Energion Direct

Tag: evidence

  • Science, Religion, and Subjective Evidence

    Science, Religion, and Subjective Evidence

    Five Creation Books from EnergionIn our informal series of books on issues related to creation we’ve discussed how creation is represented in scripture, how one goes about forming a doctrine of creation that is truly Christian, and how someone who accepts evolution might reflect his in worship. Soon we will have a volume on how our understanding of God as creator impacts our lives now, and finally we’ll have a volume that talks about the basic science one needs to know about origins in order to understand the debates on the topic.
    Chris Eyre is one of our editors working out of the UK. He’s been working on editing the manuscript for Creation in Contemporary Experience, which is coming soon. He posted something today regarding science and religion, and the nature of internal or subjective evidence. Where does our experience stand as evidence? (Note that, as a good editor, he does not cite this forthcoming book in his post, but it is closely related.)
    In discussing such concepts of God as “ground of all being,” for example, he notes:

    They also, from my perspective, fail to explain all of the evidence, as they do not give any real insight into the mystical experience, the direct unmediated experience of God, which I take as a piece of evidence, as I mentioned above. They do have a transcendent aspect, which is singularly lacking in scientific materialism, and which is well harmonised with immanence of a sort, but it is a vastly impersonal immanence. The mystical experience is in my experience a vastly personal one, and I don’t find this reflected in “ground of all being” or “being itself” theologies, nor in the extremes of the God-of-absence of, for instance, Peter Rollins.
    I need something which at least explains the mystical experience as I have experienced it, which accounts for the evidence (albeit entirely personal) I have. …

    In his recent book Philosophy for Believers, Edward W. H. Vick occupies an entire chapter (6: Experience and God) on this topic. In this paragraph I hear a reflection of Chris’s discussion:

    For the theist the question of God is involved when the question
    of the purpose of existence is raised. At such point in our lives
    we may be faced with the question of the meaning of the whole,
    when ‘openings into the depths of life’ lead us to ask about the
    ground and goal of our existence. (p. 112)

    So what do you think? Is experience valid evidence? If so, does it operate only for the person who experiences, or can that evidence be shared?

  • Elgin Hushbeck: All Beliefs are Beliefs

    Elgin Hushbeck: All Beliefs are Beliefs

    elgin_100x119Response #1 to Philosophy for Believers.
    Edward Vick in his book Philosophy for Believers  opens with a statement that is, I believe, undoubtedly true, yet also controversial.  Vick claims that, “We all have many and varied beliefs.”  It is true because of course different people have different beliefs and not all beliefs are created equal. Different beliefs can have differing levels of support.  Even people who hold the same belief may do so for differing of reasons.
    For example, studies show that most people get their political beliefs from their parents.   Many end up with political beliefs which are fairly similar to those of their parents.  However while this is possibly acceptable as a general rule, it is hardly a universal one.   Some, for reasons of family dynamics, will adopt views in conflict with their parents.  Still others will make their own assessment of the evidence and reach their own conclusions. A wide variety of beliefs held for a variety of reasons.

    Different people have different beliefs and not all beliefs are created equal.

    Where this gets controversial is that for some skeptics, there is an additional factor when it comes to considering religious beliefs.  For some skeptics religious beliefs are not just another classification of beliefs, like we might classify beliefs about politics, history or science.  Religious beliefs are an inherently different type of belief, a type of belief that is by definition false, though some would soften this somewhat by saying that they are simply unknowable.   On the other hand, they do not see their beliefs to be beliefs at all; they are just facts to be accepted.
    This is why some skeptics are able to make claims such as ‘there is no evidence for the existence of God.’  Such claims have little to do with the evidence or lack thereof.  Rather, this is more an expression of the skeptic’s belief that there can be no evidence because it is a religious belief. Such views are untenable.  One can have a legitimate debate about the evidence for God, and whether or not it is sufficient to accept a belief in God, but not whether or not any evidence exists.
    Vick’s approach is particularly valuable, in that because of the success of science in discovering the laws that govern the natural word, this has led to the attempt to label a great many beliefs “scientific” on the one hand, and a tendency to automatically accept any belief that is so labeled on the other.   If nothing else, the history of science shows this to be questionable as it is full of examples of accepted scientific views which were later to be over turned by further discovery.
    Ultimately, Vick’s approach is helpful in that it sees beliefs as something not just to be accepted or rejected, but as things to be considered and evaluated.

    Elgin Hushbeck, Jr. is both a Christian apologist and a businessman. He is author of Energion titles Evidence for the Bible, Christianity and Secularism, and Preserving Democracy.

Energion Direct
Powered by  GDPR Cookie Compliance
Privacy Overview

This website uses cookies so that we can provide you with the best user experience possible. Cookie information is stored in your browser and performs functions such as recognising you when you return to our website and helping our team to understand which sections of the website you find most interesting and useful.