wife admits that about me. Yet this in no way means that I give credence to supernatural claims that, in most cases, have no evidence whatsoever or violate what little knowledge of our universe we do know. As a progressive, I don't believe that the way forward is to go back. I have had epilepsy since I was about 20-years-old. Despite Jesus' teaching on the subject, I never tried to get supernatural demons exorcised. But I do take Depakote which has prevented me from having seizures for about 6 years now. I don't attribute my "healing" to God or to supernatural forces. I attribute it to the science of medicine and understanding, as limited as it is, something of how the neurons in the brain work. I have no faith whatsoever that prayer has healed me from epilepsy. It is medicines that keep my demons at bay.

Burl, please don't assume to know what my responses are to things unless I tell you. To be honest, I only watched the last 15 minutes of the video. Once I found out (in the beginning) that he is an orthodox Christian, I knew that he would slant things in a pro-Christian direction. Most modern Christians do not want to be perceived as anti-science, so OF COURSE he is going to say that faith is compatible with science. This thread is NOT about Dr. Louis' video. It is about what we can truly know, to the best of our ability. And I've stated, quite simply, that the God of theism is, by definition, unknowable. Humor me while I offer another example of the problem of faith vs. science: Let's say that I told you that the god, Thor, is right here beside me as I type this. I know he is. But I'm quick to add that because he is in a different realm, you can't see him. You can't touch him. You can't hear him. You can't smell him. And if you do speak to him, you most likely will not get an audible reply. Nevertheless, I have faith that he is right here. So much so that I tell you that if you don't also believe that Thor is right here with me, despite the lack of evidence, he will beat you over the head with his hammer for all eternity. I claim that, through faith, I know that Thor is right here. And I also claim that Thor's presence with me is compatible with science, that he is real. Would you have any reason whatsoever to say that you knew this to be true also?

Okay, Burl, I'll address this another way. Supernatural theism holds that God is above or transcendent to nature (what we can know with our senses, what we can know with our intelligences, logic, scientific methods, etc.). As soon as supernatural theism makes this claim, it is claiming that we can know nothing about God because God, for theism, is not part of the natural universe. Science is the study of the natural realm. Therefore, science can know nothing whatsoever of a supernatural realm. This is why you cannot prove angels, demons, or God through scientific means. Once an appeal to the supernatural is made (which theism is based in), science is barred (due to the characteristics of the supernatural). Faith, even by the Bible's definition, is confidence not in what IS, but in what is hoped for. It is, in an odd twist of logic, evidence for the unseen (which implies that the other senses are off-limits also). Therefore, faith is opposed to science because they do not operate by the same principles. They are, for all practical purposes, two entirely different languages with no Rosetta Stone. Science operates by forming a hypothesis and then testing that hypothesis. If the hypothesis if then suspected to be true, the hypothesis and the test(s) are open for peer review by the trained scientific community. Faith "operates" by making a statement or a claim that cannot be tested. For instance, the Bible claims that Jesus came back to life after three days. There is no way to test this claim. It can't even be said to be a historical event. Yes, it can be believed in (like angels and demons), but not tested. It also tends to be the characteristic of faith claims that they are not open to review or revision. Despite claims to the contrary, the supernatural cannot be tested because if it does exist, it exists in a different realm or reality than the natural realm that is our habitat. Some Christians would assert that, yes, this is true, but that God can (and has) supernaturally "intervened" into the natural realm. These interventions are usually called "miracles." If they were legitimate, then as soon as the "intervention" crossed from the supernatural realm into our natural realm, it would then be natural, no longer supernatural, no longer a miracle. But this is NOT what theists claim. They claim that the supernatural can exist in the natural realm BUT that because it is supernatural, it cannot be verified or tested. You can't have it both ways (unless you are Shirley McClaine). Many Christians do claim that the supernatural realm is right here alongside the natural realm. But that claim is FAITH, not SCIENCE. If we don't understand that, then we don't understand either.

Ha ha! Nobody is "like-minded" with me, Burl. They usually either lock up or burn at the stake people who think like I do.

You'll probably be shock to hear *me* say this, Burl, but one of the reasons I became so disillusioned with the church (as an institution) is that because the more I read the gospels and what Jesus had to say about the kingdom of God, the more I became convinced that the koG and the church are not the same thing. I mean, there are definitely hints of the kingdom (as Jesus interpreted it) in the OT. I think he fleshed it out more with his teachings, parables, and interactions with people. Granted, the church has sometimes done some very good things. But I don't see it as a fulfillment of the koG on earth. It seems that, even at the beginning, the disciples believed the church was going to be about who had the most power, who had the best seats. That is far from what Jesus taught, IMO. I've been Baptist, Southern Baptist, Assembly of God, Bible Church, Disciples of Christ, Pentecostal, Pentecostal Holiness, Wesleyan, and UMC. I've learned a lot in each of these churches. I've had good friends there. And there have been some good times, times that I would even call holy. But I've never felt that any of them were the kingdom. As the U2 song says, "I still haven't found what I'm looking for."

I don't mean, Burl, to paint my UMC in a totally negative light. It is a good church...for a church. We contribute to homeless shelters. We make sandwiches and meals for another shelter where people get food. We, of course, contribute to Angel Trees and School Lunch/Supplies programs. We collect clothes for those who need them in our community. We participate in Habitat for Humanity and we often have mission trips to build wells or homes in other countries. We are a Baptist's nightmare in that we often seem to be more of a social club than a place where "souls get saved" by threatening people with hellfire and brimstone. We have an invitation to join the church every Sunday, but it is more of an invitation to join what we are doing than to get someone into the "going to heaven line." And, yes, despite being a social club, we still read/study the scriptures, pray, and have sermons. It is a good church...for a church. But I taught Sunday School there for a number of years and there was to much "politikin" going on. As a teacher (you wouldn't know it from my posts here now), I was more interested in just getting people to talk and share ideas instead of trying to get through a lesson to instill "truth" in them. My class wasn't for everyone because not everyone cares about the contexts of the scriptures or the history of the church and her doctrines. Some people just want a "Cliff's Notes" version of things, and that's okay. Nevertheless, I often had to try to diffuse arguments about what the UMC is doing about homosexuals or supporting political candidates or why we need both a modern and a traditional service or why we should have an acoustic piano instead of an electronic one or why the pulpit should match the pews. Sheesh. I mean, I care about people. But I tend to care more if THEY are concerned about important things, not if they have to argue over the color of the choir robes. The final straw was when I was approached over "concerns" about our pastor because he had read and mentioned "Love Wins" in a sermon. Methodists aren't even interested in the possibility that maybe everyone could be united with God? Do they know nothing about the minority report in Christianity of universalism? And these folks want me to spear-head an effort to get our pastor ousted because he was on the edge of heresy? Anyway, all of this convinced me that the institution is too set in stone and resistant to new ideas or interpretations, let alone to the knowledge that UMC pastors gain in seminary. Me doing anything at my UMC now, as a nontheist, would be like Martin Luther asking to be a bishop in the Catholic Church. So when I go now, I just sit there like a bump on a log (which is mostly what the Christian heaven will be like) and keep my mouth shut. I participate in the social stuff when I can. But the UMC, like Christianity itself, is too rooted in the paradigm that God said everything he needed to say in the past and that being a follower of Jesus is not about an adventure in being fully human, it is in trying to reclaim some kind of first or fourth century worldview of humanity, theology, and the cosmos.

"Science, on balance, gives arguments for theism." This may well be his opinion, but in Elaine Ecklund's book, "Science vs Religion: What Scientists Really Think", she found that 38% of natural scientists are atheists and that 31% of social scientists are atheists, for a total of 69% of scientists who are not theists. "Catholic Answers" cites that 93% of scientists do not believe in God, at least in a theistic way. So I find Prof. Louis' statement to be uninformed. Besides, he confesses to be a Christian, not someone neutral like an agnostic. That means he has a horse in the race and, most likely, a presuppositional bias.

That's probably true, Burl. I've only been a member of 2 UMC churches in my life, so I don't have a wide breadth of experience. However, even when the Lectionary is not used, the approach to scripture is the same i.e. the Bible is divine product written to us today. My UCC church does not take this approach, even though they still read scripture. The difference is, the UCC would say, "This is what the Hebrews believed God was saying to them. What do we think of this?" The UMC (at least mine) would say, "This is what God said to the Hebrews. Why did He say this?" Two entirely different approaches. This completely destroys any notions of the infallibility and inerrancy of the scriptures. Even if they were, in and of themselves, inerrant and infallible, there is no guarantee whatsoever that we could inerrantly and infallibly interpret them correctly.

I live in such an "in-between" place, Annie. When it comes to church, here are the things I love: The friends I have there. The stained-glass windows. The singing in unison. The moments of silence during prayer time. The pastor's thoughts on things. Hearing about the good things our church is doing in our community. And here are the things I loathe: Saying the Creeds as if doing this makes one a Christian. The words of most of the hymns. Saying, "Lord, hear our prayer" after every prayer request, as if God is deaf. The pastor thinking he/she is speaking for God to the congregation. The church believing that the church and the kingdom of God are exactly the same thing. Most of the theology revolving around sinful humanity, a holy God, and a necessary human sacrifice to bridge the separation. The UMC believing that the Book of Discipline is more sacred than the findings of science.

To me, and if I had my druthers, I would like to see the Lectionary used as some sort of Adult Christian Education. Very much simplified, this would mean considering, "What did this scripture mean to the people it was written to, and does it in any way apply to us today? If so, how and why?" But, in my experience, far too often the Lectionary is approached as the Word of God (in fact, my UMC chants, "the Word of God for the people of God", after the scripture reading) and assumes that the scripture passage was written by God to and for us. When the Lectionary is used in this manner, it is just a big turn off for me. I would rather search it for ancient wisdom than for trying to listen for the voice of an anthropomorphic deity.

BTW, there is also a "knowing" that is more about the experiences that we have rather than ideas or truth-claims that we hold to in our heads. What I "know" about my wife far exceeds the facts that I might be able to ramble off about her. I have had the experience of living with her for 27 years and this allows me to "know" her in ways that I could never get from a resume or even from an autobiography. So do I truly "know" her? Good question. There are parts of her known only to herself and I suspect it should be that way. We never know ourselves completely. And others never know us completely. But the experiences that we have in "knowing" one another certainly make life meaningful and rewarding, if not at least interesting.

Both of these statements resonate with me as well, Rom. Perhaps contrary to some religious notions, I believe that we live in a 'real' universe, not an illusion. This doesn't imply that we "know" what the actual building blocks of this universe are, for we are still exploring and it seems that the further down we go, the stranger things become. Nevertheless, I find that, pragmatically, I still live in a Newtonian world and arrange my life accordingly. In such a world, I agree that the scientific method is our most helpful predictor of determining outcomes. What this results in, IMO, is knowledge based not upon certainty, but upon probabilities. Is it certain that the sun will rise tomorrow (from our perspective)? No. But it is highly probable. Why? Because we understand something of the nuclear processes and of how our solar system works. Plus the sun has a long track record of being reliable in this regard. But we don't rely on the old myth of a god pulling it across the sky in his chariot. Though I'm not a scientist, I think science advances by testing probabilities to see which outcomes are the most probable. Often, religious discussion center around possibilities, not probabilities. Is it possible that angels and demons exist? Is it possible, given the way physiology works, that Jesus came back alive after being dead for three days? Is it probable? If it is possible, then how do we explain it given our current understanding of physiology and how life/death works? Now, if we are going to throw current science aside (nature) and appeal to a possible super-natural event, then, essentially, anything goes. Angels, demons, unicorns, leprechauns, fairies, teapots in order around Jupiter can all exist, and I'm not being sarcastic. If we discard the laws of nature and call Jesus' resurrection a supernatural event, then we can certainly say that it is possible. Why? Because supernatural claims are in no way bound by science, nature, or evidence. In fact, faith often claims that any desire for evidence is sinful. So when something is claimed to be supernatural, it, by definition, places itself outside the realm of nature where reason, rationality, common sense, science, and evidence come to bear. It is like claiming that there are creatures that live in 6 dimensions. Any discussion of said creatures is meaningless because we ourselves live in only 4 dimensions. We have no experiences or language to relate to them. The best we could do is to consider possibilities (not probabilities). Where religion errs, IMO, is in insisting that possibilities are facts. For me, the "modern texts" are, in many ways, good science fiction. Good scifi blends science with imagination and considers both possibilities and probabilities. It addresses human concerns and our human future. It often has admonitions and warnings, even about the misuse of science as the only way forward. Some of the best scifi I've read have nary an alien in it. Though it is not text, consider the positive message found in Star Trek about exploration, diversity, unity, self-sacrifice, and what it means to be human (even for aliens). And it does this (most of the time anyway) by trying to stay somewhat within the bounds of science or probable science. It seldom appeals to angels or demons or gods (in a literal sense). But it does appeal to the parts of human nature that resonate with these mythical (IMO) entities.

I concur with that, Rom. I appreciate someone who challenges or invites me to think more than someone who tells me what to think.

It has been said, within Christianity, that the Protestant Reformation kicked the Pope off the throne of authority and put the Bible in his place. Is there anything or anyone who carries some kind of authority for you in your journey? A certain teacher(s)? Certain writings? A certain community or denomination or religion? A certain worldview? Perhaps your own experiences? PS - By 'authority', I don't mean slavish obedience or above question, I just mean something/someone that you reasonably trust as a guide.

I appreciate your thoughts and wisdom on this, Tariki. It gives me much to consider, though I admit, being a Westerner, I struggle with the language.

That's what appeals to me also, Annie, hearing from varied sources of wisdom. I don't mean anything disrespectful, but the label 'Christian' doesn't mean very much to me anymore, especially when it comes to churches. My local UCC is very progressive theologically and socially here in Fort Worth (and very proud of it), while definitely having a 'Christian' context. But Landover Baptist also claims to be 'Christian' and that is a community where I would never want to be a part. But my wife, whom I love with all of my heart, is still deeply 'Christian' and though she attended the UU churches with me, she found that they weren't 'Christian' enough. (No crosses, no hymns, no scripture reading, prayers to God) I couldn't help but think to myself, "Where did Jesus teach to build structures with crosses on display? Where did he say to sing hymns of praise to me? Where did he say to have public readings of scripture or public prayers? But my wife is indeed a good 'Christian' and I respect her desires. She is most comfortable in the UMC right now. That's okay with me. But she has agreed to go to the UCC with me once a month. My role as her husband is to love her just as she is and to encourage her own spiritual journey, not to force it in any particular way or direction.

Seeing as I started this thread, I think the conversation here perhaps illustrates how the scriptures are seen and interpreted is, for some, at the heart of Progressive Christianity. For the older paradigm, the scriptures are God's revelation of himself and his will for Israel and then, most likely, for all of humanity. In this sense, the scriptures are authoritative i.e. they carry divine authority. For the newer paradigm, the scriptures are the views of ancient tribes (whether Hebrew or Christian) and are not authoritative for us. For some, they may be so out-of-date as to be almost irrelevant. For others, they may be helpful or useful if we have the freedom to bring reason, common sense, and morality to them, searching them out for wisdom that, though ancient, may still speak for us today. In this context, we may 'accept' some ideas and 'reject' others, much as we would do any other document that the ancients of any culture might have found meaning in. My own thoughts on respect: When I was a child, my father did his best to raise me according to what he believed was right. He taught me to be honest, to not give up, to do my best, to put in a hard day's work for my pay, to do the right thing even when no one was looking. But he also physically and emotionally abused me. I watched him occasionally beat my pets to death. I watch him beat my mother to where she had to be hospitalized a number of times. (They are both gone now so I don't mind sharing this.) Now that I'm an adult, I respect the things that my father did right. In fact, in his later years he managed to apologize to me for a number of things, something not easy for him to do. But I'm no longer under his authority, even if I can sometimes hear him speaking in my head. I respect him for being there in my formative years and for his part in shaping who I am today, both in wanting to be like him in some ways and not like him in others. But I'm not under his authority. I have my own life and I'm responsible to my own family to do my best by them. This is somewhat how I see the scriptures. I respect them for what they are, but they have no authority over me.