Posted on 04/03/2010 9:50:37 AM PDT by betty boop
Review of Life After Death: The Evidence
by Stephen M. Barr
Life After Death: The Evidence
by Dinesh D’Souza
Regnery, 256 pages, $27.95
While much apologetic effort has been spent arguing for the existence of God, relatively little has been spent defending the reasonableness of belief in an afterlife and the resurrection of the body, despite the fact that these are among the hardest doctrines of biblical religion for many modern people to accept. D’Souza brings to the task his renowned forensic skills. (By all accounts, he has bested several of the top New Atheists in public debate.) He understands that persuasion is less a matter of proof and rigorous argument than of rendering ideas plausible and overcoming obstacles to belief.
One obstacle to belief in bodily resurrection is the difficulty of grasping that there could be places that are not located in the three-dimensional space we presently inhabit, or that there could be realms where our intuitions about time, space, and matter simply do not apply. D’Souza rightly points out that modern physics has broken the bounds of human imagination with ideas of other dimensions—and even other universes—and has required us to accept features of our own universe (at the subatomic level, for example.) that are entirely counterintuitive. He shows how blinkered, by contrast, is the thought of many who think themselves boldly modern, such as Bertrand Russell, who asserted that “all experience is likely to resemble the experience we know.” Another impediment to belief in life after death is our experience of the disorganization of thought as sleep approaches and the mental decline that often precedes death. While near-death experiences do not prove as much as D’Souza suggests in his interesting chapter on the subject, the discovery that many have a surge of intense and coherent experience near the very point of death does counteract to some extent the impression of death as mere dissolution.
D’Souza approaches his subject from many directions. In two chapters, he gives a very accessible account of recent thought on the mind-body problem and the reasons to reject materialism. In the chapter “Eternity and Cosmic Justice,” he bases an argument for an afterlife on our moral sense. Our recognition that this world is not what it objectively ought to be suggests not only that there is a cosmic purpose, but that this purpose is unfulfilled and unfulfillable within the confines of this world. Some of his philosophical arguments, however, are less happy. In particular, his use of Hume and Kant to undermine what he regards as the pretensions of science will provoke not only scientists, but all those who have a strongly “realist” epistemology. D’Souza can also be faulted for sometimes claiming to demonstrate what cannot be demonstrated. Nevertheless, even those who find loose ends in his arguments will be rewarded with many fresh perspectives on the only question that really is of ultimate importance.
I think you would have to provide some evidence that it was God's will, and not just something the Church decided to do.
It goes to the acceptance or not of the truth of God's word:
Now, of course this does NOT make me right in guessing God's motivations, but it does go to show that if it was good, then it was God's will instead of being independently the will of the men of the Church.
The whole (undivided, catholic and apostolic) Church of the first millennium accepted the "extra" books that were listed in in the (local) Council of Carthage (Third African Council) at the end of the 4th century. The Greek side did not accept Revelation (which is not an "apocryphal" book) of John until the 9th century.
I thought the Orthodox Church did not consider itself bound by any local councils. So, while there may have been "acceptance" it was not "official", i.e. it did not carry the weight of any holdings in the recognized (7-8?) pre-schism councils. If that is right, then it would seem that for Latins the Council of Carthage canon was "official" and in agreement with the Protestant canon until Trent, and that in Orthodoxy there really is no "official" canon to speak of in those terms. (That's my best guess. :)
Hmm. I have an ex wife who was not particularly promiscuous, yet caused the occasional typhoon.
take for instance Pat Robertson said that the January earthquake in Haiti was caused by the "pact Haitians made with the devil in order to throw off French rule in the 18th century."
Pat Robertson is a theological buffoon of the second rank only, yet is esteemed by many Protestants as being the televangelist with the least silly hair.
Now, of course this does NOT make me right in guessing God's motivations, but it does go to show that if it was good, then it was God's will instead of being independently the will of the men of the Church.
Negative. It does not say that. It says only that He works for the good of those who love Him in all things. It does not show that all good is God's will right here. You may have to lean on some other verses (other than Paul, hint, hint). :)
No, but the words of the Chronicler ARE the words of God, so there is no comparison to other words of God. They are all equally true and of equal value in and of themselves.
But the point was the same as to what "God's word" means. I don't know if I waffled about Jesus standing next to Ezra. I see that as an unrelated comparison. Ezra was a man and a sinner. Some of his words were worthless, but the ones recorded in the Bible were inspired and therefore the words of God. All the words of Jesus are of course the words of God whether in scripture or not. So, if I was hearing new words then of course I listen to Jesus.
That's the ultimate "proof" of every religion, FK. Using that method, I could "prove" my pink unicorns on Jupiter too. :)
Rom. 8:28 And we know that in all things God works for the good of those who love him
How do we "know "that? You will tell me the HS tells you or the Bible says so. Do you think I could use a similar argument in court and expect to convince the jury and the judge? "Your honor, I know because a little bird came upon my window sill and told me."? Or "The skies opened up and I heard a voice..."?
Now, of course this does NOT make me right in guessing God's motivations, but it does go to show that if it was good, then it was God's will instead of being independently the will of the men of the Church.
But how do we "know" that it was "good" except that we decided it was? Obviously some are not convicted that what is in the NT is really true (Jews, Muslims, etc). We explain that by quoting from the NT! They have no ears and eyes, and are not the 'elect.' And we know that because it's in the NT! And we know the NT is true because a little voice told us so...and so on.
What else would you call it?
We call it wrong when anyone takes credit for what belongs to God. The Apostolic Church was right to agree with what God had given to the whole of God's Church, which includes the Apostolic Church. However, God deserves the credit for giving us His word, not any men or group of men. The men of the Apostolic Church gave us their own words later in their own writings. Much of what they said I agree with and some I of course do not agree with. But I agree with everything that God deserves credit for.
FK: God's Church was given the correct canon and accepted it both according to God's timetable.
Can you describe the methodology and the process please?
I wasn't there, so no. However, suffice it to say that before any official canon was established there were several books floating around out there and some were naturally more popular than others. True believers and true churches were gravitated to correct books by God according to His plan. An unofficial general consensus was reached and most Christians were following the same general books. The Council was called and they basically made official what was already being practiced in general terms. God was always the driver, not men.
But if God really doesn't deserve the credit for the Bible and it really belongs with the men of the Apostolic Church, then I have no idea why they should not be worshiped. We would really owe our entire faiths to them if they handed us what the faith was. I know you all do not worship those men, but I surely would if I gave them as much credit as the Church does.
Trent merely confirmed what the entire Catholic Church had held from Apostolic times.
It can't be "merely" since it would have been simple to include the Dueterocanonicals with the rest of the original books. This was not done for some reason that is bigger than "merely". :) The original canon purposely excluded the Duetercanonicals, and they did so correctly I might add. :) They had their chance, and passed.
The Orthodox Church did not exist then, FK. But you are right that the Church, as a whole, was not bound jurisdicitonally to accept local councils' decisions. Each local church in those days had its own canon.
The decision of Carthage, which was under the Western Patriarch (the Bishop of Rome), was not binding to the other four. Rather it was binding to the churches under the Bishop of Rome only. In fact, early in the 5th century, a few years after the Council of Carthage, the Bishop of Rome states very clearly that the canon of Carthage is the canon of the (Latin) Church.
it would seem that for Latins the Council of Carthage canon was "official" and in agreement with the Protestant canon until Trent...
The canon of the Council of Carthage is not in agreement with the Protestant canon because it includes all the books the Protestant rejected a thousand years later.
The canon of the Council of Carthage (397) was ratified by a follow-up council a few years later (419). The text of that Council leaves no doubt that apocrypha were part of the Latin Canon long before Trent. The reason for that is, of course, that the Bible at that time was based on the Septuagint OT in the East and the West alike:
That stifles inquiry. It also leads to conclusions that promiscuous women cause earthquakes! Now if you think this is only something Muslims are capable of, take for instance Pat Robertson said that the January earthquake in Haiti was caused by the "pact Haitians made with the devil in order to throw off French rule in the 18th century." That's what happens when the Bible becomes all you need to know...and the source of all answers.
First of all I am speaking on a spiritual level when talking about "all we need to know". Secondly, it never stifles inquiry since a person other than Jesus has never lived to understand everything in the Bible. Everyone can spend a lifetime learning from it and still not come close to knowing every available teaching.
I am saying we should be content with this. This is very different from saying we should not, for example, explore space for the reason that it's not in the Bible. I am very in favor of space exploration (unlike the Bamster). God gave us the gift of wanting to seek knowledge both of this world and the next. The humility I am talking about says it is OK for much of the knowledge of the next world to be unreachable in this world. I would think that kind of humility would lead away from radical sounding or otherwise wrong interpretations of scripture like the ones you cite above. Biblical humility doesn't need to force or create answers where none are to be found.
That's not what the Bible says, FK. First it claims that anything you ask will be given and that the Holy Spirit will teach you all things. Second, the Bible makes claims that are just plain wrong. Third, the Bible presents a world of magic. Fourth, the purpose and nature of the world has been and still is interpreted by and through the Bible, or some other "holy" book.
Biblical humility doesn't need to force or create answers where none are to be found
The Bible is a collection of unrelated books, written by multiple authors (sometimes the same book has more than one) that everybody tries to "harmonize" and "reconcile through rationalization, numerology, semantics, you name it. In doing so everyone is creating answers where none are to be found.
Humility in the Bible is to be nowhere in the Gospels, with possible exceptions of the Beatitudes of Matthew and Luke, but most of the Bible teaches self-reighteousness and arrogance of the "elect." They "know," they have what is required, they are God's children, they are protected, they are favored, they are "saved," and others are not, others are damned, rejected, cursed, blind, deaf, evil, the children of the devil, etc.
How do we "know "that? You will tell me the HS tells you or the Bible says so. Do you think I could use a similar argument in court and expect to convince the jury and the judge? "Your honor, I know because a little bird came upon my window sill and told me."? Or "The skies opened up and I heard a voice..."?
Well, whether any kind of faith argument would work in court would depend on the makeup of the jury. If it was a civil case and the burden of proof was a preponderance of the evidence (more likely than not), and the jury was made up of Christians then it would be a slam dunk one way. If the jury was full of atheists, then a slam dunk the other way.
When Paul says "we know" he means we know by faith, which is supported by evidence around us (reasoned faith). Paul could easily have given several examples of God working good into his life, as well as citing countless examples from (then) scripture demonstrating God working good into the lives of His faithful.
FK: Now, of course this does NOT make me right in guessing God's motivations, but it does go to show that if it was good, then it was God's will instead of being independently the will of the men of the Church.
But how do we "know" that it was "good" except that we decided it was?
Theoretically, we could elicit two billion testimonies that the NT or whole Bible has been good for each. In court that would be some pretty heavy duty evidence. :) Whether or not anything is "good" we can either decide to link to an object (good for whom), or we can simply define it as anything of God.
Obviously some are not convicted that what is in the NT is really true (Jews, Muslims, etc). We explain that by quoting from the NT! They have no ears and eyes, and are not the 'elect.'
Yes, in one way we can say that "good" is relative. God's election is good, although a reprobate might not think so. However, and while your POV argument remains valid, ultimately if the Christian God is the one true God, then "good" goes back to the definition.
You have no idea how much confidence it gives me not that an American court might convict someone based on "skies opened up and I heard a voice from above..." as "evidence."About on the same level as the Inquisition.
ultimately if the Christian God is the one true God, then "good" goes back to the definition
Ah, yes, the big if. So, it 's all a conjecture after all...
But if it's true, is it still conjecture and not perception?
Ever heard of false perceptions?
Many cases come down to a "reasonable man" standard. On a relevant issue what is reasonable to a Christian might well be different from what is reasonable to a non-Christian. I don't see why that should be a problem. A jury of one's peers is going to include people of all faiths or no faith, and there are mechanisms for weeding out unfair bias. In the law a Christian's worldview is no less valid than anyone else's.
FK: ultimately if the Christian God is the one true God, then "good" goes back to the definition
Ah, yes, the big if. So, it 's all a conjecture after all...
In this case I was just stating a logical progression such as "if the earth has gravity and I drop a hammer, it will fall". No conjecture there. IOW, I could have interchanged "if" with "since", as Dr. E. alluded to.
You speculated that "...it 's all a conjecture after all."
And so I ask you the same question, knowing full well some perceptions are false.
If the "conjecture" turns out to be true, is it still a conjecture and or is it a correct perception?
Depends on what the conjecture was based on—lucky guess, educated opinion, inside information, a "hunch," etc.
I disagree, FK—if is conditional (conjecture); since is "conlcusional." I do realize that many people (conf)use the two as synonyms, but they are not.
The synonym for 'since' is because. For example: since [because] you are here, you might as well stay.
On the other hand, 'if' is used as uncertainty, a supposition. It can be substituted by words such as provided.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.