Rodge

Harry, I'm not sure I understand what point you are trying to make. If you want to call objective truth "facts," and subjective truth "beliefs," I don't think it changes my point that they are two different concepts, and must be discussed differently. Aren't we really agreeing about that? Where we disagree may be your suggestion that a spiritual concept such as "God" offers any possibility of being defined. And that an emotional experience can be proved or disproved logically. Don't definitions have to be stated in literal language? And isn't metaphorical language, not literal language, used in claims about spiritual experience? I don't think St. Anseim's statement is a definition; it is an aphorism in the sense of being a cleverly stated subjective observation. To say that God is the greatest thing that you can imagine doesn't say what it is that you are imagining, and therefore defines nothing.

SteveS55, I'm not trying to find a home to "fit in." I'm trying to start a peaceful revolution. Fundamentalists and even Progressives like Bishop Spong are God-centric. They differ in how they define God, but they both seek to advocate a "true" vision of divinity, whether it be an active theistic God or a vague Ground of Our Being. I say this is a incorrect understanding of the church's mission. I say that the role of the church is not to persuade people that one experience of "God" is more right than another. The role of the church is to encourage people to celebrate their spirituality communally, as well as individually. The role of the church is to provide a place for people to learn and grow by sharing their various testimonies regarding their beliefs and transcendental experiences. This works only if the church is explicit in denying that it has the correct spiritual "truth," and explicitly recognizing that a person's experience of "God" is valid for that person, but not necessarily for another person. For the Christian Church there also needs to be an understanding that a source of guidance and inspiration is a human being named Jesus. Not the Christ of doctrine, but the Jesus of history, who had a profound sense of what it means to be human, and how we can try to fulfill our human potential. I have no illusions about the difficulty of separating Jesus from Christ, but I think that must be a goal. In summary, I think Christianity needs to transform itself from being a church that claims to know the truth about God to being a church that welcomes testimonials about personal spiritual experiences, under the guidance of what Jesus taught.

StefeS55, Thank you for your supportive words. I'm wondering if you think my points have any relevance for Progressive Christianity?

Harry, "Subject truth" is experience. It is our experience that leads us to objective truth. One cannot help but believe. I believe that morning sun will end the night. I believe that this keyboard allows me to communicate with you miles away. I believe that putting an egg in the refrigerator will not cook it. It is my belief that allows me to choose the objective. Why do you suppose that you must choose between the subjective and the objective? I think it is not a matter of which one to choose; we are constantly choosing both. I think it is a matter of recognizing which kind of truth we're talking about, and speaking accordingly.

Romansh, I lived as a materialist for many years, but I couldn't harmonize materialism with free will. I see the physical world and its laws as the foundation for our existence. But I think the operation of physical laws have the potential for the creation of something new. A prime example would be life. Life is not a violation of physical laws, but it is something that was not present at the outset; it has since emerged. I think the development of brains and central nervous systems also created something new — the experience of self. The physical world is full of electromagnetic radiation and vibrating air and molecules given off by crushed garlic. But color, sound, and scent do not exist in the physical world; they exist only in experience. We can experience the air vibrations from a French horn, but we cannot specify what that sounds like to us. If a tree falls in the forest, there are air vibrations, but there is no sound without a brain to create the experience. Finally, self-awareness evolved to the point that a human can think abstractly about his or her experience: What was the world like a thousand years ago? What will I experience upon my death? Is there some greater force at work in the universe? So, I see free will as additive, influenced by those atoms and forces but not prescribed by them. I See free will as the means by which non-physical decisions can, in cooperations with our physical bodies, influence the physical world. Even the materialist's sight is more than mirrors.

SteveS55, What if we call them "subjective claims" and "objective claims"? The reason I think the distinction is important is because I think the history of organized religion is that it is driven to make objective claims about the existence and nature of God. For example, God lives in a dome over the flat earth; disease and military defeat are caused by God's judgment; If you disagree with dogma, God wants you to be tortured into belief and, if that fails, put to death. Most of us no longer hold those beliefs, but the institutional Christian Church in its many forms, still insists that God is real, whether it be the judgmentalGod of Original Sin or the progressive God of Ground of Our Being. All this amounts to an intellectual fraud practiced by institutional religion, because these are all false objective claims. There is no detailed definition of "God" and no way to verify the church's claims, one way or the other. So long as the church continues to assert objective claims about God, it repeatedly is exposed as a false prophet and its influence wanes (just look at the rapidly vanishing church membership in Europe and the gradual eroding of the percentage of the American population who are church members). In contrast, a person can make subjective claims about the existence of God in his or her life, and testify to the impact that presence has had. Such claims cannot be disproven, but neither can they be validated for the skeptic. I think the solution for the Christian Church is obvious — stop preaching dogma and start an open dialog among members about their personal experience (or lack of experience) with the divine. And Progressives, in particular, should stop saying that a fundamentalist cannot experience a relationship with a theistic God. As you say, we are deeply attached to our personal experiences. To survive in the centuries ahead, I think the church should encourage sharing of subjective claims, providing one of the few places in our society where attention is focused on the spiritual side of life. The goal is to learn from each other, to deepen our spiritual experience, without trying to convert anyone to our own subjective claims.

SteveS55, Would it help to think of objective truths as facts? That the flower is a rose can be factually determined. There is a general definition of "rose" and it is possible for even a skeptic to examine the evidence and determine whether or not the flower meets that definnition. There is also a general definition of "red," based on the electromagnetic vibration of reflected light waves, and it is possible to measure that reflected light to see if it meets the necessary criteria. Much of what we do everyday is based on the assumption that there are reliable facts about what is going around us. And when someone claims to speak an objective fact and we disagree, there is a process by which we can both come to agreement about who is right. (Yeah Google!) But suppose that you say, "Red roses are the most beautiful flower of all." That is a statement of subjective truth, a statement of personal opinion, a statement about your personal experience of flowers. There is no general definition of what constitutes "beauty." You can argue that you don't find it to be the most beautiful flower, but you cannot prove that I am wrong to think differently. We can benefit by sharing the reasons why we do or don't think roses are the most beautiful flower, but we cannot determine who is right and who is wrong. I hope this clarifies what I was saying. When we enter into religious discussions without being aware of the essential difference between subjective and objective truth, we can end up with anger and division. If I say that your accepting Jesus as your Savior will enrich your life, I are asserting an objective truth — that what is true for me is true for you (and everybody else). I would object, and we end up verbally fighting, because there is no way to resolve the issue. But if I say that it is my experience that accepting Jesus as my Savior has enriched my life, I am asserting a subjective truth. There is no way for you to disprove my claim, so you can only say that your experience is different – that is your subjective truth. This exchange need not cause anger, and it may have the benefit of deepening our understanding of each other.

JosephM, I agree that each of us decides, subjectively, what it is that we believe. But it is real and not hypothetical that some things can be explicitly defined and independently verified. Another word for such objective truth is "facts." But other things can be only approximated by metaphors and cannot be independently verified. Another word for such subjective truth is "faith" or "spirituality." This distinction can sometimes be a little fuzzy,but most people recognize the difference between arguing what the temperature of the room is (an objective fact) and how comfortable that temperature is (a subjective belief). What's important, I think, is not the fact that we make subjective decisions about the significance of objective facts. What's important is the we make a distinction between subjective truths and objective truths in our discussions with others, and especially when insisting that others accept our subjective truths as objective truths. Specifically, when we insist that we know objective truths about the existence and nature of God, when there can be no objective truths regarding God, only subjective beliefs. Can you suggest a statement regarding the existence and nature of God that can be shown to be objectively true?

Romansh, I disagree. I think there is a clear distinction between objective (physical, universal) truth and subjective (experiential, personal) truth. Objective truths can be discussed based on literal definitions and examination of evidence. We make use of objective truths every day when we toast our bread, phone a relative in another state, turn up the thermostat, or ride an elevator. Subjective truths can be testified to using imprecise metaphors, with no means of testing or validating them. We testify to our subjective truths when we comment on whether a room feels warm or a symphony is beautiful or a transcendental experience is moving. In the context of this discussion, it is the difference between saying "God is love" and "I am convinced that God is love." The latter is a testimony to your subjective, experiential truth. But the latter is a false claim of objective truth, since there is no way to prove to a skeptic either that God exists or that God's nature is love, for starters because we cannot define "God" or "love," and we can offer no way to test the accuracy of the claim. Institutional Christianity has a sorry record of falsely claiming objective truths about God as it shamed Galileo, blamed victims for their diseases, asserted that plants were created before sunlight existed, and promised that faith in God would bring financial success. In the process, it has gradually lost influence as science, public education, and accessible communication have repeatedly discredited institutional dogma. I think institutional religion's future depends upon abandoning claims to objective truth and instead cultivating personal growth through shared testimonials to subjective truths. This involves a lot more than two sides of the same coin.

Fatherman, there was a time not too long ago when I would have challenged your testimony and tried to show that you are mistaken. Not any more. I have come to realize that spiritual truth is experiential and personal. So I can simply say that your personal conclusions are true for you, as are my different conclusions true for me. But there is no way for me to judge if either of us have a belief that is objectively true. While I will insist that there can be no objective truth regarding the existence or nature of God, I will insist that there can be a variety of subjective truths regarding such things. I should also say that I have a problem with the term "supernatural," if it is used to identify something that is a violation of natural law. I am convinced that human spirituality is true, based on my own experience. But I don't think it is anti-natural. I think of it as beyond-natural, an outgrowth of natural law, and in harmony, not conflict, with natural law. That's an idea that I would defend strongly. Beyond that, I have a tentative conclusion that spirituality can affect the physical world only to the extent that our free will causes us to do or say something. I'm less certain about that, but it does not seem likely to me that a non-phyical reality like spirituality could violate the laws of nature, could force something to happen that otherwise would not have happened. That would have been easier to imagine before we learned about atoms and gravity and the interconnections between A and B. If a boulder falling toward my house were to suddenly vanish, the disruption to natural law would not be limited to a specific time and place, but would send ripples cascading through space and time. And if such miracles were common, predictable nature would disintegrate into chaos.

Ah, I see now that there are multiple pages to these exchanges, so I ended up posting three responses, thinking they had not "taken" because they were on a second page that I did not know about. Sorry for my confusion.

Fatherman, I thought I posted responses to a couple of your posts, but they seem to have disappeared from the site. At the risk of repeating myself, I'll try again. First, My reference to the "Christian Church" was indeed a generalization. But do you know of any denominations that call themselves "Christian" that do not place God and Christ (God in human form) at the core of their teachings? I think this is a mistake in the modern world, since "God" is an abstract concept about which there can be no persuasive proof. The man named Jesus, however, is a concrete concept that we can (with difficulty) study and learn from, making that a superior foundation for a modern church. Second, you seem to be saying that you believe in a theistic God. If so, I'm curious about what that means to you. Did God create the universe, or did they co-exist from the beginning? The God's need for relationship exist from the beginning? Were humans part of the universe from the beginning, or a later modification? And what is the relationship you experience with God? Is it an emotional reaction, a sense of hope or joy? Is it a source of specific advice? Is it a directive about what to do? I hope it is clear that I ask these questions in order to better understand your subjective truth, not to pass judgment on it.

Fatherman, you wrote: "I'm wondering if you're over-generalizing by using the term The Church in this case. The Church to me has been a very good grounds for working out my own beliefs. I am fortunate to have grown up in the Presbyterian Church where this kind of thing is not only accepted, but encouraged. Now I have friends who see The Church as something that told them what and how to believe. If they used this as an excuse to me for not going to church at all, I would simply suggest that they try a different church, because there is really no The Church. There's my church and your church. Or my denomination and yours. " My comment: Yes, that's a sweeping generalization made for the sake of brevity. But am I really wrong? Do Presbyterians never talk about "God"? Do you know of churches that do not talk about "God" (however defined)? Are there Christian churches where I would be welcomed to declare that they should stop talking about "God" and "Christ" (God in human form), and instead focus on the human named Jesus and what we know about what Jesus said and did? Also, I appreciate and respect what you wrote about your beliefs regarding God: "I believe that God is eternal. I like the story that God has lived eternally in a perfect state of love, but he desired relativity. He wanted to experience loving and life in the form of matter relative to himself. Big bang. I believe that humanity is an experiment in love. Love is good stuff. But it only really exists in relationship. God is relative, he is a Triune force so God can experience love within himself, but maybe he wanted something more. God created something with free-will, great intelligence, the ability to form beliefs, the ability to ask if there is a God, perhaps all for the sake of love. Love only exists when non-love can be chosen. That makes us different than other forms of life on the planet. It also introduces suffering into the world. But I believe that God loves to grow good things out of our suffering. The more God creates, the more he can experience. All life emanates from God,or as has been discussed today Life Force, in every second in every cell of everything . I say "he" for lack of a better pronoun." My comment: Am I correct in assuming that you believe in a theistic God? You seem to suggest a God who has personality and purpose and ability to interact with humans. So, could you say a bit more about how you view this God's interaction with God's creation? Did God shape the universe and its laws, or did they exist eternally? Does God continue to intervene, causing events that can't be explained by natural law? What about God's interactions with humans? Are they constant and universal, or only in response to something humans do or think? Is the interaction something emotional )like a flooding sense of peace or joy)? Or advice about how to handle a problem? Or instructional about what you should do? Or commanding, like ann order to do something? I hope it is clear that I ask these questions to get a better understanding of your subjective truths, and not to challenge them.

Fatherman, you wrote: "I'm wondering if you're over-generalizing by using the term The Church in this case. The Church to me has been a very good grounds for working out my own beliefs. I am fortunate to have grown up in the Presbyterian Church where this kind of thing is not only accepted, but encouraged. Now I have friends who see The Church as something that told them what and how to believe. If they used this as an excuse to me for not going to church at all, I would simply suggest that they try a different church, because there is really no The Church. There's my church and your church. Or my denomination and yours. " Yes, indeed, I used a sweeping generalization for the sake of brevity. Do Presbyterians never talk about "God"? Are there actually Christian churches that do not have "God" (however defined) at the core of their religion? If I say that the church should forget about "God" and "Christ" (God in human form), and instead focus on the human Jesus — if I say that, do you know of Christian churches that would welcome that approach?

Fatherman, As I've tried to make clear, I'm not into judging another person's subjective truth about God. But I am eager to learn more from someone whose experience is so different from mine. First, "God" seems to be at the core of your faith. Did God come to you, or did you search out God? Second, Do you ever ask yourself questions like: Was the universe created by God or have they always co-existed? If God was the creator, why did God do it? Was the universe created with a purpose? (P.S. I love church music. I'm a member of a large (liberal) Methodist church with a vigorous music program.)

Harry, Something happened and what I was writing got posted before I was finished. So, continuing on. . . . Since I was in college I have had trouble with the idea of a theistic God and literal reading of the Bible. More recently, I discovered the writing of Bishop John Shelby Spong, who affirmed and expended my doubts about theism. But I also came to sense that, if there was no theistic God, then it didn't really matter much whether and what God was. During this same time, I got involved in some Internet discussions between theists and atheists, and came to see the obvious — discussion of "proof" about the existence or non-existence of God required physical evidence, and there could be no physical evidence regarding spiritual matters. (The effects of spirituality might be measured, but there was no way to prove that spirituality is the cause.) Still, I recognized that, for many people, a theistic God was an important part of their reality. To them, this was subjectively true, confirmed by their own experience. SInce I believe we are all recipients of the gift of spirituality, without doing anything to earn the gift, I came to believe that I should respect the product of my spirituality, as well as the spiritual beliefs of others — so long as someone didn't try to impose their spirituality on me. These were things I came to believe, based on my own experience of human life. These conclusions are important to me, and I think theyn could be relevant for the broader Christianity. At the same time, I realized that there are many things I don't know: Where did the universe come from? Did it even have a beginning? Is there some purpose to it all? Where did the gift of my human consciousness come from? What happens to "me" when my body dies? Such questions stir my intellectual curiosity, but only as a kind of hobby. I don't find them to be significant as I try to get the most from the gift I have received.

Harry, Thanks for sharing your extensive story. I hope you realize that it covers far too much territory for me to respond to here. In some sense, you seem to have journeyed from the most encompassing scale to the particular of your life. My journey has been the opposite. After years of hearing theological debates and trying to decide what I thought were "right" and "wrong" answers, brought myself up short a few years ago and decided to start with my experience and work outward. A prime question was whether I was an actor playing nature's script, or did I have a role in writing my own script. In other words, did I have "free will," which doesn't mean that I could do whatever I want, but whether I had the ability to choose among real options. I decided that many of my decisions were too trivial to have been encoded in the universe at the moment of the Big Band, and my mental processes of false starts and revisions were of a different kind from nature's pattern, which abandoned false starts but didn't go back to correct them. So I became convinced that I had free will, which required that my human consciousness had an element that was not the mechanical result of physical law. Voila! There was a non-physical aspect to my reality, which could be called spirituality.

Harry, Why do you use the form "life force" instead of "nature"? I don't know of any scientists who argue that "life" existed at the moment of the Big Bang. As a non-scientist, my understanding is that gasses were created first, then congealed into stars, which then created matter, which spread into space when the early stars exploded, which matter accumulated into planets, where increasingly complex chemical reactions created life, which evolved into creatures with brains and self-awareness, which evolved into spirituality made possible by human consciousness. What is wrong with calling this vast, mind-blowing process "nature"? What is added by calling it "God"? And what difference does it make to us, individually, that our brief lives are part of a process of conservation of energy? If, as I think, spirituality is a produce of human consciousness, individual spirituality ends with the end of my human consciousness.

Fatherman, I guess I have a different definition of "belief" than you do. My concept of religious belief is that it is deeply rooted, that it is a conviction that springs from experiences, learning, and discernment. It is more than a hypothesis or assumption. I cannot pretend to believe in something that I don't believe in. Your personal belief is that you have benefitted from a relationship with God. That is your subjective truth, and I would not dispute it. But it is not my subjective truth, and I am satisfied with my subjective truth, and do not find it lacking. My broader point is that the Christian Church should welcome both of our subjective truths, and provide a space for us to respectfully trade notes about our various subjective beliefs. The Church, however, should not judge our beliefs, and tell us that one is better than the other, because there is no objective way for an institution to evaluate subjective truths.

Fatherman, You addressed your comment to Harry, not to to me, but I couldn't help wondering if you really mean to say that fake belief can bring the benefits of true belief.

I'm new to these Boards, so I apologize if what i write here has already been thoroughly discussed. Suppose that I tell you that I have had a transcendental encounter with Zork that filled me with profound joy. Suppose you reply that you had a transcendental encounter with Manu that changed your life. We could then discuss how my experiential truth of Zork compares with your experiential truth of Manu. But then, say that I insist that the my truth about Zork is universally true, so your truth about Manu must be universally false, or at least that my truth is superior to yours. There is no constructive way to resolve this issue, because all spiritual truths are uniquely personal, in the sense that such truths cannot be defined, tested, and verified by a skeptic, but only offered as a personal testimonial. Instead, claims of universal spiritual truths lead to divisions and conflict. Just look at the history of the Christian Church's bitter fights over dogma. My thesis is that the church (including many progressives) fails to recognize the implications of the fact that there can be no objective truths regarding the existence and nature of God. Personal, subjective truths, yes. But no universal, objective truths. You can't prove anything about God, one way or the other, not that God exists, not that God doesn't exist. To me, this suggests that we should move away from being an authoritative Proclamation Church to being a welcoming Testimonial Church. Am I wrong? Can anyone cite a truth about the existence and nature of God that can be defined and confirmed by a skeptic?