Doctrine of Election

This is a concise reason that demonstrates some of the internalist logic and linguistic/metaphysical dissonance I found during my christian days. It’s not conclusive evidence per se, but just an oddity of religious dogma. Anyone who doesn’t accept election as a valid dogma won’t have a problem with this, but I think their exegesis is a bit faulty.

Subjectivity of the “Spirit”

Reason number 5 for my wandering has to do with the doctrine of the “Holy Spirit,” or Pneumatology for you theologians. If there is one thing that would cause a serious 180 degree turn around in my thinking now, it’s this. Thoughts, theories, dogmas, doctrines, uses and abuses about the HS have wreaked havoc on any intelligent form of christianity. The plethora of views and the myriads of claimed experiences are enough to make you think you’ve been “slain in the spirit” and fall down on the ground rolling with “holy laughter” only to get up and “speak in tongues” as you cry out to the Lord in gratitude! Habish-kalacka-gustica-nishtera-blah-blah-blah!! Thank you JESUS!

Internalist Logic

This is not a post about formal logic. It’s about a tendency that is common in Christian circles, but not necessarily universal nor without exception or contrast. As I said in my original Reasons for Wandering post, these are all to some degree informal and existential as well as purely rational.

There are two doctrines in Protestant Christianity that are extremely important and helped to shape Protestantism in various ways. These two are Sola Scriptura and an attending principle that says “Scripture interprets Scripture.” The result of these two teachings seems to be a sort of anti-realism based upon the statements and interpretations of a book. The result of saying that only the Bible is truth and that it interprets itself is a tightly closed circle that ends up creating its own reality through which the world is seen. It becomes unassailable and impenetrable. Presuppositional apologetics even went a theoretical step further in propounding the Bible’s “self-authenticating” nature, which has become their foundational axiom in a sort of Plantingian “properly basic” sort of way.

Apostasy or Interim?

The move to hold theistic beliefs in suspense, let alone to take the step of actual disbelief, is a difficult one in our current culture. There’s no popular support groups or counselling meetings for those who decide to take such a step. It’s different than leaving a cult, when none of your family members are also cult members. In those situations, the entire support network is trying to remove you from a “belief circle” and transfer you into a whole new “belief circle” with an associated social network. However, when your entire existing social and epistemic network is theistic, it can be difficult because the move of disbelief essentially means a move into isolation or dissociation. For some who may not have many social connections or collateral, it may not be too difficult. But for those who are integrally connected, this is tough.

Objectivity & Universality

There’s some very interesting discussion going on right now at www.philaletheia.thetruthtree.com over Euthyphro’s Dilemma. Here is a summary taken from the post:

Socrates asks Euthyphro: “Is the pious loved by the gods because it is pious, or is it pious because it is loved by the gods?” In monotheistic terms, this is usually transformed into: “Is what is moral commanded by God because it is moral, or is it moral because it’s commanded by God?”.

It’s brought up the issue of objectivity in moral philosophy. You’ll just have to read the post and comments to get the whole story, and it’s definitely worth it. But one thing has become clearly important and worth posting about, the definition of objectivity.

Theistic Agnosticism

As a first step towards a brief bio, let me explain my conception of theistic agnosticism. I use the term agnostic in the old meaning of “without knowledge.” At this point in my life I don’t know conclusively that there is a God, or what this god is, or what s/he is like, or how many there are or aren’t. So as I said, in some sense I don’t have conclusive knowledge. I don’t like the “new” meaning of agnosticism as “non-knowable.” I’m not claiming that nothing is categorically knowable by virtue of our very cognitive faculties concerning metaphysical substantivity (wow, that sounded convoluted, my apologies).