Time to Learn Greek!

In order to understand the Historical Argument, it is extremely useful to understand the Greek language! This is especially true when examining the existence of possible discrepancies (the existence or non-existence of discrepancies often times hinges upon the grammar of the sentence in Greek, not English). Because of this, I have decided to take an introduction to Greek class at Texas Tech.

Perhaps some of the readers would like to join me? The best way to learn Greek is to actually take a class, but there are many online resources as well! In fact, I am making myself one of those resources. As I learn the Greek language, I will be posting updates and pointers. I would also be happy to answer questions (or take questions and bring them to my professor). The number of posts I do on the Greek language will depend largely on the interest shown by readers!

Anyway, if any of you would like to take the first step, find yourself a copy of the Greek alphabet online and memorize the letters and the sounds that go along with them! If there is interest, I will outline the next few steps to take in learning Greek. Remember, any amount of Greek you learn will be helpful! This is especially true when you combine your knowledge of Greek with online resources such as NetBible.org!

Consciousness: Chapter 2 "The Spiritual Doorway in the Brain"

Have you ever wondered how you’re able to multi task so easily? Do you ever find it really cool that you can sense many things at one time? Do you know what consciousness is? One of the really interesting things about the brain is consciousness which is the state of being able to voluntarily respond to your surroundings. Imagine what we are aware of on a daily basis and what we are not. In this post I’ll be continuing my summary of Dr. Nelson’s The Spiritual Doorway in the Brain.

Think about your left leg. Before I mentioned your left leg you probably weren’t “aware” of where it was or what position it was in but now you’re thinking about how it itches or something of the like. Your mind was always aware of your foot but it was not at the fore front of your mind. According to Dr. Nelson, the brainstem functions as an on and off switch for the brain. There are three states of consciousness that the brain stem awakens: wakefulness, Rapid Eye Movement (REM) sleep, and non-REM sleep.

Dr. Nelson (the author of The Spiritual Doorway to the Brain) stated that a person has a spiritual experience when they become stuck between two of the states of consciousness mentioned above. He refers to this merging of conscious states as borderlands. A patient Nelson calls Jan found herself in the borderlands between dreaming and wakefulness when she was aware, but paralyzed by a drug during surgery.

Jan can recall exactly what happened during her surgery and exactly how badly it hurt for the surgeons to cut through her flesh (gross, I know). She went into a different state she labeled a spiritual experience (as so many of us do), during which she felt a sense of peace and the presence of her mother telling her that she was not going to die. During her surgery Jan had lost most of the blood flow to her brain. This lack of oxygen coupled with intense pain caused her to slowly lose consciousness and fall into Dr. Nelson’s ‘borderlands’.

Jan’s case, although gruesome, had the clear features of a spiritual experience: It gave her an inner peace, it lasted a short period of time, she had trouble articulating how it felt, her mother gave her a message that she would not die from this experience and it affected her life thereafter. Her experience can be explained by what we know about neuroscience as a simple physiologically induced state of mind.

What does this mean about what we should take away from these experiences? To more completely understand consciousness we have to delve into some science here. Bear with me, I promise to try to make it fun.

First, the neuron is a unique cell which communicates both chemically and electrically, and is composed of a body (soma), dendrites (usually accepts information from axons) and axons (usually sends information to dendrites). But there are also spinal nerves which project from the spinal cord to a place in your body like your left knee, this neuron works both ways. Another neuron projects from the spinal cord neuron to separate muscles which all work in tandem to move an appendage. This is actually how our reflexes work: The brain gets information about what is happening (a one way stream of information) but the task of a knee jerk reflex is handled completely by the spinal cord and not the brain.

Conversely, consciousness is the result of communication between multiple areas of the brain. A single neuron or even twenty cannot have consciousness. We’re talking about columns of cells in the cortex (outer bumpy region of the brain that we see) that can be hundreds to thousands of cells thick. The different sensations we receive, are perceived (or become aware to us) through certain areas within the brain, which are then called “active”. The activity of these brain areas are processed via the thalamus which is located above the brain stem (little lump between the brain and the spinal cord). After the thalamus processes this information, it sends it back to different areas of the cortex (the area for decision making and analysis) and then we “consciously” process the information we’ve been processing all along and didn’t really know it.

Whew! That wasn’t so bad was it?

Nelson calls the brainstem the switch for the three types of consciousness and when this switch gets stuck (something abnormal happens) the patient enters the borderland state. The brain stem is the area that Nelson really investigates during his research, which makes him different than other neuroscientists researching the same topic (it’s usually the thalamus).

Clearly, reflexes are very different from consciousness and should never be confused for one another as they seemed to be in the case of Theresa Schiavo. You may remember the woman who was in a coma years ago. There was controversy over whether or not she was actually in a permanent vegetative state. Her family wanted to believe (understandably) that she would return to normal and in their grief they misinterpreted her reflexes for consciousness.

Although her brainstem was still activating/arousing her mind, she was going to be stuck in a borderland cycling between wakefulness and REM sleep because of the part of her brain that was injured. There must be a clear line between minimal consciousness and the vegetative state, but it is hard to distinguish by just observing a patient. This is why it is necessary to use tools like PET scans and MRIs to more thoroughly understand the physiology of these patient’s brains.

The next question Nelson attempts to tackle is: Is a spiritual experience another state of consciousness? Nelson asks, “Maybe spiritual experience erupts in the borderlands between consciousnesses, unconsciousness, and dreaming—when our consciousness states are not a whole but fragmented and blended: a hybrid.” The self has everything to do with a spiritual experience given the nature of the experience. So we must tack down exactly what is this thing we call the self.

Join me next chapter: The Fragmented Self!!!

The Failure of the Christological Argument?

The Christological Argument contends that if the resurrection of Jesus can be verified, then Jesus must be God (so God exists), the Bible is the word of God, and Christianity is the one true religion. The important question then becomes “is the resurrection of Jesus an historical event?”

 

There has been a truly massive amount of discussion on the topic of the historicity of the resurrection (there is good reason for the Historical Argument having by far the highest number of posts dedicated to it on this blog). The amount of relevant material on the subject would take many decades to understand. One would need to learn Greek , Hebrew, Aramaic, and a few other languages, obtain a firm grasp upon the cultural surroundings before, during, and after the events (including Jewish, Roman, and pagan cultures), become familiar with all related archaeological information, determine the best historical perspective on the evidence available, and then attempt to draw the best possible conclusion.

 

The task of understanding the Christological Argument (an offshoot of the Historical Argument), is quite intimidating. I have decided to attack all of the relevant information rather than shrink away from the magnitude of the task. I hope that you will join me on this probably life-long journey towards the truth!

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

As many of you know, I have been analyzing a debate between Dr. Craig and Dr. Ehrman for the past month or so. The following is a summary of Dr. Ehrman’s main reason for disagreeing with the Historical (and more specifically, the Christological) Argument.

 

For starters, the online Meriam Webster dictionary, defines a 'miracle' as:

1. an extraordinary event manifesting divine intervention in human affairs
2. an extremely outstanding or unusual event, thing, or accomplishment

 

According to Dr. Ehrman, historians can only attempt to determine what most probably happened in the past based upon the evidence available. (see http://honestsearchfortruth.blogspot.com/2011/08/job-of-historians-erhman-vs-craig.html for a complete summary on what historians do)

 

Can a historian ever verify that a miracle happened at some point in history? If not, the resurrection of Jesus cannot be verified historically.

 

Dr. Ehrman states that he does not think that miracles are impossible. He merely states that miracles are "so highly improbable that they're the least possible occurrence in any given instance. They violate the way nature naturally works." There is a reason that we call them 'miracles'- because they go against what normally happens. They are highly unusual events that do not take place under normal circumstances.

 

After a brief explanation of what miracles are, Dr. Ehrman provides an example to help illustrate his point: People cannot walk on lukewarm water. Or, at least, the odds are so low that if one of us were to see someone were to walk on lukewarm water, we would have difficulty believing our eyes. If someone told us that they had seen someone walk on lukewarm water, we would ask for extraordinary verification for the event. Basically, the odds that someone could walk on lukewarm water are so low that if someone were to walk on lukewarm water, we would call it… a miracle. All of this is not to say that it is impossible for people to walk on lukewarm water, it just means that when someone claims that a person actually did walk on lukewarm water, we would want really, really ridiculously good documentation and evidence. In addition, if there were some other explanation that did not require a supernatural hand, it would be advisable to go with the natural explanation.

 

The resurrection of Jesus Christ absolutely falls into the category of 'miracles.' It is entirely possible that Jesus did actually rise from the dead, but can historians ever label a miracle as historical? Ehrman thinks that historians can do no such thing- "Historians can only establish what probably happened in the past, and by definition a miracle is the least probable occurrence." It would be wonderful if historical inquiry were powerful enough to provide us with answers to all of our questions, but "it's simply that the canons of historical research do not allow for the possibility of establishing as probable that [which is] the least [probable] of all occurrences."

 

To illustrate how unlikely it is that a miracle occurred, Dr. Ehrman gives an alternative scenario of what transpired after the death of Jesus. The alternative scenario is almost definitely not true (Dr. Ehrman explicitly states that he does not think this scenario is what actually happened), but it is not impossible. Further, the alternative scenario, despite the low probability of it occurring, is far more feasible than a miracle happening.

 

Dr. Ehrman’s alternative scenario: 

“Jesus gets buried by Joseph of Arimathea. Two of Jesus’ family members are upset that an unknown Jewish leader has buried the body. In the dead of night, these two family members raid the tomb, taking the body off to bury it for themselves. But Roman soldiers on the lookout see them carrying the shrouded corpse through the streets, they confront them, and they kill them on the spot. They throw all three bodies into a common burial plot, where within three days these bodies are decomposed beyond recognition. The tomb then is empty. People go to the tomb, they find it empty, they come to think that Jesus was raised from the dead, and they start thinking they’ve seen him because they know he’s been raised because his tomb is empty.

 

This is a highly unlikely scenario, but you can’t object that it’s impossible to have happened because it’s not. People did raid tombs. Soldiers did kill civilians on the least pretext. People were buried in common graves, left to rot. It’s not likely, but it’s more likely than a miracle, which is so unlikely, that you have to appeal to supernatural intervention to make it work. This alternative explanation I’ve given you—which again is not one that I believe—is at least plausible, and it’s historical, as opposed to Bill’s explanation, which is not a historical explanation. Bill’s explanation is a theological explanation.” 

 

At this point it would be especially important to note that Dr. Ehrman is not regurgitating the skepticism towards miracles which was proposed by the philosopher David Hume. Dr. Ehrman is not saying that miracles are impossible. Rather, he is saying that miracles cannot be verified historically because they are less likely than natural explanations of the evidence.

 

---------------------------------------------------------- 

Thank you very much for reading! I hope that my summary of Dr. Ehrman’s opening statement has been helpful. If you would like to hear everything he said, look for the Craig vs. Ehrman debate on youtube. As always, I enjoy getting feedback from readers. I especially love it when readers change my mind!

 

-Joshua

The Job of Historians, Ehrman vs Craig

Is the resurrection of Jesus an event supported by historical evidence?

This series of posts is dedicated to summarizing and analyzing a debate between Dr. William Lane Craig and Dr. Bart Ehrman. This post is a brief introduction to what it is that historians seek to accomplish. Later on in the discussion concerning the historicity of the resurrection, this information will become vitally important.

Here are two brief quotes from Dr. Ehrman:

“Let me begin by explaining in simple terms what it is that historians do. Historians try to establish to the best of their ability what probably happened in the past. We can’t really know the past because the past is done with. We think we know [the] past in some instances because we have such good evidence for what happened in the past, but in other cases we don’t know, and in some cases we just have to throw up our hands in despair.”

“Historians can only establish what probably happened in the past. The problem with historians is they can’t repeat an experiment. Today, if we want proof for something, it’s very simple to get proof for many things in the natural sciences; in the experimental sciences we have proof. If I wanted to prove to you that bars of ivory soap float, but bars of iron sink, all I need to do is get 50 tubs of lukewarm water and start chucking in the bars. The Ivory soap will always float, the iron will always sink, and after a while we’ll have a level of what you might call predicted probability, that if I do it again, the iron is going to sink again, and the soap is going to float again. We can repeat the experiments doing experimental science. But we can’t repeat the experiments in history because once history happens, it’s over.”

I am in complete agreement with Dr. Ehrman on what historians attempt to do. We collect as much evidence as possible and then assign a probability as to whether or not an event happened in the past. Some events almost definitely took place, such as World War II. Unfortunately, as we move further and further into the past our vision becomes increasingly blurry. For a list of some of the specific criteria used by historians, check out http://honestsearchfortruth.blogspot.com/2011/06/historical-argument-criteria-for.html.

Spiritual Doorway in the Brain Chapter 1

Have you ever had a near death or spiritual experience? Can you remember what happened and how you felt, during and after your experience? Have you told anyone about it? People generally won’t disclose information about their near death experience and the results of it. A spiritual experience is very personal and tends to lead to a change in a person’s life or religiosity. We may be able to explain the actions of the brain during a spiritual experience due to the research I will be discussing for the next few weeks, which can show us how this phenomenon is expressed physiologically.

I was recently given a book that will aid us in the search for truth entitled The Spiritual Doorway in the Brain by Kevin Nelson M.D. I will be summarizing each chapter and discussing points I find interesting and pressing for our intellectual search. Dr. Nelson noted in the prologue and at the end of the first chapter that his research has shown that spiritual experiences during a near death experience can be linked with the brain system that controls REM cycles during sleep. This was really exciting to find out because I have been interested in this type of research ever since I decided to study neuroscience. Plus, it makes so much sense, seeing as REM is the only sleep cycle in which we are dreaming, hence the strong emotions and dreamy-state.

Dr. Nelson refers to Henry James whose foundation many neuroscientists have, and are currently building on. Nelson uses James’ four qualities he found to be standard in all spiritual experiences:

1. It is beyond words.
2. It imparts some knowledge or insight.
3. It is brief in duration.
4. It is passive in nature.

Nelson uses case studies to describe the effects of brain injuries and he uses the description any acquaintance would give of their near death experiences.

1. Those who have had a spiritual experience will attest that it is difficult to describe what occurs during the dream-like state that surrounds someone during a spiritual experience. Nelson states that this indicates that the areas of the brain dedicated to language are not involved.

2. If you had a spiritual experience you felt as though something important and outside of yourself imparted some knowledge to you. Some people take this very seriously, depending on the intensity of the experience, and begin to base their lives on how it made them feel. The limbic system is usually the culprit for this phenomenon because it increases heart rate and gives a flight or fight reaction. It is the connected with emotions and emotional response and can impart a feeling of awe or shock (the only type of middle ground).

3. This type of surge of electrical or chemical impulse can only last so long due to the complex physiology of the brain. (Hopefully one day I’ll get that far along in my explanation on this blog!) Due to the intensity of the experience it seems brief. If this feeling lasted longer it wouldn’t give the intensity of emotion that leaves an impression deep enough to make someone want to change their lives.

4. The strangest thing about spiritual experiences is usually when and where the event occurs. The event seems to come on suddenly and without any sort of obvious trigger (more obvious now that we have a deeper scientific understanding of the brain) to the person having the experience. Therefore, they usually attribute the experience to something great and outside of them (often times God).

Further in the book I’m sure we’ll find more information on Dr. Nelson’s research and his fascinating conclusions. I can’t wait to move onto the next chapter and leave the next post. Keep an eye out if you found this interesting!!

Top 5 Posts

If you are a new reader and don't quite know where to start out on this blog, why not try the top 5 most viewed posts?

Note: Before reading the top 5, I highly recommend reading 'The Golden Rule'- http://honestsearchfortruth.blogspot.com/2011/05/golden-rule-is-universal-principle-in.html


1. God does not love everyone, here is why http://honestsearchfortruth.blogspot.com/2011/06/god-does-not-love-everyone-here-is-why.html

2. Fundamental Assumptions (Part 2) http://honestsearchfortruth.blogspot.com/2011/06/fundamental-assumptions-part-2.html

3. Does Faith Have to be Blind? http://honestsearchfortruth.blogspot.com/2011/05/does-faith-have-to-be-blind.html

4. The Death of Judas http://honestsearchfortruth.blogspot.com/2011/08/death-of-judas.html

5. There is No Evidence that the Disciples Died for Their Beliefs http://honestsearchfortruth.blogspot.com/2011/06/there-is-no-evidence-that-disciples.html

Bonjour, Je m'appelle Morgana

Hi,

I would like to introduce myself. My name is Morgana and I’ll be posting on this blog from now on. I have a very interesting background because my Bachelor degree is in Philosophy but I have taken every neuroscience class available to me at my alma mater, Centenary (the only college in Louisiana with a neuroscience program, which is why I originally chose it). Because of this eclectic course load I have a unique perspective and unique qualifications for this job. The recent breakthroughs in neuroscience give us deeper and deeper insight into the physiological actions of the brain, and therefore the metaphysical mind. If we can figure out what makes us tick as humans through studies of the brain (our own personal computer system that runs our body) we should be able to figure out if god is a figment of our minds or perhaps something more. Philosophy gives us the ability to reason through arguments for and against the existence of god, and really any argument at all. Please continue to read and stay abreast of our progress as new things are discovered in neuroscience, making things clearer and more interesting in philosophy all the time!

The Real Question

Has anyone ever heard the phrase “I just can’t believe in a God who would send someone to hell,” or “there is so much suffering in the world- God cannot exist,” or “if God wanted everyone to be saved, why is there so much confusion as to whether or not God exists?” or “why are there so many religions if there is just one God?”

The purpose of this post is not to contest whether or not God loves everyone or wants most people to be confused. This post is directed towards people (including myself), who think that God does not love everyone and/or think that God  does not want everyone to know about himself (assuming he exists).

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Perhaps you have had a family member die or you are angry that someone you love is not ‘saved.’ Due to your (very understandable) frustration over these or similar matters, you come to the conclusion that God doesn’t exist. I would like to point out that if you think that God does not love everyone, and that he is ultimately responsible for most people’s confusion with reference to his existence, first, I agree with you, and second, the validity of the above two statements does NOT mean that God does not exist.

The question merely changes from “Does an all-loving God, who desires for everyone to have accurate information, exist?” to “Does a God, who loves some and hates others, who desires for most people to be confused with reference to his existence, exist?”

The error we are trying to watch out for is assuming that we know what God must be like. This is what is really being said: “God’s character must fall within certain guidelines specified by myself (or by popular culture), otherwise he does not exist.” With specific regards to this post, “God must be all-loving or he doesn’t exist” or “God must desire for all/most people to know the truth during this life or he doesn’t exist.” And in a more general sense, “If I don’t like certain attributes of God, then he must not exist.”

All this really boils down to is someone saying: “I don’t like God.”

While someone may have understandably good reasons for disliking God, liking or disliking something has nothing whatsoever to do with whether or not it exists.

Why is this important? If a God who does not love everyone, who does not desire everyone to have accurate information about him, actually does exist, and he sends people who do not believe in him to hell, by assuming he doesn’t exist you make yourself one of the people who is going to hell. (Again, this is NOT an argument for God’s existence. Also, I’m not saying that if a God does exist that he/she/it is the Christian God- it could be any god or gods. I’m also not making the assumption that any God that exists must send people to hell. This is merely pointing out the errant logic and possible danger in assuming that God doesn’t exist because he has certain character qualities- nothing more.)

A wise man would try to find out if God exists (or multiple gods, or no gods, or whatever). If he finds out that a God who loves some and hates others, who gives accurate information to some and confuses others, exists, he would be even wiser to comply with that God’s wishes. This is especially true if compliance or non-compliance would dictate whether or not one spends eternity in heaven or hell.

In conclusion, if you think that God loves everyone and wants everyone to have accurate information about himself, your question is "Does a God who loves everyone and wants everyone to know about him exist?" If you think that God hates most people and deliberately confuses most, your question is "Does a God who hates most and deliberately confuses most exist?" Either way, everyone must go on a personal journey to find evidence for or against God, and then come to a logical conclusion.

Note: The principle advocated in this post can apply to other topics as well. For example, if you think that God doesn't answer prayer, your question becomes "does a God who does not answer prayer exist?" Character qualities that one thinks that God posseses are not proofs that he doesn't exist, they just change the question you are asking!

The Death of Judas

The Death of Judas

Consider the accounts of Judas’ death from Matthew and Acts (NetBible translation). While reading through each passage, I encourage everyone to make a brief list of events which occurred. You will find my list underneath each passage.

Matthew 27:3-10

27:3 Now when ⁵  Judas, who had betrayed him, saw that Jesus ⁶  had been condemned, he regretted what he had done and returned the thirty silver coins to the chief priests and the elders, 27:4 saying, “I have sinned by betraying innocent blood!” But they said, “What is that to us? You take care of it yourself!” 27:5 So ⁷  Judas threw the silver coins into the temple and left. Then he went out and hanged himself. 27:6 The ⁸  chief priests took the silver and said, “It is not lawful to put this into the temple treasury, since it is blood money.” 27:7 After ⁹  consulting together they bought the Potter’s Field with it, as a burial place for foreigners. 27:8 For this reason that field has been called the “Field of Blood” to this day. 27:9 Then what was spoken by Jeremiah ¹⁰  the prophet was fulfilled: “They took the thirty silver coins, the price of the one whose price had been set by the people of Israel, ¹¹  27:10 and they gave them for the potter’s field, as the Lord commanded me.” ¹² 

• Judas regrets his actions and attempts to return the silver coins
• The chief priests and elders reject him
• Judas throws the silver coins into the temple
• Judas hangs himself
• The chief priests use the silver to buy the Potter’s Field as a burial place for foreigners.
• This occurrence was a fulfillment of something Jeremiah said

Acts 1:16-19

1:16 “Brothers, ³⁹  the scripture had to be fulfilled that the Holy Spirit foretold through ⁴⁰  David concerning Judas – who became the guide for those who arrested Jesus – 1:17 for he was counted as one of us and received a share in this ministry.” ⁴¹  1:18 (Now this man Judas ⁴²  acquired a field with the reward of his unjust deed, ⁴³  and falling headfirst ⁴⁴  he burst open in the middle and all his intestines ⁴⁵  gushed out. 1:19 This ⁴⁶  became known to all who lived in Jerusalem, so that in their own language ⁴⁷  they called that field ⁴⁸  Hakeldama, that is, “Field of Blood.”)

• Judas acquired a field with the reward of his unjust deed
• Falling headfirst, he burst open in the middle and all his intestines gushed out

Now, here are a few questions:

1. Did Judas keep the silver?
2. Who bought the field?
3. Who used the silver (to acquire something)?
4. How did Judas die?
5. When people hang themselves, do they jump head first or feet first?
6. If someone was to hang themselves and the rope broke, would they rotate 180 degrees and fall head first?

Also, you may be interested to hear what C.S. Lewis thought about this matter! “It seems to me that 2 and 4 rule out the view that every statement in Scripture must be historical truth.” (The issue discussed on this post fell under subpoint 2) To see what I mean, check out his letter to Clyde S. Kilby (http://www.crivoice.org/lewisbib.html)! It is the second letter on the page.

Keep in mind that he wrote this after he wrote Mere Christianity (so it wasn’t something he said before he was converted).

If you leave a comment, please answer the 6 questions I have asked. Also feel free to leave other comments, thoughts, or additional questions for discussion!