What are the Characteristics of a NT Christian?

[The Grand Nudger]

Suddenly, "cumulative cases" aren't quite as compelling..it would seem.  

[SteveII]

1. A perceptive question. A couple of things: first, 'rationalization' is an inappropriate justification. I think there is an ample set of appropriate reasons to believe the way I do. One that I mentioned quickly is our built in sense of the God/supernatural. I think this belief can be characterized as properly basic. We can know that God exists without making an inference to God's existence from something more basic. This is not an argument from "religions experience" -- that would still be an argument. God is not an idea adopted in the mind but an experienced reality. 

2. The point is you are not saying "I don't know". These are metaphysical question that cannot be answered by science so what you are really saying is that "I will never know". That is simply not sufficient to the vast majority of people in the world. 

3. As I said in [2], naturalist don't understand the reality around them. Reality is much more than what science can describe. 

4. I don't think they are persuasive on their own. As I said before, they are part of a cumulative case for God.

Thank you for your response, SteveII. 

Out of curiosity, regarding 1, in particular, the statement "our built in sense of God/supernatural", could you please provide a source for this?   Is it more accurate to say that the human mind has a built in sense of causal agency?  Is it possible that some people may be using causal agency interchangeably with supernatural/god? 

Regarding 2, IMO, while metaphysical questions about reality are very interesting and intellectually stimulating, is it possible that they could be irrelevant to the actual operation of reality? In other words, do the answers to humanity's metaphysical questions have any meaning outside of the human mindset?

Regarding 3, IMO, I will agree that currently science cannot fully explain reality.  As a result, regarding naturalism, is it more accurate to say that a naturalist (who is educated) lacks a complete understanding of the reality around him or her?

In regards to 4, I'd like to share some ideas that I learned from my studies at a Christian university. I will also acknowledge that my understanding may be very poor by your standards (I'd appreciate any insights that you can offer that would clarify or enhance my understanding of the ideas that I have posted below), but I'd like you to know that I'm trying to understand your way of thinking, sir. 

With that said, I recall the concept of kenosis, which to my knowledge, is all about universal love: the emptying of oneself into a broader reality of love.  Specifically, god created humanity in its image and wanted them to put god's universal love into practice. Now, naturally, god is the only being capable of perfect kenosis, but nevertheless, even though perfect godly kenosis is beyond the imperfect practitioners of Christianity, it is still their duty to put god's kenosis into practice to the best of their ability (Doncel, 2004).

Now, IMO, relating Buber's concepts of I-Thou and I-It to kenosis is interesting. In particular, I-Thou relationships describe a relationship where people treat each other and their surroundings as ends in themselves: naturally, they must also see their god in this way in order to have a meaningful connection with god.  In particular, when people practice I-Thou relationships with each other, they are treating each other as people.  However, when people engage in I-It relationships, people treat each other and their surroundings as objects to be used as a means for their own ends; they may also view their god in a similar way (Buber, 1996). Hence, IMO, I-Thou relationships among humans would seem to be a very good way to practice kenosis and have meaningful relationships with each other and with god.  

Now, I have shared these ideas because, via my observations, there are plenty of practitioners of Christianity who engage in many I-It relationships, and consequently, they are falling short of practicing kenosis to the best of their ability.  Now, I will acknowledge that you, along with Neo-Scholastic and Catholic Lady (my apologies if I left anyone out), seem to be the exception: based on your collective posts, you all seem dedicated to your belief system/your relationship with god and are treating posters here in a humane and amiable manner.  However, in your opinion, how can you get more practitioners of your faith to act in this way? IMO, if more practitioners of Christianity acted in a more I-Thou way, then perhaps the secular camp would be more willing to listen, learn, and understand (but not necessarily agree), as they would see more consistency between the espoused and enacted values of Christianity.  What do you think?

Thank you for your time and attention.  

References
Buber, Martin. (1996). I and Thou. New York: Simon & Schuster.
Doncel, M.G. (2004). The kenosis of the creator and of the created co-creator.  Zygon: Journal of Religion and Science, 39(4), 791-800.

1. To explain why humans seem to be predisposed to believe in the supernatural, the naturalist's answer is that humans have evolved to look for causation.

However, that answer is too simplistic and seems contrived. What you are you are describing is just a product of conciousness; for without it, there is a whole host of mental processes that are not possible--including those to reason an unseen cause. So aren't you really attempting to answer the question with "conciousness?"

That opens a whole can of worms for you. There is no scientific explanation for human consciousness. You have a non-physical force acting on a physical world--so a completely deterministic world (naturalism) is out the window. Additionally, how did it evolve? What evolutionary advantage did it serve that got selected (and does that theory have a sufficient selection coefficient)?  

Instead, what most people experience is an awareness of the existence of something more than material (supernatural). They do not reason to the existence of something more than material. This is an important disctinction. It is also the distinction that makes belief in the supernatural a properly basic belief (needs no further justification) and therefore a reasonable belief to have

2. Since metaphysical questions deal with the fundamental nature of reality (a layer science itself relies on), I would say that they are important questions. Questions of philosophy, logic, morality, aesthetics, origins, purpose, and value shape our lives from moment to moment far more than a scientific question/answer. IMO, the fact that we can ask/consider/seek answers to metaphysical questions has no bearing on the answers, so they are not dependent on humans to ponder them. 

3. Strict naturalism is called scientism. Scientism holds that only science can determine truth. That is an untenable position and is to ignore large parts of the reality we find ourselves in.

4. You make good points. There are many people who are nominally Christian and do not live according to its precepts. Self-centeredness is the antithesis of Christianity. As you correctly pointed out, it is a struggle. What college did you attend?

[Neo-Scholastic]

Instead, what most people experience is an awareness of the existence of something more than material (supernatural). They do not reason to the existence of something more than material. This is an important disctinction. It is also the distinction that makes belief in the supernatural a properly basic belief (needs no further justification) and therefore a reasonable belief to have.

A properly basic belief does not require justification. However, in order for a properly basic belief to have warrant, it must be held after weighing it against possible defeaters.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

I have infuriated most of my cousins by simply asking them to recite chapter and verse for the way they follow Christ. There's a few hard core who actually read that shit, but mostly they just stutter and call me an atheist.

[Brian37]

Instead, what most people experience is an awareness of the existence of something more than material (supernatural). They do not reason to the existence of something more than material. This is an important disctinction. It is also the distinction that makes belief in the supernatural a properly basic belief (needs no further justification) and therefore a reasonable belief to have.

A properly basic belief does not require justification. However, in order for a properly basic belief to have warrant, it must be held after weighing it against possible defeaters.

Belief does not require shit. Sell a kid  Santa before they can figure out the parents are the gift givers and they swallow it. 

Knowledge and facts require kicking the tires and the ability to go where the evidence leads and the ability to accept when you got it wrong. The rest is a like.

[Neo-Scholastic]

A properly basic belief does not require justification. However, in order for a properly basic belief to have warrant, it must be held after weighing it against possible defeaters.

Belief does not require shit. Sell a kid  Santa before they can figure out the parents are the gift givers and they swallow it. 

Knowledge and facts require kicking the tires and the ability to go where the evidence leads and the ability to accept when you got it wrong. The rest is a like.

Most people believe that their vivid memories are generally reliable until shown otherwise. If there are no good reasons to suppose otherwise then those beliefs qualify as knowledge.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Belief does not require shit. Sell a kid  Santa before they can figure out the parents are the gift givers and they swallow it. 

Knowledge and facts require kicking the tires and the ability to go where the evidence leads and the ability to accept when you got it wrong. The rest is a like.

Most people believe that their vivid memories are generally reliable until shown otherwise. If there are no good reasons to suppose otherwise then those beliefs qualify as knowledge.

Without supporting evidence they're hearsay.

[The Grand Nudger]

Knowledge=vivid memories?

That has to be the most inflationary and useless theory of knowledge I've ever heard. I guess it's a good thing that most people don;t get to define knowledge, eh?

[Brian37]

Belief does not require shit. Sell a kid  Santa before they can figure out the parents are the gift givers and they swallow it. 

Knowledge and facts require kicking the tires and the ability to go where the evidence leads and the ability to accept when you got it wrong. The rest is a like.

Most people believe that their vivid memories are generally reliable until shown otherwise. If there are no good reasons to suppose otherwise then those beliefs qualify as knowledge.

I agree, so why do you buy old bullshit written by scientifically ignorant humans? You want me to buy a book making claims about men magically popping out of dirt, then poo poo the idea of Santa? If you believe in a magic baby with super powers I don't see why you shouldn't buy Santa or Allah or Apollo. One fantasy is as good a naked assertion as any other. Yoda is real and so is the Force.

[vorlon13]