Literary interpretation of the Bible is one thing, but to believe its supernatural claims is something else. That’s the point, put simply. Do you give similar credence to other books, by the way? It seems to me that someone who was honestly searching for the real god would not settle upon the prominent holy text of his culture, and fail to examine in similar detail the god-claims of other cultures’ texts. Any less of an effort seems a little too convenient to be considered honest in my opinion.

I brought it up in relation to the previous set of questions about why a divine Jesus is literal, or God, or miracles, etc. in contexts that are not,

Well, I don’t agree with you that all passages about the divinity of Christ, or God, or miracles are strictly “non-literal”, so it’s a non-issue for me. Just because parts of the Bible are not “literal” doesn’t mean none of it is.

May I take this response to be an affirmative to the question “Do you speak of these elements as if they are coming together to support a belief, and the coming together is itself significant as to their validity?”

Sure, if you like.

es, if I didn’t believe in the divinity of Christ it would affect my Christian faith. That’s so obvious and banal I’m not even sure why you brought it up.

I brought it up in relation to the previous set of questions about why a divine Jesus is literal, or God, or miracles, etc. in contexts that are not, to which you thought me a foundationalist and you a networkist, or whatever, and that your network would simply adjust to changes and not be destroyed, etc. I was just following the direction of your argument. But, I’ll let it go.

I think we’ve already pretty well established that your experiences have been nothing like my own experiences.

May I take this response to be an affirmative to the question “Do you speak of these elements as if they are coming together to support a belief, and the coming together is itself significant as to their validity?”

What I was getting at was not “the entire network” of your thought (which includes much that we agree about), but that section of it where Jesus lives. I would think that a “major adjustment” is an understatement. If your network is interconnected, then removing Jesus from it would impact everything else, though not making it fall apart according to you. The question for you is what would be the impact of this removal on your Christian faith?

I don’t know what the impact would be. I suppose I could go the Arian route and say that Jesus as a prophet inspired by God, or I suppose rejecting the divinity of Christ could lead to a domino effect and lead me to reject God’s existence altogether, though I’m not sure why it would necessarily do that since my belief in God is not contingent on my belief in Jesus.

At any rate why don’t you just cut to the chase and explain what your point is with this line of questioning anyway? We’ve gotten so far off track that I really don’t even know where you’re going with this at all. Yes, if I didn’t believe in the divinity of Christ it would affect my Christian faith. That’s so obvious and banal I’m not even sure why you brought it up.

Do you speak of these elements as if they are coming together to support a belief, and the coming together is itself significant as to their validity? In my experience these things are all parts of a whole that is pieced together in one’s experience. They are not consistent of themselves, but are made to fit together, and it is precisely this fitting process, and the product of it, that occupies the mind of the theologically-inclined.

I think we’ve already pretty well established that your experiences have been nothing like my own experiences.

. . . just speaking personally, my religious beliefs are based on an interconnection between my philosophical reasonings, my personal experiences, my familiarity with the experiences of others both past and present (which is essentially what tradition is), and my examination of scripture. To me they all support and mutually interpret each other.

Do you speak of these elements as if they are coming together to support a belief, and the coming together is itself significant as to their validity? In my experience these things are all parts of a whole that is pieced together in one’s experience. They are not consistent of themselves, but are made to fit together, and it is precisely this fitting process, and the product of it, that occupies the mind of the theologically-inclined.

Throwing out terms like ‘foundationalist’ are not explanatory.
You choose the metaphor that pleases you, it makes little difference.

you:

I’m sorry, I assumed you were familiar with basic epistemological theory. If not, feel free to check out the Wikipedia articles on “foundationalism” and “coherentism”. As one who has a degree in these subjects I’m going to have to disagree with you that these are “mere metaphors” that make little difference. Cartesian foundationalism has been a driving force behind Western society for 400 years now. Ideas matter, and how we understand the nature of our knowledge has implications that ripple out into many different areas of life.

me:

If, for instance, you remove the divinity of Jesus from your web, what is the result? Can you simply make an adjustment, or does your network fall apart?

you:

Yes it would be a major adjustment, but no the entire network wouldn’t fall apart. We’re not just talking about an isolated network of religious beliefs. We’re talking about the interconnected nature of everything I know and believe whether about religion, science, history, personal experiences, relationships, etc. If my beliefs in one part of the web change that doesn’t mean I suddenly believe in nothing at all.

To me your answer sounds like more multiplying of words and terms without really answering the question. But, I fault myself because I think you misunderstood what I meant. I should have appended the words “in this case” to the end of each sentence in the first quote. Ideas, of course, matter. What I was getting at was not “the entire network” of your thought (which includes much that we agree about), but that section of it where Jesus lives. I would think that a “major adjustment” is an understatement. If your network is interconnected, then removing Jesus from it would impact everything else, though not making it fall apart according to you. The question for you is what would be the impact of this removal on your Christian faith? Everything involved with that must occupy some area on your network.

By the way, I’m not a foundationalist.

Ouch! I choose to believe you are not as cold as you sound.

Just to set the record straight, you misunderstood my words. My intention was never to purposely insult anyone (other than, of course, my comments to Darryl). My admittance was not that I played games, but only that I agree (looking back) that my words could have been easily misunderstood.

It was wrong of me to assume that others would be able to understand how my mind works.

And I did get a little irrational when some sensitive buttons were pushed. I do apologize for that to all who had to witness it.

I’ll summarize my previous questions by asking this–and this is not rhetorical: how is it that believers literally believe ideas like God, Satan, Jesus, Angels, Heaven, Hell, miracles, etc. that originate in and are defined by passages of holy writings some or all of which are interpreted non-literally because for one reason or another they either cannot be believed, or contradict good sense, experience, or fact?

I’m pretty sure I did already answer your question. Let me repeat it again: genre and interpretation. Some passages are literal history (by ancient standards, not our own) and some serve other purposes (though that doesn’t mean they aren’t conveying different kinds of truths). I determine for myself which is which and what I think it all means by studying things like genre and history. I’m sorry if you don’t like that as an answer, but there it is, that’s how it works for me. I don’t have anything else I can tell you.

Throwing out terms like ‘foundationalist’ are not explanatory.
You choose the metaphor that pleases you, it makes little difference.

I’m sorry, I assumed you were familiar with basic epistemological theory. If not, feel free to check out the Wikipedia articles on “foundationalism” and “coherentism”. As one who has a degree in these subjects I’m going to have to disagree with you that these are “mere metaphors” that make little difference. Cartesian foundationalism has been a driving force behind Western society for 400 years now. Ideas matter, and how we understand the nature of our knowledge has implications that ripple out into many different areas of life.

If, for instance, you remove the divinity of Jesus from your web, what is the result? Can you simply make an adjustment, or does your network fall apart?

Yes it would be a major adjustment, but no the entire network wouldn’t fall apart. We’re not just talking about an isolated network of religious beliefs. We’re talking about the interconnected nature of everything I know and believe whether about religion, science, history, personal experiences, relationships, etc. If my beliefs in one part of the web change that doesn’t mean I suddenly believe in nothing at all.

This was the question:

I’ll summarize my previous questions by asking this–and this is not rhetorical: how is it that believers literally believe ideas like God, Satan, Jesus, Angels, Heaven, Hell, miracles, etc. that originate in and are defined by passages of holy writings some or all of which are interpreted non-literally because for one reason or another they either cannot be believed, or contradict good sense, experience, or fact?