Re-reading Dracula by Bram Stoker

Actually, I don’t know if I ever read it. I’ve seen so many movies based on the book, most notably the iconic Universal Pictures version with Bela Lugosi, that the story, or it’s main elements, are extremely familiar. It was time to put that uncertainty to rest. However, there was another motivation.

My son, knowing my fondness for all things Dracula and Icelandic, came across this most unusual find. There is an Icelandic version of Dracula with a Preface by Bram Stoker himself. Long thought, that is for 100 years since it’s publication in 1901, to be simply a translation, it turns out to be largely a rewrite. The mystery is it’s provenance and how Bram Stoker and Vladimar Asmundsson came in contact with each other, how they arranged to produce this version and why it is so different from the original. It is, unmistakably, a version of Dracula. It contains plot elements which are only found in Stoker notes and research and never found their way into the original. This indicates it’s authenticity as well as originality.

The story was originally published in a newspaper, as a serial, by Amundsson; the newspaper he owned and oppowers-of-darknesserated. Likely the differences are due to it’s original venue and intent. However, it later was published as a book. It was little known even in Iceland and certainly in the wider world. No one bothered to look beyond the preface by Stoker until Hans De Roos, out of curiosity started to translate the rest of the book. It became immediately evident this was not simply a translation.

De Roos has put out a nice hardcover edition which includes a preface by Dacre Stoker, his introduction regarding the finding of the version and speculation on it’s history and origin as well as his own translation of Stoker’s preface as well.

I decided I needed to read the original before dipping into this gem! I highly recommend it to fans of Bram Stoker and Dracula.

Purpose, Meaning and Value as the province of religion and religious thinking

It’s exceedingly common, at least in the things I’ve read to, for “the religious” to assert one cannot derive purpose, meaning and value from scientific inquiry, naturalistic philosophy and a materialistic approach to understanding the world around you, yourself and your place in that world, or rather universe.The appeal is often made to Hume and the infamous “is ought dilemma” and to the “non overlapping magisteria” proposed by evolutionary biologist (among other things), and all round smart guy, Stephen Jay Gould.

Purpose, meaning and value are said to be critical for humans to function and are viewed as a natural inclination which must be addressed and which inclination itself is indicative that there must BE purpose, meaning and value inherent in the universe. Without it, humans would not be, well, human. They would be something else less human. I suspect there more being thought, that there is a hidden assertion that humans are indeed “something else”, something special that exceeds their evolutionary origin or perhaps even confounds it. It argues for a more supernatural origin or at least a sort of hybrid origin, an in-souling as it were at some point in their evolutionary rise.

For those who eschew the supernatural, consciousness replaces the soul. For them consciousness is not simply the natural development of the increasing complexity of the brain or an emerging property of a purer natural, organic evolution. Consciousness is so special it transforms this meager ape into an angel. Consciousness demonstrates there is a dimension beyond the natural and material. It is that dimension that is the dimension of purpose, meaning and value and is only ascertained through religious method. It is only understood “religiously” and is, once again, the sole province of religion. Not even philosophy can ascend to it’s rarefied heights.

So, there is a scientific method and a religious method. There is a scientific means and philosophical means of approaching the nature of reality, and a religious one. There is then scientific “truth” and religious “truth” and each is encapsulated in their respective pursuits.

Some will try to rig the game by claiming this realm is part of reality. It is just simply not attainable through scientific method. On this view Natural philosophy and materialist understanding truncates reality. So, this other realm is really just as natural, just as real, as the material world. You just have to change what you consider valid ways of perceiving and testing reality. One such view sees materialism and idealism as equally truncated views and proposes “realism” as the correct, full orbed map of reality. They thus seek to escape the accusation of supernaturalism. Often they even eschew being counted among the religious. The question then arises, by what method do you perceive this portion of reality. How do you go about observing and testing and validating this truth?

They thus carve out for themselves a realm of “truth” that is theirs alone immune to the claims and challenges of the scientific method. As I have asserted before, the method they use is essential that of revelation. It is either revelation from an external source and authority or from personal, subjective experience and often a combination of both. The revelation is either validated as authoritative by personal, subjective experience, or it can only be engaged subjectively and personal experience is judged to be inherently true because it is some immediate and powerful and direct.

This realm of truth they claim is the only realm from which you can derive purpose, meaning and value.

So. returning to the question. Why do religions and particularly Christianity, argue and believe they have a corner on the market for purpose, meaning and value? On what basis to they think this is true? How is it they think they escape the snare to which they thing naturalism and materialism and all thoughts non-religious is inherently heir? It is simply that they assert and believe that their construction of reality is true. Not only true, but authoritatively true arising outside human thought. It is almost entirely parallel to the “Argument from Morality”, which goes something like this.

  1. If (for there to be) there are Objective and Absolute moral truths, then God (my version of god or reality) must exist.
  2. There are (or must be) Objective and Absolute moral truths.
  3. Therefore, God must exist.

Just substitute Purpose, Meaning and Value (PM&V) and you have the same argument.

  1. If (for there to be) there are Objective and Absolute PM&V, then God ((or my version of god or reality) must exist
  2. There is (or must be) PM&V.
  3. Therefore, God must exist.

The problem must surely be clear. It is a form of begging the question. The problem is the first premise. If the first premise is not true then the argument fails. You have to assume your conclusion in order to reach that conclusion. As an argument, though logically valid, it fails.

What’s more, while we may desperately WANT Objective and Absolute PM&V or Morals for that matter, if they don’t exist, they don’t exist. We just have to make the best of it and do the best with what we’ve got. Crafting an alternate reality isn’t an option except for the willfully delusional.

Further, if religious beliefs are simply a subset of “thoughts” or “ideas” arising from human cognition and experience, then in what way does it differ from all other sets of thoughts and ideas? They are all equally the result of human cognition and naturalistic experience. When you elevate them to the status of absolutely true revelation, you are simply adding another idea to the subset. Like all ideas in all subsets, the true of the thought or idea must be proven or shown to be true. You cannot simply assume the truth of one idea and then argue that the ideas flowing from it are thus true. It my make for a valid logical argument but not necessarily a true one.

To say that God is outside “creation”, outside of time and space and not part of the material universe is to simply put forward and idea. To go on to say that God or the being of God is then the ground of all goodness, truth and beauty, is simply to put forward another idea which you think follows from the first, but neither have been proven to be true. You might come up with a wonderfully coherent set of ideas, but that is still all they are.

That being the case, you can’t conclude that religion (one set of ideas) is inherently capable of providing PM&V when another set of ideas cannot unless you presume before hand that your set of ideas is true and not just true, but cosmically, eternally true. As Dr Shelly Kagan has pointed out, you don’t have to have cosmic, eternal meaning to have meaning. Something doesn’t have to matter cosmically or eternally in order to matter.

I’ll address the “is ought” dilemma in another post.

The “New” Atheists and what is supposedly so “wrong” with them…..

329_patience-with-god1What is so “wrong” with them? I’ve read a number of critiques, rants, diatribes and screes, mostly from the religious or spiritual, often from the fundamentalist who are their primary focus. Here is what is wrong with them.

They aren’t as formidable as the “Old” Atheists

You wouldn’t think this would be a basis for criticism. One might actually rejoice that their opponents were not a formidable as they used to be. They aren’t like Hume, Russel, and Spinoza. I’ve also seen Nietzsche mentioned. Those were the days when men were men and atheists were intellectual powerhouses, deep thinkers, quietly influential, if anyone read what they wrote at all at the time. The new atheist are brash Johnny-come-late-lys” without the intellectual acumen or the moderation of their predecessors.

It’s ridiculous to discount the criticisms of the New Atheist by saying Dennett is not a Russell or Nietzsche, Dawkins is no Darwin and Sam Harris is no Spinoza. I mean, who is? Perhaps they are not as original thinkers as these others. Perhaps their intellectual prowess is not up to these giants. They would probably agree. That does not mean their popularization of arguments against theism are to be discounted.

They are just as fundamentalist as the religious fundamentalists

Apparently it is not okay for atheists to be definite about what they think. All levels of certainty are equated to fundamentalism. Humble uncertainty in the face of the vast and unknowable universe especially where the “Big Questions” are concerned is more the fashion. Of course, the “Old” atheist were pretty definite. Just read Russell. Peruse Twain, dip into Nietzsche. Read some of the more common speeches and writings of Robert Ingersoll. None of these men were shy about what they thought. None of them failed to advocate for the truth of what they said and wrote.

This seems to be throwing the baby out with the bath water. Just because the certainty espoused by the religious is noxious, doesn’t mean all certainty is equally to be avoided especially certainty about what is wrong. I can be open to the actual age of the universe while being certain it was not created in six days. If you read the New Atheist carefully you’ll see this sort of agnosticism.

They are just as evangelical as the fundamentalist evangelicals

It’s also not okay to actively seek to communicate what you think especially to the populace in general. While the “old” atheists wrote books, those books were not broadly consumed and are only being more recently appreciated. They didn’t have a very wide circulation and their target audience was not necessarily the “man in the street”, so to speak. The New Atheist are active, outspoken proponents of what they thing and active critics of fundamentalist religion. Of course fundamentalist religion as been doing this as a matter of creed for centuries.

In the realm of ideas communication is the key. Ideas that are not communicated die and have no impact. It’s not the evangelicalism of fundamentalism that is the problem. It is the content of what they are communicating. To borrow a phrase from Sam Harris, “it is the mother load of bad ideas”. What else is one to do when face with bad ideas but to counter them with good ideas; at least what you consider as good ideas.

Actually Schaeffer, while being critical, nonetheless hit the nail on the head.

“Most New Atheists are no more anti-religious than the atheists such as Russell who denounced faith as “regretful hankering after the past,”–they’re just louder. And for all their in-your-face “attitude,” the New Atheists are positively polite compared to the religious fundamentalists. Incidentally, if some of the earlier atheists (what I guess we should call the Old, Old Atheists), such as Baruch Spinoza and David Hume, were more polite than today’s New Atheists they had good reason to be: fear of bigoted religious believers ready to kill people who challenged their ideas.” – “Patience with God” Frank Schaeffer

Nonetheless Schaeffer goes on to criticize them in the ways I’ve outlined. He also echos the tired and clearly wrong headed criticism that atheism has been the cause of more killing and torture than religion in all it’s varieties naming Stalin, Hitler, Pol Pot, Castro and “scientists”. If what he means is that fundamentalism of all sorts, dogmatism of all varieties can also motivate bloodshed. He is absolutely right. If he is laying this bloodshed specifically at the door of atheism or even secularism or humanism, he is, once again, very wrong headed.

Was Hitler and atheist? No, he was not.

“Besides that, I believe one thing: there is a Lord God! And this Lord God creates the peoples.”  [1]    ~Adolf Hitler

 “We were convinced that the people need and require this faith. We have therefore undertaken the fight against the atheistic movement, and that not merely with a few theoretical declarations; we have stamped it out” [2]   ~Adolf Hitler

Was Castro an atheist?

“According to Washington Post, former President of Cuba Fidel Castro‘s letters from prison suggest that he “was a man of unusual spiritual depth – and a fervent believer in God.”

Stalin was the only confirmed Atheist. Pol Pot was probably Buddhist. The issue is whether it was their religious views or lack thereof that motivated the bloodshed. In none of these cases was atheism in particular the motivation for their reigns of terror. Dogmatism of one sort of another was certainly behind all of these heinous regimes. Rational atheism and humanism was not.

Where Hitler and Castro, “true Christians”? Did they act in a way consistent with the supposed “love” of God fundamentalist Christians are so fond of espousing (a love that will send you to hell, BTW)? This is a species of the “True Scotsman” fallacy where every negative characteristic of which one is accused is laid at the door of “not being a true whatever”.  The defense of atheism is different. Those like Hitler and Castro did not even espouse atheism. Those like Stalin and Pol Pot didn’t declare atheism to be the motivation behind what they did. They did not claim they were advancing the cause of atheism or non-theism by doing what they did. Perhaps they saw religion or theism as an obstacle to their goals, and so were anti-theist, but atheism and reason were not the stated driving force behind their reigns of terror.

It’s all such a mystery…….

329_patience-with-god1Those who defend religion are fond of “mystery”. Once they have abandoned the plebeian confines of fundamentalist literalism and the slavish enthrallment to “the book”, the core of the religious enterprise becomes mystery. It becomes the raison d’etra of the entire religious enterprise and represents the best, the deepest, the most genuine religious sentiment. In fact, it becomes what compels them to be religious in spite of themselves, in spite of their reason, and in spite of the “knowing better”. They are flummoxed by mystery and they lie bewildered and speechless in the face of it and moved to devotion.

Science on the other hand is the supreme buzz kill it seems. When intoxicated and high on mystery, science comes along and tries to explain everything. Wonder is not enough. Awe is insufficient. Being humbly, staggeringly stunned at the immensity and complexity of the universe is apparently inadequate to escape the charge of hubris leveled at those who reject “mystery” as the foundation of the universe and as the unassailable and purist motive for the religious sentiment they eschew.

In this sense Mystery does not represent the unknown, science certainly bows to what is unknown. Mystery is about the “unknowable”. It reserves some aspects of reality to a special class of the real which cannot ever be known. It isn’t just that it can’t be known by reason and empirical investigation and evidential proof. It cannot be known at all! It is beyond the pale of words, or concepts of thoughts and even perhaps intuition. It can only be hinted at, fleetingly glimpsed on the periphery of ones consciousness and felt rather than known or even conceived. As a result, it cannot be in the proper magisterium of science or what we normally know and how we know it.

This is the Wizard of Oz Syndrome. People want there to be a Wizard! When Toto sniffs out the Wizard and Dorothy draws back the curtain, everyone goes “awwwwww, that’s disappointing, we thought it was REAL magic”. The “Wizard”, gives the Scarecrow a diploma, the Lion a medal and the Tin Man a heart shaped watch and says, “you know, you had it in you all the time, you didn’t need a Wizard or magic”. Dorothy could have gone home at any time, all she needed was to want to, “There’s no place like home”, rather than running away. What you need for transformation is in yourself or in you in relation to others. In fact, they had already changed as the result of their journey together. Then again, that’s humanism and not the new theism.

We still want the mystery. So, anything that isn’t explained or currently explainable becomes, “mystery”, unknown and unknowable….until it is, known that is. The current candidate is “consciousness”. Because the relationship between the physical and the mental and how the latter arises from the former is the “hard” problem, it has become the intractable problem, the unsolvable problem, the ultimate mystery and the ground of all honest religion. The presence or rather the sense of “what is is like to be me” to experience Beauty, Truth and Goodness, to have the sense of all those ineffable feelings, means that must be a God. Frank Schaeffer in his book “Patience with God”, calls it “Hopeful Uncertainty”. Not knowing and essentially refusing to consider it knowable, is the new Faith.

Distilling this mystery, even in imagination, to something that could be known and explained is like drawing back the curtain. Faith becomes the virtue of humbling accepting that I just cannot know and will not know and must bow before Uncertainty. He accuses the “New Atheists” of being just as fundamentalist as the Christian Fundamentalist from whom he has fled. However, fleeing from that malformed and crippled religion he cannot simply accept naturalism in spite of what his reason tells him and falls back into a sort of faith, which he assure himself is virtuous, desirable, and appropriately humble, in bowing to “not knowing” and worshiping the “unknowable” and “ineffable”.

As seemingly profound and sophisticated as it seems, it’s really little different from fundamentalism. Yes, it does back down from the absolute certainty of dogmatism, but it still proffers another source of knowledge, one that is essentially subjective and personal and thus untouchable and non-falsifiable. It is a knowledge which is called “not knowledge”, which is placed outside the realm of reason and conception and can thus be delightfully and comfortingly vague, unchallengable and unexplained. It brooks no pesky and troubling questions. Any objections are dismissed with a wave of the hand and a pious nod to it’s deep and profound unknowable-ness; the true God that cannot be named or understood but only vaguely pointed at. In it’s vagueness, ironically, it is offered as a certainty, just not a clear, concise and precise certainly. Just meditate as long as I have, and you’ll know! Just relax you demand for answers and you too will know what I know.

The result is that you can make statements or pronouncements about some of the most significant questions human being have ruminated over for centuries, probably millennium, assert they are true yet, frame them in the vaguest of terms with no attempt to mount an even plausible argument or the merest whiff of evidence. When challenged they can fall back on assertions that they are not interested in proselytizing or convincing anyone, that if you only follow a similar line of thought, perform the same practice or adopt the most appropriate mindset, you too will see the truth. You can assert the truth without asserting, state it without stating it or explaining it and believe it in spite of just about all reason to the contrary. You can, in short, continue to believe in The Wizard and his magic and hope for your brains or heart or courage or home even though it is all on you. You can believe the world is warm and snugly place when it clearly is not. You can hope someone is looking out for you when the universe really doesn’t care and will kill you at a moments notice. You can adopt a fantasy or choose to struggle to live with things as they are.

It’s all still just smoke and mirrors.

Patrix: The Cranky, Beautiful Faith of a Sinner & Saint – part deux

Nadia Bolz-Weber

Nadia Bolz-Weber

I’m sure Rev. Bolz-Weber would be the first to say her book is not meant to be a theology textbook, definitely not a Systematic Theology treatment. I expect she would also be quick to say it does not necessarily reflect or even represent Progressive Christianity. It is her personal faith. Yet, it is about her “faith” and she makes statements of “faith” which represent what she believes to be true about God and Jesus and people and the dynamic of living and believing. She does so as a Pastor with a seminary education and as a “spiritual leader”. She has taken up the position to minister to people with regard to their relationship to God and Jesus, however, she might view it. As confused as she might feel she is about such things and as mysterious as she may think they are, she has set out to speak with some “authority” about them or perhaps some knowledge.

Despite the contention often voiced that God is bigger than our conceptions, that God is ultimately a mystery, that God cannot be contained in propositions, and that faith is not the same as statements of scientific fact or other forms of knowledge, it’s hard to ignore what appear to be “propositions” about Jesus and God. These are made as statements of what is true. They are also made against the backdrop of being raised in the very conservative and fundamentalist Church of Christ. She often interacts with what she was taught and other expressions of the same sort of beliefs to contract them with what she now believes and preaches.

In the book there are recurring ideas and themes. There is the theme, “Where is God in suffering” in which she also touches on the cross and incarnation. There is what she finds as the compelling dynamic of “death and resurrection” by which God makes people whole, over and over and the overarching theme of grace, or perhaps Grace, with a big “G” which she considers the hallmark of Lutheranism and of her perspective on God, Jesus and Christianity. These are the things she seeks to represent in her life, preaching and her ministry to people. This latter touches on the resurrection of Jesus after his death on the cross.

Perhaps she would distance all of this from “theology” or things like “Christology” and “Anthropology” and all the other classic subsets of Theology proper, but nonetheless, that what her statements represent, soft and tentative as they may be in their presentation. No matter how personal they might be. What’s more, she supports these from the Bible. She acknowledges that there are a lot of awful parts of the Bible, parts she heard in the Church of Christ, but also some really “awesome” parts. She acknowledges that it is foolish to believe the Bible was “written by God”, but yet, being written by people, it is still, in some way, revelatory of true knowledge about the divine.

She states she never ceased to believe in God during her sojourn outside the Church. She simply turned her back on what she had been taught for the most part. She seems to have embraced some of it, added to it as with the “goddess” and female side of God, modified it and then brought it back into the realm of the Church and Lutheranism and the Bible, reframed it, recast it and baptized it. She states she never did become an atheist and in response to a conversation while interning as a Hospital Chaplain tells one woman who identifies as an atheist, she could “never pull that off”.

So, I will look at statements she makes about these sort of “theology” type things and see what I can make of them and ask my own questions. My primary question is, “How exactly does that work”? “Can you be a bit more specific, flesh it out a little”?

As I’ve said, it is an engaging, if not for me rather frustrating at time, read. I believe the most troubling and perhaps most telling aspect of her view and perhaps most determinitive of her answer to my “Why”? questions is her “anthropology” or view of “people”. Here is a quote on trying to be Unitarian.

“In the end, as much as I desperately wanted to be Unitarian, I couldn’t, because what I needed was a specific divine source of reconciliation and wholeness, a source that is connected to me in love, bue does not come from inside of me”.

Earlier in the passage she states:

“Unitarians are such smart, good people. They seem so hopeful. They vote Democrat and recycle and love women and they let you believe anything you want to, and I wanted to be one of them badly. But I couldn’t pull it off. Four years of sobriety hadn’t come to me as the result of hopefulness and positive thinking. It wzs grace. Unitarians just don’t talk much about our need for God’s grace. They have a higher opinion of human beings than I have ever felt comfortable claiming, as someone who both reads the paper and knows the condition of my own heart”. …. “I couldn’t be comforted by my own divinity or awesomeness, although I’d love it if I could”.

She sees herself and others as broken or at least not whole, and in desperate need of something entirely outside of themselves and of divine, essentially supernatural, origin to just get by. The need does not seem to admit of much progress. It seems to be a cycle of a few steps forward and some lessor number of steps backward. It is something that requires a cycle of dying and being raised again over and over entirely from something outside yourself by a power you cannot in any way lay claim to. This is a desperate anthropology and not really that different from the traditional Christian view of people.

Is Progressive Christianity the answer? A (sort of) review of Pastrix by Nadia Bolz-Weber

Nadia Bolz-Weber

Nadia Bolz-Weber

“Pastrix The Cranky, Beautiful Faith of a Sinner & Saint” by Nadia Bolz-Weber

I follow rabbit trails.

Anyone who knows me knows this. I’ll start describing something I am thinking about, some idea I had, something I ran across and those who do not know me with get this “What the Fuck” look on their faces. Those who do know me will simply smile and ask, “How did you end up there”? What follows is a description of a rather torturous trail from one apparently non-sequester to another until the map from A to ZZ has been drawn. Usually it makes some sense.

So it was with this particular “find”. It began with discussions with a young Christian woman who is wrestling with the Church, with what she believes, with what the Bible appears to say and who she knows herself to be. There is the conflict between the “better angels of her nature” as she has come to know them and the devils of her upbringing. Only in this case the devils are in the Church and the angels are outside of it. In an attempt to seek out something which she might be able to embrace, something that would allow her to exorcise the devils but keep the angels as angles, as expressions of her beliefs and faith, I set out to explore Progressive Christianity. I find that it is perhaps different from Liberal Christianity and certainly “hell and gone” from Fundamentalist Christianity, the sort in which she was raised, benign as it was. I thought perhaps she, the young woman, might be able to find a home there in that community of beliefs and experience. The truth is there are aspects of Christianity or perhaps just theism which are important to her, but so much chaff which is unpalatable and rightly so.

That search took me to Patheos and it’s “Progressive Christian” Channel and that introduced me to Reverend Nadia Bolz-Weber, pastor of House of All Saints and Sinners in Denver Colorado, a mission work of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America. Reading her blog a bit, listening to a snippet of a sermon, seeing pictures of her in various venues speaking lead me to her “best selling” books, one of which is “Pastrix”. Perhaps, I thought, this will explain how one can embrace Christianity, yet retain a scholarly, educated view of the Bible and Christian theology. Perhaps, this auto-biography of a sort, her “conversion” story as it were, would describe what that might be like. So, I bought the digital copy of the book, started to read buy was stuck on the second page…..of the introduction.

“Suddenly, in that moment, all I could think was: What the hell am I doing? Seminary? Seriously? With a universe this vast and unknowable, what are the odds that this story of Jesus is true? Come on, Nadia. It’s a fucking fairy tale.

And in the very next moment I thought this: Except that throughout my life, I’ve experienced it to be true.

Even when my mind protests, I still can’t deny my experiences.”

I would have ended the first sentence with an exclamation point; full stop; end of story! In fact, I did, although for me it was after seminary and after sixteen years in the ministry of a conservative Presbyterian Church. It was after another six years of wondering if I was throwing the baby out with the bath water. As I’ve been fond of saying, I finally realized, there was no baby. I could safely throw out the dirty, tepid water, clean out the bath, and use it for something else.

Here is the crux of the matter. Why Christianity? I can understand having some belief in some “higher power”, some deity, some sense of the divine, but why nestle that within the bosom of Christianity? If Christianity is an “expression” of the divine and that is found in many religions, why not simply cut to the chase, drop the window dressing and go for the unvarnished, raw truth?

What is it about the Bible that appeals to you? After all, while it will have to be and is construed differently (the Bible that is), you can’t have Christianity without the Bible. Even if you are going to go with experience and allow it to trump your intellect, your reason, why frame that experience in terms of Christianity? After all, without the Bible, you wouldn’t know about Jesus. Without the Bible, you wouldn’t know what sort of “god” he talked about, or what ethics he espoused or what experiences he had. Yet, you have to radically rewrite so much of the Bible, even, yes, the New Testament to make even Jesus palatable. At the very least you have to come up with some other “hermeneutics”. I’ve contemplated going through a harmony of the Gospels to paint a picture of the “other” Jesus, the one whose not so likable or loving or patient or kind.

Further, the measure of truth here is “experience”. How can I deny my experience? When it comes to determining what is truth, I have to listen to my experience, not to reason, or intellect! This, I believe, is the cry of those who wish to believe something in spite of evidence or reasons to the contrary. Make no mistake. What Ms. Bolz-Weber says here is a truth claim about the real world. It is not only about HER real world, but about YOUR real world as well. What she has experienced, you too can experience.

It’s not that experience, some kind of experience, cannot be a measure of what is true. I might say, “My experience is that I can change the oil in my car every 8000 miles rather than every 5000 miles as the owner’s manuals says I should”. However, this is still an evidence based claim about the real world. It is based on my observation of the evidence for no difference in wear or longevity between changing my oil at 8000 miles rather than 5000 miles. Even in this case however, it would be good to check my experience. It would be good to ask questions like, is this because I only buy a certain model car or use a certain type of oil,  or drive a certain way, or perhaps have been extraordinarily lucky in the cars I have bought. In this case my own experience is not the sole basis on which to based a truth claim about the real world.

On the other hand, if I am falling asleep at night and see little people standing on my bed, I might rightly question whether they are really there. I might rightly note that people are usually not that small, that they usually weight something so there would be other indications other than visual if they were real. I might note that seeing little people is not a common experience for me or other people. I might rightly conclude this is a case of Lilliputian Hallucinations and not a reason to start believing in fairies or leprechauns in the face of evidence and reasons to the contrary. Some people would make that leap. It’ just that other spiritual claims of “experiencing God” don’t seem so fantastical though they should.

One key difference is that the latter experience is a personal experience, that is a subjective experience upon which it is questionable to base a claim to objective reality or truth. It is not an experience others can share. That is, they cannot validate or verify my personal experience. They may have similar personal experiences and assume theirs and mine are the same, but they cannot verify my particular experience.

This latter sort of argument from experience, it seems to me, is the sort of claim from experience being made here in her book, right at the outset, and in many claims to spiritual truth. It is a claim to objective truth based on subjective personal experience in the face of evidence and reasons to the contrary. It’s not just in absence of evidence and reason, but, as she says her, contrary to them. I suppose this is, she would say, what faith is about. Then again, many people exercise this sort of faith in all other sorts of religions and other matters of belief. This too is not unique to Christianity yet the claims in which these diverse people have faith are so different as to be totally incompatible.

I’ll continue to read and perhaps to write here. I was hoping for something better. Perhaps I’ll find it. I should add, I’ve now read part of the book and it’s well done. She writes well and is funny. Good for her!