Comparative understanding of Islam to the Christian religion

The church discipleship group which I attended yesterday was going through a comparative religious study on Islam. The focus of the study was on Islam’s understanding of the resurrection of Christ.

The differences highlighted by the discipleship group leader about Islam in regards to Jesus Christ is that Islam teaches in the Qur’an that Jesus is only a prophet and not divine, and that Jesus was not crucified, but it was merely made to appear so, while Allah raised Jesus to heaven.

The material that the discipleship group leader had prepared then went on to the question on whether the Bible or the Qur’an was more reliable. The answer given was that the Bible was more reliable because it was written down within the first generation of the events recorded, while the eyewitnesses were still alive, as compared to the Qur’an, written over 600 years after the events with no independent, historical source of information. An excerpt from William Lane Craig’s article “Who is the Real Jesus : The Jesus of the Bible or The Jesus of the Qur’an?” was presented in the material, which states that “In fact, the Qur’an contains demonstrably legendary stories about Jesus which evolved during the centuries after his death….For example, the Qur’an mentions the story – borrowed from the legendary forgery entitled The Infancy Gospel of Thomas – of how the boy Jesus made a bird out of clay and then made it come to life. Such stories are fictional.”

The material also cites historical evidences other than the bible which corroborates with the account of Jesus crucifixion, such as the Jewish historian Josephus reference to Jesus’ condemnation to the cross by Pilate in Testimonium Flavianum, Roman senator and historian Tacitus reference to Jesus in his Annals, and Greek satirist Lucian’s scornful remark of Christ in The Death of Peregrine. One objection that I have heard raised by counter-apologists is whether these other sources qualify as independent attestations of the gospel narrative, since they were written decades after the crucifixion, and might have been derived from the same sources used for the gospels

The session also discusses about the understanding of the doctrine of the Trinity. Islam rejects the Christian belief of God as existing in three persons. The material attempts to explain the idea of the Trinity with William Lane Craig’s description of God as a soul endowed with three complete sets of rational cognitive faculties, each sufficient for personhood. The discipleship group leader tried to explain this using the analogy of three different people in a company holding the similar position of CEO and being able to sign off with such a title. Another member in the discipleship group attempted to explain the idea of the trinity with an analogy of different descriptions given of a three-dimensional object from different perspectives. According to her, there exists a fourth dimension not comprehensible by human mind where God can exist in separate rational forms but maintain the same essence. Another discipleship group member casually cites the example of someone with the mental illness of bipolar, where two separate personalities exists in the same person, much like the story of Jerkyll and Hyde. For me, I find it easier to understand the idea of the Trinity as simply one rational faculty controlling three persons, much like how a puppet master controls multiple puppets, although I reckon that such an idea of the trinity would run into problems explaining why Jesus would admit not having knowledge that belongs to God the Father, or why Jesus had to pray to God. Considering such difficulties of conceiving the idea of the Trinity, I can understand why Islam would reject this idea and why some Muslims would even label this as polytheistic.

I would like to present here the beliefs of a Jewish law professor on campus on how he understands the Christian religion in relation to his own Judaistic faith. This professor believes that Jesus is both the Messiah prophesied in Isaiah 53, but also the prophet described in Deuteronomy 13 whom God had warned the Israelites not to follow but to put to death. As such, the Christian religion is God’s way of reaching out to the gentiles, but is also a test of the Jews to remain faithful to their Judaistic roots and not be led astray by other beliefs. I wonder whether such a pluralistic theology explaining Judaism and Christianity as being God’s different ways of reaching out to different people can also encompass Islam.

William Lane Craig vs Alex Rosenberg – Is faith in God reasonable?

I watched the video of the debate between William Lane Craig and Alex Rosenberg over the question “Is Faith in God Reasonable?” Here are some of my thoughts from watching the debate.

1. We argue about whether faith in God is reasonable as if we are trying to provide an apology for it. It is as if having faith in God is prima facie unreasonable, and the effort expended by the apologist is to reverse this impression and show that it is reasonable for one to profess a faith in God. But why is it prima facie unreasonable? As always, the problem of evil and suffering comes to mind. I thought Rosenberg gave an evincing description of such a circumstance where choosing to have faith in God is repulsive to common sense, where the feeling of the absence of God seems so profoundly acute that it weighs upon the minds of the common man that God simply does not exist. Alex Rosenberg shared his testimony of how he lost members of his family from the brutality in the holocaust.

What do I feel about the reply given by William Lane Craig that there we are unable to know whether there are morally sufficient reason for God to allow evil and suffering? I don’t like questions to be excluded on the basis that we cannot go about evaluating it. It is certainly debatable whether a question about moral sufficient reason for allowing evil and suffering can be evaluated. One reason that apologists would give is that God would correct and make everything right in the end. But it is still debatable whether this is a morally sufficient reason.

What does it mean to have faith in God? Here in this debate, faith in God is defined as simply a belief in the existence of God. Craig did acknowledge after the debate how ‘faith’ can have a more extensive definition such as encompassing a trust in someone, or committing one’s life to someone. I was wondering whether faith in God in such respect becomes more difficult to be evaluated as being reasonable as compared to the type of faith that is just a propositional belief in the existence of God. So while the theist can still reasonably believe that God exists in arduous circumstances of suffering such as the holocaust, is it still reasonable for him to put his trust in God to protect him and his loved ones?

2. There was one part of the debate where William Lane Craig talked about how ‘intentional states of consciousness in the world’ refutes the philosophy of naturalism. I didn’t quite understand how this argument works. Craig said, “Philosophers are puzzled about states of intentionality. Intentionality is the property of being about something or of something. It signifies the object directedness of our thoughts. For example, I can think about my summer vacation or I can think about my wife. No physical object has this sort of intentionality. A chair, or a stone, or a glob of tissue like the brain is not about or of something else. Only mental states or states of consciousness are about other things. As a materialist, Dr Rosenberg recognizes this fact and so concludes that on atheism, there really are no intentional states…but this is incredible. Obviously, I am thinking about Dr Rosenberg’s argument. This seems to me to be a reduction ad absurdum of atheism. By contrast on theism, because God is a mind, it’s hardly surprising that there should be finite minds. Thus, intentional states fit comfortably into a theistic world view.”

I think that it comes back to a question of what is the nature of the mind. Is the mind physical or non-physical? I feel that it is inadequate to assume that the mind is non-physical in nature. At the same time, there also seems to be something inadequate about seeing the mind as simply a physical construct known as the brain. One thing is for sure, without the brain, there is no consciousness. But why do I experience the consciousness that I do because of my brain?

3. Rosenberg disputes the cosmological argument that William Lane Craig usually gives for his argument for the existence of God. Alex Rosenberg spoke about how the indeterminate nature of quantum mechanics shows that the universe does not need to have a cause. He gave the example of how two similar uranium nuclei each emit protons at different time despite the similarity of their physical structures.

Craig disputed the example of the quantum mechanics as a case in point of indeterminacy. He talked about how there are many theories in the field of science on how quantum mechanics work, some of them deterministic in nature.

Some people criticize apologetics method based on the incompleteness of science in the present to explain how certain things work in order to prove the existence of God as the ‘god of the gaps’ argument. They feel that the answer that God must be the cause seems to be a cop-out. For me, I think the answer that God is or must be a cause is a viable consideration to make, although this answer is defeasible. But there must be worthy grounds upon which to make this argument that God, and not something else, is the cause.

Hearing all these scientific arguments reminds me of my junior college days where I was in the science stream and studied physics for one of my subjects. Quantum mechanics was indeed one of the most interesting topic for the physics subject. The part which really intrigued me most was about how light has two natures - a wavelike nature, and a particle nature. Yet, it behaves distinctly as one or the other depending on how it is observed. When scientist tries to observe it for its particle nature, it loses its wavelike property, and vice versa. I was wondering why light seems to have a mind of its own as to be aware of how it is being observed. I was apt to believe that this curious property of light is a product of intelligent design, but perhaps this curious property of quantum mechanics doesn’t really say anything.

4. I like how Alex Rosenberg pointed out at the beginning how he felt that the adversarial debate style is not conducive for the discussion of philosophical matters, which he felt should be more consultative and inquisitorial in nature. His thought that philosophers should not seek to argue simply so as to win the debate, as much as they should seek to interlock with each other and find out the truth of the matter.

I thought it was an interesting issue to think about. What is the best format to take for the evaluation of truth? I thought that the court room trial format could be useful and productive, and make evaluation of the debate much clearer to the audience as well. We have the proponent present his case. His opponent will then cross-examine his case, or specific propositions in his case. He can then explain away the apparent weaknesses, or reframe his case. And just like in a court room trial where we can have ‘trials within a trial’ to determine specific issues of facts relevant to establishing the charge, there can be something similar for a debate.

Speaking of which, what is the best format that the court of law should use to adjudicate matters? Can the format be improved? I think these are questions worth considering by law professionals.

Hard Questions, Real Answers – Unanswered Prayers by William Lane Craig

A friend gave me an excerpt of a book by William Lane Craig titled Hard Questions, Real Answers featuring the portion about unanswered prayers. Craig addresses the difficulty with the various verses of the gospel of John which features Jesus as giving a promise to answer any prayers without any conditions attached. For example, Jesus says “And I will do whatever you ask in my name” (John 14:13a), “Then the Father will give you whatever you ask in my name” (15:16b), “My Father will give you whatever you ask in my name” (16:23b). The problem with this promise is that sometimes God does not answer our prayers.

Craig actually acknowledges that prayers can be unanswered. This is quite a somber contrast to the views from well-meaning Christians I know who would say that God do answer prayers all the time, except that the answer can be no or wait sometimes. Craig then argues that Jesus’ promise has to be qualified based on readings in other passages of the bible. He substantiates such an interpretation of Jesus’ promise on the grounds that there are precedents for qualifying other teachings of Jesus in light of different Scriptures. Craig gave the example of Jesus’ teachings on divorce. In Mark 10:11, Jesus makes the blanket statement, “Anyone who divorces his wife and marries another women commits adultery against her.”, which has the connotation that no exception is allowed. But in Matthew 19:9 Jesus says, “I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for marital unfaithfulness, and marries another woman commits adultery.”, this time the statement being qualified.

Being a law student, I can tell you that this is certainly an unconventional way of interpreting a text such that other statements can cause the interpretation of an original text to derogate so much from its literal interpretation. The furthest that a law professional would usually wish to go is to allow for purposive interpretation, such that the intent of original framers of the text would guide the interpreter to picking the most appropriate interpretation out of the set of possible interpretations from a given text. I believe if this were law that was being inquired into, academicians would be quick to critic the words of Jesus in the books of John as not consistent with the other passages of the bible. And I am not satisfied with an interpretation that contradicts its literal interpretation. This is quite different from a case where other passages are simply adding further details to an original passage.

I am not sure whether the solution provided by William Lane Craig is necessary. I think that the promise made by Jesus is to be contextualized. Jesus was addressing his disciples who were worried about Jesus leaving. The promise to answer prayers without qualification should be thus seen as being specific to the disciples.

Continuing, Craig identified the reasons for prayers not being answered – 1)Sins in our lives (Ps 66:18, 1 Pet 3:7), 2)Wrong Motives (James 4:3), 3) Lack of faith (Mark 11:24), 4) Lack of earnestness (eg: Hannah’s praying for a son, Jesus’ prayers through night to God), 5) Lack of Perseverance (Luke 11:5-8, Luke 18:1-8). Craig acknowledges that there are cases where all these conditions are absent but prayers are not answered, and thus he adds that the prayer must be within God’s will.

Craig says, “And when you reflect on it, it would be a recipe for disaster for God to simply give us whatever we ask. For we would always pray to be delivered from any suffering or trial, and yet we know from Scripture that suffering builds character and trials perfect our faith. If God gave us whatever we asked, we would be immature, spoiled children, not men and women of God.”

I suppose the greatest difficulty is to meet all the qualifications required for one’s prayers to be answered. In my opinion, the criterias identified above are quite harsh, and even idiosyncratic. For example, can one truly overcome all sins in his or her life? And if one is lacking in the belief that God will answer one’s prayers, how can one choose to believe. Why should God require a person to believe that he(God) will grant the prayer request before he does so? After all, God has his own sovereign will and should not be limited by the lack of belief by a person’, isn’t it? I suppose another difficulty is to know the reason behind why one’s prayer is unanswered. The conclusion that one can make is either God has said no, or one of such reasons provided by Craig above. And in this day and age where people do not hear God directly, we usually cannot decipher the response given by God.

But I think an appropriate approach that one could take to his or her prayer life is to try to fulfill all the described requirements for one’s prayers to be answered. It is difficult, it is idiosyncratic, and ultimately whether one’s prayers is answered is arbitrary on God’s will, but it is worth the shot to try out all one can to get one’s prayers answered. Perhaps God might have a reason for all these criterias and standards.

Asperger's and Religion

A woman psychologist conducting a research study between social cognition and social behavior messaged me on facebook that current theories indicate that people on the autism spectrum are not able to be religious, but she believes otherwise and would like to find out more by speaking with people on the spectrum who prescribe to religion.

I have read up articles before on the internet which suggest that people with Asperger’s Syndrome tends towards atheism. According to this post from Scientific America, people on the autism spectrum, due to a deficit of this thing called the “theory of mind”, which is the ability to attribute mental states – beliefs, intents, desires, knowledge etc – to oneself and others and to understand that others have beliefs, desires, and intentions that are different from one’s own. They are thus less likely to think in a ‘teleological’ way – for example, saying that the event was meant to unfold in a particular way or explaining that God had a hand in it, and more likely to invoke a natural cause (such as blaming an illness on a virus they thought they were exposed to)

John Elder Robinson, a notable author with Asperger Syndrome, in his blog post, questions whether if those people with Asperger’s Syndrome who had expressed what seems like atheist views in a study, were truly atheist, or really “anti-organized church” instead.

But I am a Christian, and I do know of people in my church on the autism spectrum as well. What makes us believers when the prevailing theories seem to suggest a tendency towards atheism? For me, I sometimes think in quite spiritual terms, of perceiving a sense of God’s divine will in the way things work on earth. In fact, I feel a sense of spirituality when I read about the world, and the many things that goes on in the world, about people, and things like good and evil that takes place, and the wondrous things of the world and the universe. Indeed, one of the times in my life when I felt strongest in my faith was when I was away from school, and did not have to study or interact with people on a daily basis. God felt closer to me when I am examining the world in a detached manner. But now, when I am in law school, having to deal with people, assignments, deadline, and live out life, suddenly my sense of living seems so personal and relatively lacking in that spiritual feeling of God.

I am not sure whether I am describing a psychological experience typical of people with Asperger Syndrome, or people in general, Asperger Syndrome or not. I would say that unlike what was put forth in the Scientific America article, I seem to be able to think in a teleological way, and perceive spirituality in complexity of the way the world works. For one thing, I seem to be particularly religious since young, and fond of spirituality as compared to my peers in school or my family members. 

Actually, I sometimes doubt whether I have Asperger's Syndrome at all because I usually come off as normal to people and people usually think me as just introverted or quiet.

On another note, I don't think a person necessarily accepts a religion simply on the basis of being able to have that 'spiritual' feeling. There are rational reasons as well, and I do find the arguments put forth in Christian apologetics quite convincing. Arguments such as the cosmological argument, teleological argument, ontological argument etc, are strong arguments for the Christian faith. Indeed, one of my favourite websites to visit is Reasonable Faith, a Christian Apologetics website by featuring the works of the eminent Christian apologist William Lane Craig. I thought he came off quite convincing in his debates with eminent atheists.

I try to find my associations in the Christian community. I do like to feel like I belong to a group, and there is something nice about the exclusive we vs the world group mentality in Christianity, as well as its inclusive spirit of accepting people of all kinds. But I do face personality clashes with the more extroverted Christians, and sometimes, their treating me as weird and alienating me has the effect of making me feel estranged from Christianity. It is ironic that the times when I feel most estranged from Christianity, is when I am placed in the midst of certain kinds of Christians. I do wish I could be a normal Christian and feel more part of the group sometimes.