My Current Beliefs - Revision history

Andy Culbertson: Added the "Potential sources" section.

2018-04-01T02:51:12Z

Added the "Potential sources" section.

@@ Line 110: / Line 110: @@
 == Eschatology ==
 [[Category:Religion]]
 [[Category:Essays]]
 [[Category:Developing]]

Andy Culbertson: Changed some emphasis in the summary.

2018-03-20T15:25:37Z

Changed some emphasis in the summary.

← Older revision		Revision as of 15:25, 20 March 2018
Line 13:		Line 13:
	Religious authority is hard to establish. The Bible's teachings are fragmentary, its statements ambiguous. Its interpretations vary widely. It has problems of history and composition that aren't convincingly resolved. I see it as human writers trying to interpret life and history in light of their ideas of God. But ''I still see it as a beneficial source of challenging ideas that should shape my perspective.'' The church seems like a similarly messy source of authority, but I haven't investigated it. ''The Orthodox idea of the Church Fathers as authoritative based on their closeness to God intrigues me.''		Religious authority is hard to establish. The Bible's teachings are fragmentary, its statements ambiguous. Its interpretations vary widely. It has problems of history and composition that aren't convincingly resolved. I see it as human writers trying to interpret life and history in light of their ideas of God. But ''I still see it as a beneficial source of challenging ideas that should shape my perspective.'' The church seems like a similarly messy source of authority, but I haven't investigated it. ''The Orthodox idea of the Church Fathers as authoritative based on their closeness to God intrigues me.''

	''I take Jesus more seriously than the rest of the Bible.'' I haven't investigated very far, but ''I think the Gospels probably got him mostly right.'' His teachings confuse me, and he seems less patient than I'd expect or want. ''Arguments for his bodily resurrection seem strong. I pray to him and assume he's in heaven interacting with the Father and the world.''		''I take Jesus more seriously'' than the rest of the Bible. I haven't investigated very far, but ''I think the Gospels probably got him mostly right.'' His teachings confuse me, and he seems less patient than I'd expect or want. ''Arguments for his bodily resurrection seem strong. I pray to him and assume he's in heaven interacting with the Father and the world.''

	As for the rest, Christians agree on practically nothing, but I believe the following based on a mix of habit, experience, hearsay, logic, desire, and a residual attachment to the Bible as a source of theology. ''The Holy Spirit acts on people's minds to convict and inspire. I thank him for the good in my life. Sometimes I think of specific thoughts as being messages from him. The church is God's adopted family, represents him, and has no prescribed structure. People are saved when they ally themselves with Jesus. I think of the atonement as substitutionary and justification as imputed, and I vaguely believe in a traditional hell'', but my mind is open. I hope God can achieve universal salvation, but I don't count on it. I'm unclear on the soul's existence, since the brain is so tied to the mind, but ''certain near death experiences intrigue me. I don't know when or how Jesus will return'', so I treat the present world as if it'll continue indefinitely, though ''I do imagine a new creation in the hazy future.''		As for the rest, Christians agree on practically nothing, but I believe the following based on a mix of habit, experience, hearsay, logic, desire, and a residual attachment to the Bible as a source of theology. ''The Holy Spirit acts on people's minds to convict and inspire. I thank him for the good in my life. Sometimes I think of specific thoughts as being messages from him. The church is God's adopted family, represents him, and has no prescribed structure. People are saved when they ally themselves with Jesus. I think of the atonement as substitutionary and justification as imputed, and I vaguely believe in a traditional hell'', but my mind is open. I hope God can achieve universal salvation, but I don't count on it. I'm unclear on the soul's existence, since the brain is so tied to the mind, but ''certain near death experiences intrigue me. I don't know when or how Jesus will return'', so I treat the present world as if it'll continue indefinitely, though ''I do imagine a new creation in the hazy future.''

Andy Culbertson: Added the Summary section.

2018-03-18T05:20:45Z

Added the Summary section.

← Older revision		Revision as of 05:20, 18 March 2018
Line 4:		Line 4:

	For convenience, I'm organizing this discussion by the traditional categories of systematic theology. But systematic theology covers a lot of topics under those categories, and I'll only be addressing the topics that are important to me.		For convenience, I'm organizing this discussion by the traditional categories of systematic theology. But systematic theology covers a lot of topics under those categories, and I'll only be addressing the topics that are important to me.

			== Summary ==

			Here's a 500-word overview. I've emphasized the parts that my conservative evangelical friends can appreciate:

			Though ''in practice I still believe in the basic Christian notion of God'', I'm vague on the details, and the arguments for God seem weak. The cosmological argument proves little. Evolutionists have a strong position. Fine tuning assumes that humanity is a goal, though ''maybe the argument can work'', but it proves little. The moral argument assumes an objective morality, when noncognitivism seems more likely. The ontological argument assumes absolute definitions of greatness for properties that seem subjective. The transcendental argument is an appeal to consequences and assumes particular positions on several philosophical issues. Proper basicality seems complicated and wrong, but I haven't investigated. ''Plantinga's evolutionary argument might work.'' Miracles need extraordinary evidence, and even then we can't rule out unknown laws of nature. Mystical experiences could be caused merely by the brain, since it's still so mysterious. But to be responsible, philosophy of religion needs to consider all concepts of God, not just the Christian ones.

			Religious authority is hard to establish. The Bible's teachings are fragmentary, its statements ambiguous. Its interpretations vary widely. It has problems of history and composition that aren't convincingly resolved. I see it as human writers trying to interpret life and history in light of their ideas of God. But ''I still see it as a beneficial source of challenging ideas that should shape my perspective.'' The church seems like a similarly messy source of authority, but I haven't investigated it. ''The Orthodox idea of the Church Fathers as authoritative based on their closeness to God intrigues me.''

			''I take Jesus more seriously than the rest of the Bible.'' I haven't investigated very far, but ''I think the Gospels probably got him mostly right.'' His teachings confuse me, and he seems less patient than I'd expect or want. ''Arguments for his bodily resurrection seem strong. I pray to him and assume he's in heaven interacting with the Father and the world.''

			As for the rest, Christians agree on practically nothing, but I believe the following based on a mix of habit, experience, hearsay, logic, desire, and a residual attachment to the Bible as a source of theology. ''The Holy Spirit acts on people's minds to convict and inspire. I thank him for the good in my life. Sometimes I think of specific thoughts as being messages from him. The church is God's adopted family, represents him, and has no prescribed structure. People are saved when they ally themselves with Jesus. I think of the atonement as substitutionary and justification as imputed, and I vaguely believe in a traditional hell'', but my mind is open. I hope God can achieve universal salvation, but I don't count on it. I'm unclear on the soul's existence, since the brain is so tied to the mind, but ''certain near death experiences intrigue me. I don't know when or how Jesus will return'', so I treat the present world as if it'll continue indefinitely, though ''I do imagine a new creation in the hazy future.''

	== Prolegomena ==		== Prolegomena ==

Andy Culbertson: Added Prolegomena subheadings and remarks on statements of belief.

2017-08-25T04:19:55Z

Added Prolegomena subheadings and remarks on statements of belief.

← Older revision		Revision as of 04:19, 25 August 2017
Line 10:		Line 10:

	A central issue for me is faith and reason--how they relate, which of them "wins" (if either), what our obligations are to each.		A central issue for me is faith and reason--how they relate, which of them "wins" (if either), what our obligations are to each.

			=== My belief spectrum ===

	I have a growing skeptical side when it comes to religion, alongside my skepticism about everything else. My basic problem with belief is that the more I learn about how people think, the clearer I see how shaky and vulnerable human thought processes are. We get confused easily, except that a lot of the time we confuse our confusion for clarity, and we're confidently wrong.		I have a growing skeptical side when it comes to religion, alongside my skepticism about everything else. My basic problem with belief is that the more I learn about how people think, the clearer I see how shaky and vulnerable human thought processes are. We get confused easily, except that a lot of the time we confuse our confusion for clarity, and we're confidently wrong.
Line 16:		Line 18:

	Yet I grew up in Christianity, specifically conservative evangelicalism, and I'm not ready to toss it all out the window. So I've ended up with two basic mindsets on each religious topic, a believing one and a skeptical one, and I switch between them based on the situation. So in this article I'll talk about both points of view I have for each issue. Really I'll sometimes have a range of perspectives, some more believing and some more skeptical.		Yet I grew up in Christianity, specifically conservative evangelicalism, and I'm not ready to toss it all out the window. So I've ended up with two basic mindsets on each religious topic, a believing one and a skeptical one, and I switch between them based on the situation. So in this article I'll talk about both points of view I have for each issue. Really I'll sometimes have a range of perspectives, some more believing and some more skeptical.

			=== Thresholds of belief ===

	Some believers get offended when you question their beliefs. From a rational perspective this doesn't make much sense. Shouldn't people who value truth want to follow the pursuit of truth wherever it leads? Even if you think you've found the truth, it might be irritating to realize you still have more thinking to do, but should you object to it in principle? It seems like you should get over your irritation and get on with the pursuit.		Some believers get offended when you question their beliefs. From a rational perspective this doesn't make much sense. Shouldn't people who value truth want to follow the pursuit of truth wherever it leads? Even if you think you've found the truth, it might be irritating to realize you still have more thinking to do, but should you object to it in principle? It seems like you should get over your irritation and get on with the pursuit.
Line 23:		Line 27:
	It seems to me there's always some threshold to accepting or rejecting an idea, and the person who's asking a doubter to hang onto their first beliefs is asking them to move their rejection threshold further away, maybe an infinite distance away. This idea of a movable threshold seems helpful as I think through all the issues I'll be discussing in this essay.		It seems to me there's always some threshold to accepting or rejecting an idea, and the person who's asking a doubter to hang onto their first beliefs is asking them to move their rejection threshold further away, maybe an infinite distance away. This idea of a movable threshold seems helpful as I think through all the issues I'll be discussing in this essay.

	Some have made a theological argument for this perspective of belief as an obligation. In Apologetics to the Glory of God, John Frame argues that Christians (and all other people) have a duty to believe God as part of their overall duty to obey him. They should make their beliefs impervious to change by adopting Christian presuppositions as their foundation. This argument feels both right and wrong to me, so I keep it in mind as something to address.		=== Beliefs as obligations ===

			Some have made a theological argument for this perspective of belief as an obligation. In ''Apologetics to the Glory of God'', John Frame argues that Christians (and all other people) have a duty to believe God as part of their overall duty to obey him. They should make their beliefs impervious to change by adopting Christian presuppositions as their foundation. This argument feels both right and wrong to me, so I keep it in mind as something to address.

			=== Beliefs as wagers ===

	Another concept that's helpful to me is the idea of belief as a form of gambling. When you decide to believe something, whether consciously or unconsciously, you're saying you're willing to risk claiming it's true. I like [https://rachelheldevans.com/blog/why-christian-conference-recap Rachel Held Evans' take]: "I am a Christian because, at the end of the day, the story of Jesus is the story I’m willing to risk being wrong about." So with each of these religious issues and the possible positions on them, some key questions I'll be asking are what risks of belief I'm willing to take, on what basis, and for what rewards.		Another concept that's helpful to me is the idea of belief as a form of gambling. When you decide to believe something, whether consciously or unconsciously, you're saying you're willing to risk claiming it's true. I like [https://rachelheldevans.com/blog/why-christian-conference-recap Rachel Held Evans' take]: "I am a Christian because, at the end of the day, the story of Jesus is the story I’m willing to risk being wrong about." So with each of these religious issues and the possible positions on them, some key questions I'll be asking are what risks of belief I'm willing to take, on what basis, and for what rewards.

			=== Beliefs as experiments ===

	A related perspective I'll use is that a belief is an experiment. You treat it as if it's true for the purpose of seeing where it gets you. If it ends up not working out as expected, given your threshold, you can trade it for another one, though doubtless with some kind of difficulty.		A related perspective I'll use is that a belief is an experiment. You treat it as if it's true for the purpose of seeing where it gets you. If it ends up not working out as expected, given your threshold, you can trade it for another one, though doubtless with some kind of difficulty.

			=== Types of belief ===

	As I consider the conflicting religious ideas that swirl around in my head, I find I need to decide what counts as a belief. When you hear the word "belief," you might think it means "firm conviction," but many of my ideas that feel something like beliefs don't fit that description. They range from conviction all the way to speculation. Where's the cutoff point for including them here?		As I consider the conflicting religious ideas that swirl around in my head, I find I need to decide what counts as a belief. When you hear the word "belief," you might think it means "firm conviction," but many of my ideas that feel something like beliefs don't fit that description. They range from conviction all the way to speculation. Where's the cutoff point for including them here?

	Well, different kinds of belief will be more or less relevant to my goals in writing this essay, so I'll look at those briefly. Partly my goal is to have a starting point for moving toward several other broad goals: feeling more ideologically settled, interacting with Christians and non-Christians, thinking about issues of concern (based on my more settled ideology), and doing good. But largely my goal in this essay is to be ~~honest~~ and express my ambivalent inner reality without unduly worrying the Christians I care about. I think I can approach that goal by starting with the places I'm closest to my Christian friends' beliefs.		Well, different kinds of belief will be more or less relevant to my goals in writing this essay, so I'll look at those briefly. Partly my goal is to have a starting point for moving toward several other broad goals: feeling more ideologically settled, interacting with Christians and non-Christians, thinking about issues of concern (based on my more settled ideology), and doing good. But largely my goal in this essay is to be open and express my ambivalent inner reality without unduly worrying the Christians I care about. I think I can approach that goal by starting with the places I'm closest to my Christian friends' beliefs.

	So generally speaking, for each section I'll cover the following types of belief-related ideas:		So generally speaking, for each section I'll cover the following types of belief-related ideas:
Line 42:		Line 54:
	* areas of argument I'd like to investigate		* areas of argument I'd like to investigate
	* threats to my rationality		* threats to my rationality

			To highlight the ways I agree and disagree with my religious community, I'll comment on the statements of belief of various organizations I've been involved with. These are a good starting point because for the most part I've agreed with them in the past. I've moved around from one evangelical denomination to another, so my main source will be one that represents conservative evangelicalism in general, Wheaton College, where I did my bachelor's and master's degrees.

	I won't list specific ideas I'm open to believing, because that would take too long. Really I'm open to being convinced of just about anything, as long as it falls under my core ideals of reason and empathy. I'm much less open, for example, to views holding that only the strongest people should survive.		I won't list specific ideas I'm open to believing, because that would take too long. Really I'm open to being convinced of just about anything, as long as it falls under my core ideals of reason and empathy. I'm much less open, for example, to views holding that only the strongest people should survive.

			=== Simple belief ===

	Some people might want to convince me by asking me to just believe whatever they do. But as much as I like to make people happy, I'll have to push back, at least in my head. This is because everybody's point of view is different, and everybody's point of view feels natural to them. How am I to decide between them? I need good reasons, so we have to be prepared for some hard work.		Some people might want to convince me by asking me to just believe whatever they do. But as much as I like to make people happy, I'll have to push back, at least in my head. This is because everybody's point of view is different, and everybody's point of view feels natural to them. How am I to decide between them? I need good reasons, so we have to be prepared for some hard work.

Andy Culbertson: Added a discussion on types of belief to the Prolegomena section.

2017-07-09T03:20:22Z

Added a discussion on types of belief to the Prolegomena section.

@@ Line 29: / Line 29: @@
 A related perspective I'll use is that a belief is an experiment. You treat it as if it's true for the purpose of seeing where it gets you. If it ends up not working out as expected, given your threshold, you can trade it for another one, though doubtless with some kind of difficulty.
-On most of these issues I'm willing to be convinced. In fact, I think of many of them as open research projects, and I have resources in mind to investigate. Some people might ask me to just believe whatever they do. But as much as I like to make people happy, I'll have to push back, at least in my head. This is because everybody's point of view is different, and everybody's point of view feels natural to them. How am I to decide between them? I need good reasons, so we have to be prepared for some hard work.
+As I consider the conflicting religious ideas that swirl around in my head, I find I need to decide what counts as a belief. When you hear the word "belief," you might think it means "firm conviction," but many of my ideas that feel something like beliefs don't fit that description. They range from conviction all the way to speculation. Where's the cutoff point for including them here?
 == Bibliology ==

Andy Culbertson: Added to Prolegomena and Bibliology.

2017-06-12T19:08:42Z

Added to Prolegomena and Bibliology.

@@ Line 15: / Line 15: @@
 On top of this, I see that everything we think about God and the spiritual realm comes through human beings, whether they're religious authorities or our own minds. So I end up with the fundamental question, what makes us think we're not confused or even deceived about spiritual things?
-Yet I grew up in Christianity, and I'm not ready to toss it all out the window. So I've ended up with two basic mindsets on each religious topic, a believing one and a skeptical one, and I switch between them based on the situation. So in this article I'll talk about both points of view I have for each issue. Really I'll sometimes have a range of perspectives, some more believing and some more skeptical.
+Yet I grew up in Christianity, specifically conservative evangelicalism, and I'm not ready to toss it all out the window. So I've ended up with two basic mindsets on each religious topic, a believing one and a skeptical one, and I switch between them based on the situation. So in this article I'll talk about both points of view I have for each issue. Really I'll sometimes have a range of perspectives, some more believing and some more skeptical.
 Some believers get offended when you question their beliefs. From a rational perspective this doesn't make much sense. Shouldn't people who value truth want to follow the pursuit of truth wherever it leads? Even if you think you've found the truth, it might be irritating to realize you still have more thinking to do, but should you object to it in principle? It seems like you should get over your irritation and get on with the pursuit.
@@ Line 22: / Line 22: @@
 It seems to me there's always some threshold to accepting or rejecting an idea, and the person who's asking a doubter to hang onto their first beliefs is asking them to move their rejection threshold further away, maybe an infinite distance away. This idea of a movable threshold seems helpful as I think through all the issues I'll be discussing in this essay.
 == Bibliology ==
 == Theology proper ==

Andy Culbertson: Replaced the 2005 essay with the seed for an updated one.

2017-05-29T17:18:40Z

Replaced the 2005 essay with the seed for an updated one.

Show changes

Andy Culbertson: Andy Culbertson moved page My Current Theology to My Current Beliefs: I wanted a broader term than "theology."

2017-05-29T13:39:27Z

Andy Culbertson moved page My Current Theology to My Current Beliefs: I wanted a broader term than "theology."

← Older revision	Revision as of 13:39, 29 May 2017
(No difference)

Andy Culbertson: Fixed some spacing. Added the Religion category.

2014-05-07T04:40:09Z

Fixed some spacing. Added the Religion category.

Show changes

Andy Culbertson: 1 revision: Import of WordPress content

2014-05-07T03:57:51Z

1 revision: Import of WordPress content

← Older revision	Revision as of 03:57, 7 May 2014
(No difference)