I haven't let many people read my poetry outside of the classes I take at Wichita State—even though it is my minor, much of the poetry I write is either not worth publishing or of such a personal nature that I don't want to publish it. However, I thought that I should at least give you one of my larger works.
Over the last semester I've had to write all of my poetry in the rhymed, metered form of the sonnet, which I hate intensely. For my final project I had to write a Corona of Sonnets (a crown of sonnets), which is a series of seven sonnets all on the same topic—each sonnet begins with the last line of the one before it. I took some liberties with meter, but not with rhyme or sonnetical form. (I got an A with it, so there!)
A night in the forest of death and life
By Tyler Hiebert
1
The moment must end. Nature cannot live
Like God. Love will be lost on me, time, oh!
If I could feel forever, you, forest give
This life to me. Grant me a sight I know,
Only you can create. I turn, in love at once
With fog which floods this vision, framing fire.
Like a blockade the fog pushes back affronts,
Its ecclesiastical attire
As old as sun, moon and the stars. Freeing
As breath, a moment for eternity.
As if death were dead and dying and king
Of no person. Like God’s own arity.
Life began with love, and from time to time
A forest sprouts out of thin air—oh time!
2
A forest sprouts out of thin air. Oh, time
Do not flee from me like a bolt, like a
Child who sees a gravesite for the first time,
I step deeper into the forest. Where day
Becomes night and night is beautiful. Awe
Like the first time I met God, and knew
It was safe. I touched God there. I there
Dismantled my gods, one by one they blew
Away. I walked deeper still, thinking I
Would find more of God. I found a yellow
Blossom that grew in a patch of blue sky
Like a daffodil. It was dead, and I knew, oh
I knew, that was all I could see of God,
For no single one can run over Him rough shod.
3
For no single one can run over Him rough shod,
The old forest said—moss as eyebrows, trees
As teeth and birds as eyes, like this façade
Were its real face and I was its trainee.
And we laughed like old friends facing dead
And gone sensations that they did not know
Were all that dead—that they did not want dead.
The rain came then, like white sheets of shame. So
I walked farther into the night’s jungle.
The water mixed itself with this sorrow
Of memory. Flooded thoughts. Vandals
To privacy—like bullets they bring woe.
And it was there that I felt fear, not of
My loss of memory, but its sweet love.
4
My loss of memory! But its sweet love
Gave me a moment of bliss. Like the life
In grass, as it is passed by void of
All hope, for something younger, with strong life.
The deeper one goes in the forest the more
Death, life and fear become irrelevant,
Religious experience at its core,
Like a cathedral the forest climbs. Ant
That I am, I drop to the knees that I
Know well. And fighting panic I know by name,
I put my trust in God. Ferns grow awry
There, covering everything in dark green shame.
I saw a small branch growing from a large
Gruesome tree, like it grew from the same urge.
5
Gruesome Tree! Like it grew from the same urge
To sin as my own. Tree, cross of my Lord,
Let me carry your holy weight. Yet purge
The sum of me. Through the high trees roared
A million birds wings, each carried letters
From God saying—“I love you like My
Own Son.” Like old uncles in brown sweaters
Who give hugs with their eyes and don’t ever lie.
All C.S. Lewis like. A wolf black as
Night stares at me. Its head cocked like a
Gun ready to shoot—orange flames for eyes.
Love’s ugly sister incarnate. Three days
Of growth you may have on me. But my Lord
Destroyed you—beast that none can afford.
6
Destroyed you, beast that none can afford.
Yet I still run from you. Like fear is God.
The darkness of the forest with hordes
Of large mist covered armies, this demagogue
Called its own. I came to a stronghold
There, its windows lighted by all daylight.
A moat surrounded its outer wall, old
As heaven’s gates. I fell on my knees—knight
Of a realm that is dead. Still the gates opened.
And I was welcomed in to the warm room
A fire its sole source of light. A chair in
The middle of the room. A small bush broom
Sat before the chair. And there I ate—hidden.
The castle was there, and not there, my gain—
The winds feel like forgiveness, feel like rain
7
The winds feel like forgiveness, feel like rain
On drying lips. Like the dead carcass of
A deer, we are wolfed, still no pain
Just fear, like death. Howls meet our ears, wolves we
Know by name stalk the woods. Framing fear for
More moments than we can count. Art to see
In all nightmares. Our fire whispers old lore,
Dead druid tales, we are beginning to see.
The ghosts are coming out. Outlines are drawn
In the eastern atmosphere. Is this salvation?
The wolves are retreating in to the lawn.
The winds are whistling in abdication.
It’s like a fight for life with out a knife--
a night in the forest of death and life.
I hope you enjoyed it!
Showing posts with label Religious Experience. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Religious Experience. Show all posts
Sunday, December 19, 2010
Friday, December 3, 2010
(Part V) Religious Experience and Doctrine
Over the last month we have taken a fairly in-depth look at religious experience from the perspective of philosophy and apologetics. Today, we’ll focus on the theological implications of religious experience. Should religious experience reinterpret doctrine at any level? Should it change our lives? And what does the Bible say about it?
Obviously we wouldn’t have the Bible without religious experiences, because prophecy necessarily comes from religious experience and the Bible was written by prophets. However, the question remains—“can modern-day people experience the same kind of religious experience as the Biblical writers did?” The answer is pretty obviously no. The Bible is absolutely clear on this subject:
John 14:26 “But the Counselor, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, will teach you all things and will remind you of everything I have said to you.” (NIV)
Its pretty apparent that John is talking about the Holy Spirit will make clear what Jesus had already said. W. Hall Harris claims, “…in light of the connection with ‘all the things’ Jesus said to them, it is more likely that the teaching function of the Holy Spirit is not intended to reveal exhaustive truth to the disciples, but rather the full significance of what Jesus did and said while he was with them.”
Hebrews 1:1-3 “In the past God spoke to our forefathers through the prophets at many times and in various ways, but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son, whom he appointed heir of all things, and through whom he made the universe. The Son is the radiance of God's glory and the exact representation of his being, sustaining all things by his powerful word. After he had provided purification for sins, he sat down at the right hand of the Majesty in heaven.” (NIV)
The point here is that God communicated His Word twice—first through their forefathers and prophets and secondly through His Son. Adam Clarke says it best, “This Son, in the fullness of time, was manifested in the flesh that he might complete all vision and prophecy, supply all that was wanting to perfect the great scheme of revelation for the instruction of the world, and then die to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself.”
Jude 3 “Beloved, while I was giving all diligence to write unto you of our common salvation, I was constrained to write unto you exhorting you to contend earnestly for the faith which was once for all delivered unto the saints.” (ASV)
Here we see that the faith (or Word) was delivered once and for all to the saints (ourselves). Jamieson-Fausset-Brown Bible Commentary states, “No other faith or revelation is to supersede it. A strong argument for resisting heretical innovators.”
1 Cor. 4:6 “that you may learn in us not to think beyond what is written, that none of you may be puffed up on behalf of one against the other.” (emphasis added)
This verse clearly states that what is written is more important than anything anyone says later. Charles Hodge says, “That is, not to esteem minister above the scriptural standard. As Paul had been dealing with this subject, ‘nothing beyond what is written’ might seem naturally to refer to what he himself had just written. But as the phrase elsewhere always refers to the Old Testament, which were the ‘writings’ recognized as of divine authority, that is probably what he is referring to here.”
1 Corinthians 14:3 “…the one who prophesies speaks to people for their upbuilding and encouragement and consolation.”
It’s clear that prophecy is for upbuilding and encouragement.
These verses make clear that God’s Word is already written and that the role of prophecy in the church is for encouragement—not for doctrine. Thus, we can see that religious experiences, i.e. the ones that are prophetic, are not meant for the creation of new meaning in Christianity. However, these experiences can and should be uplifting.
In most cases, these experiences can change our minds, change our hearts and always remind of us of what is already written in the scriptures.
Conclusion…
Friday, November 19, 2010
(Part IV) Argument for God based on religious experience: The Argument
As I am sure you have come to see over the last three posts, the job of proving God’s existence based on religious experience is no easy task. We have taken a hard look at what religious experiences mean, whether they actually occur outside of the brain and whether there are explanations for the data.
In this post, we will take a step back and look at the larger picture. We will focus on taking the raw data we have accumulated and, too much like pieces of a puzzle, we will assemble that puzzle.
Before we can assemble the final syllogism, which I hope will hammer home the importance of this argument against atheism, we must present a basic first argument.
The first argument…
Note: Each number (like 1)) refers to a premise of the argument.
1) There are two ways of explaining reality: naturalism or supernaturalism.
For those of you who may be in the dark as to what naturalism is, I will provide a definition. Naturalism, according to the Encyclopedia of Philosophy, is the belief that “nature is all there is, and all basic truths are truths of nature."1 Thus, naturalism is the belief that all that exists is nature, and thus all that is true is nature. There is no room for a supreme, infinite and omnipotent Christian God in nature because nature is a god in and of itself.
Philip E. Johnson, a Christian apologist, points to the unmistakable conclusion of naturalism, “Evolutionary naturalism takes the inherent limitations of science and turns them into a devastating philosophical weapon: because science is our only real way of knowing anything, what science cannot know cannot be real.”
Supernaturalism then is the belief that something exists above nature. The supernatural is something that super(cedes) nature. In other words, supernaturalism asserts that things exist outside of nature.
It should be pointed out that the supernatural does not only refer to God. The supernatural is anything which exists outside of nature, so if ghosts did exist, then they would exist in the supernatural.
Stated logically, A can be explained by C or B.
2) Naturalism can only be true if nature is the only thing that exists.
We already stated this premise in the statement, “Naturalism is the belief that ‘nature is all there is’”.
Stated logically, C is true only if D is true.
3) Things exist outside of nature.
This is what we tried to prove in the last three posts—that religious experiences occur outside of nature. We did so by proving that they are real experiences people feel and that they happen outside of a person’s brain. Thus, we have proven that there is no real difference between a sensory experience and a religious one.
If our line of thought was successful, which I believe that it was, then we have proved that something exists outside of nature. Thus, this premise is upheld.
It should be noted that one could make many different argument to support this premise. One could argue that the underlying object of numbers is outside of nature, i.e. that numbers are not merely constructs of nature. One could argue that miracles have occurred in nature, which proves that something exists outside of nature. One could argue that scientific laws cannot be explained by nature. And any number of other arguments could be made.
Stated logically, D is not true.
4) Thus, naturalism is false.
This follows necessarily from the last two premises. Because naturalism claims that nature is everything and premise two proves that nature is not everything. Thus, naturalism is false.
Stated logically, D is not true, thus C is not true.
5) Since naturalism is false, supernaturalism is true.
This conclusion is more or less logically necessary following the law of non-contradiction. In other words, both naturalism and supernaturalism cannot be true because they contradict. Thus, since naturalism is not true, supernaturalism is true.
An objection might be made that I am committing the either/or fallacy. That is because it assumes there are only two-options naturalism or supernaturalism.
My argument doesn’t commit this fallacy. That’s because the fallacy assumes that there are other options. There are no other options. Either both exist or one exists—there are no other options. (Of course the supernatural could exist alone, but that would also negate atheism.)
Stated logically, A is not C, thus it is B.
The final argument against atheism…
The moment we have all been waiting for…the logical proof that atheism is false. We have taken a long road to get here, most of it necessary, and I thank all of you have stuck with it to this point. The argument is in a simple logical syllogism…
1) If naturalism is false, then atheism is false.
There is no doubt that if my logic up to this point is any good, then some atheists may try to avert my argument by suggesting that they are not naturalists. And we do find some forms of atheism in Buddhism, Hinduism, Jain and other religions, which suggest that no “creator god” exists.
There are several problems with this view. First, most of these religions (with the exception of Jain) do not teach polemically that atheism is true. And there are many who are not atheists in each of these groups. Also, none of these religions are prima facie atheistic. Second, most of these religions do have some kind of esoteric “supernatural” beings. Third, the use of the word “atheist” is different from the one I am talking about. I’m specifically talking about the form of atheism that is unreligious. Fourth, this is semantic and unrelated to the subject at hand.
Again, the atheist really has no choice here unless they wish to abandon the belief that the natural world is “enclosed” within itself.
Stated logically, either A or B.
2) Naturalism is false.
The point of the first argument was to prove this.
Stated logically, not A.
3) Thus, atheism is false.
Following premise 1 this is necessary.
Stated logically, since not A thus B.
We have completed the arguments! Thank you for reading these posts, I hope that they have given you confidence that atheism is demonstrably false.
Philosophically…
If this argument is true, it means that we are left with theism, polytheism, pantheism, etc. In other words, some kind of “supernatural” entity does exist. We have just started down the path of proving that Christianity is the true religion. However, this road is long and it takes a lot of work. The reward is huge and like anything that is any good, sacrifice is necessary. WE CANNOT GIVE UP NOW!
My next post will explore the practical theological value of religious experiences…
1. (“Naturalism", in The Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Macmillan, 1996 Supplement, 372–373)
In this post, we will take a step back and look at the larger picture. We will focus on taking the raw data we have accumulated and, too much like pieces of a puzzle, we will assemble that puzzle.
Before we can assemble the final syllogism, which I hope will hammer home the importance of this argument against atheism, we must present a basic first argument.
The first argument…
Note: Each number (like 1)) refers to a premise of the argument.
1) There are two ways of explaining reality: naturalism or supernaturalism.
For those of you who may be in the dark as to what naturalism is, I will provide a definition. Naturalism, according to the Encyclopedia of Philosophy, is the belief that “nature is all there is, and all basic truths are truths of nature."1 Thus, naturalism is the belief that all that exists is nature, and thus all that is true is nature. There is no room for a supreme, infinite and omnipotent Christian God in nature because nature is a god in and of itself.
Philip E. Johnson, a Christian apologist, points to the unmistakable conclusion of naturalism, “Evolutionary naturalism takes the inherent limitations of science and turns them into a devastating philosophical weapon: because science is our only real way of knowing anything, what science cannot know cannot be real.”
Supernaturalism then is the belief that something exists above nature. The supernatural is something that super(cedes) nature. In other words, supernaturalism asserts that things exist outside of nature.
It should be pointed out that the supernatural does not only refer to God. The supernatural is anything which exists outside of nature, so if ghosts did exist, then they would exist in the supernatural.
Stated logically, A can be explained by C or B.
2) Naturalism can only be true if nature is the only thing that exists.
We already stated this premise in the statement, “Naturalism is the belief that ‘nature is all there is’”.
Stated logically, C is true only if D is true.
3) Things exist outside of nature.
This is what we tried to prove in the last three posts—that religious experiences occur outside of nature. We did so by proving that they are real experiences people feel and that they happen outside of a person’s brain. Thus, we have proven that there is no real difference between a sensory experience and a religious one.
If our line of thought was successful, which I believe that it was, then we have proved that something exists outside of nature. Thus, this premise is upheld.
It should be noted that one could make many different argument to support this premise. One could argue that the underlying object of numbers is outside of nature, i.e. that numbers are not merely constructs of nature. One could argue that miracles have occurred in nature, which proves that something exists outside of nature. One could argue that scientific laws cannot be explained by nature. And any number of other arguments could be made.
Stated logically, D is not true.
4) Thus, naturalism is false.
This follows necessarily from the last two premises. Because naturalism claims that nature is everything and premise two proves that nature is not everything. Thus, naturalism is false.
Stated logically, D is not true, thus C is not true.
5) Since naturalism is false, supernaturalism is true.
This conclusion is more or less logically necessary following the law of non-contradiction. In other words, both naturalism and supernaturalism cannot be true because they contradict. Thus, since naturalism is not true, supernaturalism is true.
An objection might be made that I am committing the either/or fallacy. That is because it assumes there are only two-options naturalism or supernaturalism.
My argument doesn’t commit this fallacy. That’s because the fallacy assumes that there are other options. There are no other options. Either both exist or one exists—there are no other options. (Of course the supernatural could exist alone, but that would also negate atheism.)
Stated logically, A is not C, thus it is B.
The final argument against atheism…
The moment we have all been waiting for…the logical proof that atheism is false. We have taken a long road to get here, most of it necessary, and I thank all of you have stuck with it to this point. The argument is in a simple logical syllogism…
1) If naturalism is false, then atheism is false.
There is no doubt that if my logic up to this point is any good, then some atheists may try to avert my argument by suggesting that they are not naturalists. And we do find some forms of atheism in Buddhism, Hinduism, Jain and other religions, which suggest that no “creator god” exists.
There are several problems with this view. First, most of these religions (with the exception of Jain) do not teach polemically that atheism is true. And there are many who are not atheists in each of these groups. Also, none of these religions are prima facie atheistic. Second, most of these religions do have some kind of esoteric “supernatural” beings. Third, the use of the word “atheist” is different from the one I am talking about. I’m specifically talking about the form of atheism that is unreligious. Fourth, this is semantic and unrelated to the subject at hand.
Again, the atheist really has no choice here unless they wish to abandon the belief that the natural world is “enclosed” within itself.
Stated logically, either A or B.
2) Naturalism is false.
The point of the first argument was to prove this.
Stated logically, not A.
3) Thus, atheism is false.
Following premise 1 this is necessary.
Stated logically, since not A thus B.
We have completed the arguments! Thank you for reading these posts, I hope that they have given you confidence that atheism is demonstrably false.
Philosophically…
My next post will explore the practical theological value of religious experiences…
1. (“Naturalism", in The Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Macmillan, 1996 Supplement, 372–373)
Monday, November 8, 2010
(Part II) Argument for the Existence of God based on Religious Experience: Proof for Religious Experience
In this the second post on the Argument for God based on Religious experience we will consider the case for religious experiences as objective proof for something outside of nature. Essentially, this post will be an attempt to support the premises of the argument based on religious experiences.
Experiences make up the backbone of the way people see the world. We have a bad experience at McDonald’s and don’t go back. We feel rejected by someone and “defriend” them on Facebook. Experiences are literally how we make sense of the world. Senses play a pivotal role in understanding everything around us. We assume things based on experience—like if you kick a ball, it will move or that someone cannot be in two places at the same time. Logic, science and almost every kind of study is based on experiences.
So what happens when you throw a wrench in the system? What happens when someone experiences something that our experiences, or beliefs, tell us shouldn’t happen? Like a religious experience? Naturalists tell us that religious experiences don’t happen, or if they do than they are a figment of our imagination. They tell us all that exists is nature. However, some people have had experiences that nature cannot explain.
I will be providing the hard facts about religious experiences and arguing that, based on their propensity, something does exist outside of nature.
Religious experiences are literally the backbone of modern religion. It doesn’t matter whether you’re a Muslim, a Christian or a Hindu—you probably base your beliefs on some sort of religious experience. For example, Paul’s experience on the Damascus road changed him from a persecutor of Christians to one of the most notable figures in the Christian faith. Many religious experiences may not actually involve seeing Jesus or God, but they do convince us of our religious beliefs. Indeed, religious experiences may be the most basic reason for faith.
The numbers...
To prove that religious experiences occur, I will use the argument from numerical superiority. In other words, I will argue that a large number of people have experienced x, thus x is true. In What Americans Really Believe, Rodney Stark presents a Baylor poll in which two out of three respondents reported having a religious experience, with 45% claiming to have more than one experience. The respondents answered as follows:
Polls like this one, and there are others (including ones from Pew and Gallup), prove that a decent portion of the population has had at least one religious experience. It should be noted that not everyone who claims to have had a religious experience has had one. However, the widespread nature of the claims leads to a certainty that some have been true.
There is an important distinction to be made here; the poll is not saying that 66% of people believe in religious experiences. It is saying that 66% of people have had a religious experience. It’s like saying that 66% of people believe tattoos are painful versus 66% of people who have experienced having a tattoo and claim that it is painful.
Just think about this for a second. We base our whole lives on experience. The primacy of experience to science is so basic that without it science wouldn’t exist. The naturalist tells us that since we don’t experience God, as we experience the natural world, it is irrational to believe that He exists. Thus, experience becomes the test of truth. But wait, if the majority of people have a religious experience, doesn’t that make religion true?
The argument…
My argument is that since such a large number of people have religious experiences, there exists some kind of “religious plane”. What I mean by “religious plane” is that the human is not experiencing something inside of nature. If the experience were inside of nature then it would be understood by our physical senses. In other words, just as there are sensory perceptions (like seeing, smelling, feeling, etc.) which allow us to experience the world, there also exists a spiritual plain that can be sensed in a coherent way. It is vital to this argument that these religious experiences occur outside of the person. Just as we see a chair outside of ourselves, the spiritual experience must be “seen” outside of our brain.
For proof that these religious experiences are actual events that occur outside of our minds, all one must do is to point out that religious experiences occur throughout human history regardless of culture, race or religion. In particular religious experiences are not unique to Christianity or any one religion. It might be a different case if only “Christian Methodists” or “Hindus” had religious experiences, but far from being a single belief system phenomena, religious experiences have touched people of all faiths and all levels of intellect. Atheists have become theists, Christians have become Muslims, Muslims have become Christians, etc.
In the next post we’ll consider several objections to the concept that religious experiences occur outside of nature.
Photo 1: http://nooutcasts.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/07/paul-damascus.jpg
Experiences make up the backbone of the way people see the world. We have a bad experience at McDonald’s and don’t go back. We feel rejected by someone and “defriend” them on Facebook. Experiences are literally how we make sense of the world. Senses play a pivotal role in understanding everything around us. We assume things based on experience—like if you kick a ball, it will move or that someone cannot be in two places at the same time. Logic, science and almost every kind of study is based on experiences.
So what happens when you throw a wrench in the system? What happens when someone experiences something that our experiences, or beliefs, tell us shouldn’t happen? Like a religious experience? Naturalists tell us that religious experiences don’t happen, or if they do than they are a figment of our imagination. They tell us all that exists is nature. However, some people have had experiences that nature cannot explain.
I will be providing the hard facts about religious experiences and arguing that, based on their propensity, something does exist outside of nature.
 |
| Paul on the Damascus Road, 1 |
The numbers...
To prove that religious experiences occur, I will use the argument from numerical superiority. In other words, I will argue that a large number of people have experienced x, thus x is true. In What Americans Really Believe, Rodney Stark presents a Baylor poll in which two out of three respondents reported having a religious experience, with 45% claiming to have more than one experience. The respondents answered as follows:
Polls like this one, and there are others (including ones from Pew and Gallup), prove that a decent portion of the population has had at least one religious experience. It should be noted that not everyone who claims to have had a religious experience has had one. However, the widespread nature of the claims leads to a certainty that some have been true. There is an important distinction to be made here; the poll is not saying that 66% of people believe in religious experiences. It is saying that 66% of people have had a religious experience. It’s like saying that 66% of people believe tattoos are painful versus 66% of people who have experienced having a tattoo and claim that it is painful.
Just think about this for a second. We base our whole lives on experience. The primacy of experience to science is so basic that without it science wouldn’t exist. The naturalist tells us that since we don’t experience God, as we experience the natural world, it is irrational to believe that He exists. Thus, experience becomes the test of truth. But wait, if the majority of people have a religious experience, doesn’t that make religion true?
The argument…
My argument is that since such a large number of people have religious experiences, there exists some kind of “religious plane”. What I mean by “religious plane” is that the human is not experiencing something inside of nature. If the experience were inside of nature then it would be understood by our physical senses. In other words, just as there are sensory perceptions (like seeing, smelling, feeling, etc.) which allow us to experience the world, there also exists a spiritual plain that can be sensed in a coherent way. It is vital to this argument that these religious experiences occur outside of the person. Just as we see a chair outside of ourselves, the spiritual experience must be “seen” outside of our brain.
For proof that these religious experiences are actual events that occur outside of our minds, all one must do is to point out that religious experiences occur throughout human history regardless of culture, race or religion. In particular religious experiences are not unique to Christianity or any one religion. It might be a different case if only “Christian Methodists” or “Hindus” had religious experiences, but far from being a single belief system phenomena, religious experiences have touched people of all faiths and all levels of intellect. Atheists have become theists, Christians have become Muslims, Muslims have become Christians, etc.
In the next post we’ll consider several objections to the concept that religious experiences occur outside of nature.
Photo 1: http://nooutcasts.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/07/paul-damascus.jpg
Friday, November 5, 2010
(Part I) Argument for the Existence of God based on Religious Experience: An Introduction
Blaise Pascal was one of the most important thinkers in the history of philosophy, mathematics and religious matters. His famous “Wager” remains a favorite of Christian apologists. But Pascal didn’t always believe this way; when he was eighteen years old he suffered an illness that would leave him in pain for the rest of his life. Not a day went by where he didn’t suffer and, sadly, he took his pain out on those around him as well.
After a near-death experience in October 1654, Pascal lay unconscious for almost a month. On November 23, from 10:30 to 12:30 at night Pascal had a religious experience. He described the experience as follows:
“From about half past ten at night till about half past
twelve, Fire. God of Abraham, God of Isaac, God of
Jacob, not of the philosophers and the learned.
Certitude, certitude; feeling, joy, peace. God of Jesus Christ.” (Pascal Pensees 363)
The experience would change his life. In the next eight years Pascal would write the majority of his religious writings—changing Christianity forever.
I have also had what I suppose was a religious experience, though I feel that it is one of the most ineffable events of my life. All that I know was that all of my senses were dulled, I felt lifted outside of my body and I could see myself lying in bed. I was awake and I could feel a dim light around me. I also knew that I wasn’t alone. I literally felt like I was surrounded and lifted up. I had one thought the whole time: Jesus. I know it sounds cliché to say that I felt a word, especially one like “Jesus”, but I don’t wish to tell anything but the absolute truth.
There is no doubt that many people might be skeptical of my experience. They could claim that I was under hypnosis, for I was thinking about religion at the time, or that I had a delusion. That is of no concern to me and I suppose this is also true for anyone who claims to have had a religious experience.
Argument stated…
What I hope to do in the next couple of posts is establish an argument for the existence of God based on religious experience. In other words, I hope to prove that a “spiritual realm” exists outside of nature, because people have had experiences outside of nature. This is important because the Naturalism is the foundation of Atheism. (Naturalism is the belief that there exists nothing outside of what is physical.) By proving that supernaturalism is true, and thus that naturalism is false, I will have proved that God is necessary. There will be four premises to the first argument:
1) There are two ways of explaining reality: naturalism or supernaturalism.
2) Naturalism can only be true if nature is the only thing that exists.
3) Things exist outside of nature.
4) Thus naturalism is false.
5) Since naturalism is false, supernaturalism is true.
Based on this I will argue that:
1) If naturalism is false then atheism is false.
2) Naturalism is false.
3) Thus, atheism is false.
If atheism is false, then one must believe that a God exists.
At this point, someone may ask, “why go to the trouble of providing such an in-depth argument for the existence of God?” No one can ever prove that God exists; it is a decision every man and woman will have to make independently. However it is of essential importance to give people a reason to believe that God exists. If God doesn’t exist, then your faith is pointless. Paul makes the same point with Christ, “…if Christ has not been raised, our preaching is useless and so is your faith.” (1 Corinthians 15:14 NIV). If God doesn’t exist, then the first words of the Bible are meaningless, “In the beginning God…” You might say that it doesn’t matter whether it’s rational to believe in God or not. It may not matter to someone who has experienced God in their own life, but to people who have not, it can be very important. It’s also essential to the defense of the Christian faith as well as the study of theology.
In the next couple of posts, I hope to establish the fact that something exists outside of nature. I’ll do this by providing proof that religious experiences occur outside of nature. Essentially, if such things as religious experiences occur, and if they occur outside of the mind, then nature cannot be everything. If I establish this premise in the next few posts I will have proven the hardest part of this argument for God’s existence.
Religious Experience: Definitions
I will start by defining religious experience. Generally speaking, religious experience is considered something that the individual (or group) has which lasts for a short period of time, something in which the individual feels that they have learned something of value, and something that cannot be reproduced. What this means in plain language is that religious experience is a one-time, unrepeatable event that the individual feels was valuable. This is basically the definition put forward by William James. However, I have taken out his second criteria—i.e. the inability of description. The reason for this is that some individuals are better able to communicate than others.
At this point, it is important to make a distinction. There is a difference between “experiences” and “beliefs”. Experiences are actual events that we sense. Beliefs are ideas, symbols, etc. that we believe in. The two concepts can inform each other (for example, our beliefs do play a role in how we interpret experiences). However, beliefs do not dictate experiences. If Jesus Christ did walk out of the tomb, then it was an actual event that anyone who was there could have witnessed. They may disagree over how it happened. But the fact that Jesus walked out of a tomb would be agreed to by spectators regardless of whether they were atheists or theists.
I hope that you will be able to read all five of my posts. Remember, they will always be available via the archive. Please feel free to follow this blog or comment on any of my posts.
Coming soon…Part II: Argument for the Existence of God based on Religious Experience:
(Pascal's Pensées, translated by H.F. Stewart (New York: Modern Library, 1947), p.363.)
Photo source: http://www.mathematik.ch/mathematiker/pascal.php
After a near-death experience in October 1654, Pascal lay unconscious for almost a month. On November 23, from 10:30 to 12:30 at night Pascal had a religious experience. He described the experience as follows:
“From about half past ten at night till about half past
twelve, Fire. God of Abraham, God of Isaac, God of
Jacob, not of the philosophers and the learned.
Certitude, certitude; feeling, joy, peace. God of Jesus Christ.” (Pascal Pensees 363)
 |
| Pascal |
I have also had what I suppose was a religious experience, though I feel that it is one of the most ineffable events of my life. All that I know was that all of my senses were dulled, I felt lifted outside of my body and I could see myself lying in bed. I was awake and I could feel a dim light around me. I also knew that I wasn’t alone. I literally felt like I was surrounded and lifted up. I had one thought the whole time: Jesus. I know it sounds cliché to say that I felt a word, especially one like “Jesus”, but I don’t wish to tell anything but the absolute truth.
There is no doubt that many people might be skeptical of my experience. They could claim that I was under hypnosis, for I was thinking about religion at the time, or that I had a delusion. That is of no concern to me and I suppose this is also true for anyone who claims to have had a religious experience.
Argument stated…
What I hope to do in the next couple of posts is establish an argument for the existence of God based on religious experience. In other words, I hope to prove that a “spiritual realm” exists outside of nature, because people have had experiences outside of nature. This is important because the Naturalism is the foundation of Atheism. (Naturalism is the belief that there exists nothing outside of what is physical.) By proving that supernaturalism is true, and thus that naturalism is false, I will have proved that God is necessary. There will be four premises to the first argument:
1) There are two ways of explaining reality: naturalism or supernaturalism.
2) Naturalism can only be true if nature is the only thing that exists.
3) Things exist outside of nature.
4) Thus naturalism is false.
5) Since naturalism is false, supernaturalism is true.
Based on this I will argue that:
1) If naturalism is false then atheism is false.
2) Naturalism is false.
3) Thus, atheism is false.
If atheism is false, then one must believe that a God exists.
At this point, someone may ask, “why go to the trouble of providing such an in-depth argument for the existence of God?” No one can ever prove that God exists; it is a decision every man and woman will have to make independently. However it is of essential importance to give people a reason to believe that God exists. If God doesn’t exist, then your faith is pointless. Paul makes the same point with Christ, “…if Christ has not been raised, our preaching is useless and so is your faith.” (1 Corinthians 15:14 NIV). If God doesn’t exist, then the first words of the Bible are meaningless, “In the beginning God…” You might say that it doesn’t matter whether it’s rational to believe in God or not. It may not matter to someone who has experienced God in their own life, but to people who have not, it can be very important. It’s also essential to the defense of the Christian faith as well as the study of theology.
In the next couple of posts, I hope to establish the fact that something exists outside of nature. I’ll do this by providing proof that religious experiences occur outside of nature. Essentially, if such things as religious experiences occur, and if they occur outside of the mind, then nature cannot be everything. If I establish this premise in the next few posts I will have proven the hardest part of this argument for God’s existence.
Religious Experience: Definitions
I will start by defining religious experience. Generally speaking, religious experience is considered something that the individual (or group) has which lasts for a short period of time, something in which the individual feels that they have learned something of value, and something that cannot be reproduced. What this means in plain language is that religious experience is a one-time, unrepeatable event that the individual feels was valuable. This is basically the definition put forward by William James. However, I have taken out his second criteria—i.e. the inability of description. The reason for this is that some individuals are better able to communicate than others.
At this point, it is important to make a distinction. There is a difference between “experiences” and “beliefs”. Experiences are actual events that we sense. Beliefs are ideas, symbols, etc. that we believe in. The two concepts can inform each other (for example, our beliefs do play a role in how we interpret experiences). However, beliefs do not dictate experiences. If Jesus Christ did walk out of the tomb, then it was an actual event that anyone who was there could have witnessed. They may disagree over how it happened. But the fact that Jesus walked out of a tomb would be agreed to by spectators regardless of whether they were atheists or theists.
I hope that you will be able to read all five of my posts. Remember, they will always be available via the archive. Please feel free to follow this blog or comment on any of my posts.
Coming soon…Part II: Argument for the Existence of God based on Religious Experience:
(Pascal's Pensées, translated by H.F. Stewart (New York: Modern Library, 1947), p.363.)
Photo source: http://www.mathematik.ch/mathematiker/pascal.php
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)