What are the Characteristics of a NT Christian?

[SteveII]

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?

Hello, SteveII.  I appreciate the time and thought that you put into your response.  Also, my apologies for my delayed response.   

Regarding 1, In Mere Christianity, I recall C.S. Lewis's observation that there is a universal "ought" feeling interconnecting us all, and based on my understanding (please correct me if I'm wrong), Lewis reasoned that this feeling interconnected humanity to god. Now, to illustrate an example, if we view the entirety of consciousness as a grand framework of cybernetic mechanisms, then human consciousness is simply a particular instrument functioning within a grand framework of functioning instruments, and naturally, via a theistic lens, it can be concluded that god would be the grand mechanism that allows everything to function.  Hence, human consciousness is interconnected with god's consciousness; thus, providing a theistic insight into where our consciousness comes from. [1A]

Now, IMO, I have some questions about a theistic explanation of consciousness.  First, if religious belief ultimately occurs via our sense-making processes, perceptions, feelings, etc., then how do humanity's religious practitioners know that they are accurately experiencing and interpreting objective reality/god as it is?  Second, how do they know that their subjective sense-making processes aren't ultimately distorting objective reality (mistakenly but honestly interpreting a god when there actually may not be one)? [1B]

Regarding 2, my point was to illustrate that, IMO, metaphysical questions are a product of human curiosity and that the quest to find meaning in our reality and to discover that meaning may not have any relevance to the way reality actually operates.  Hence, do the answers to the metaphysical questions that humanity ponders actually have substance in our reality?  Is it arrogant of humanity to assume that their metaphysical questions are in any way connected to the manner in which reality actually operates? [2]

I agree with you about 3. As I mentioned earlier, to assume that reality conforms to a humanistic rational mindset could be somewhat presumptuous and could inadvertently close humanity off to other ways of thinking that could help them unlock the mysteries of our reality.  IMO, for the sake of thought and imagination, there could be so many other forms of life (beyond humanity's understanding) out there who have a much simpler and better understanding (or some other equivalent or more advanced function) of reality than we do.

Regarding 4, I attended Abilene Christian University.  Specifically, I completed their online master's program in conflict resolution and reconciliation.  In addition, I attended two residency sessions: the first session trained students in the art of mediation; the second session was a practical skills course that focused a lot on conflict theory and how to be fluent in multiple conflict resolution techniques, as successfully resolving conflict often requires the harmonization/synthesis of multiple approaches/techniques.

1A. I don't have a problem with that description. Isn't the framework that you mention simply the supernatural world? 

1B. Everyone needs to test their beliefs against the real world to see if they are evidenced and logically consistent with a complete worldview. The case for Christianity is cumulative: effects on ourselves/others, historical evidence, current evidence, the Bible, natural theology arguments, etc. I beleive my worldview answers the most questions about our current understanding of reality. They are open to constant examination so it our understanding of reality changes, then I will adjusts in a methodical way. To propose that reality might not be the way that we percieve it leads to a relativism that undermines the pursuit of knowledge.

2. While metaphysical questions might be a product of the human mind, metaphysical truths are not. Metaphysical does not mean subjective meaning or something similar. It seeks concrete answers about reality. 

Metaphysics is a branch of philosophy exploring the fundamental nature of reality.[1]
While various views and methods have been called 'metaphysics' across history, this article approaches metaphysics first from the perspective of contemporary analytical philosophy, and then explores metaphysics in other traditions. In this vein, metaphysics seeks to answer two basic questions:[2]

• Ultimately, what is there?
  
• What is it like?
  

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metaphysics

---

Regarding whether it is impossible for people to always choose good, you have to distinguish between broadly logical possible and actually possible (logical modality). A world where everyone chooses good is broadly logically possible--logic alone cannot rule it out. But clearly, additional criteria/information is needed to determine if it is actually possible. I think it is entirely more likely than the negation that trillions of sequential, interacting, human choices cannot all be good.

I am not making the argument that it is actually possible for humans to choose good every single time. I only want to know if you can demonstrate that it's not actually possible. Surely, there is a burden on your part to demonstrate the impossibility if that's what you were claiming earlier. But now that I reread an earlier response of yours, it seems like you were never confident that it's actually impossible, only that you think it is.  [1]  Either way, if an atheist were to mount the objection that it may be actually possible for all humans to do good all the time (and therefore God could've created a better world than this, whereby all humans choose good all the time), then you cannot just dismiss the objection by placing a burden of proof on the atheist; you have to counter the objection with an argument that shows why it's actually impossible for all humans to choose good all the time. Otherwise, you have to concede the validity of the objection. [2]

What is your basis for believing determinism/compatiblism to be true? Isn't just the prior assumption of Naturalism--which is clearly question begging?

No, the basis has to do with the logical incoherency of the concept of libertarian free will. You can't logically choose without prior factors determining/influencing your choices. If there are no such factors involved in a choice you make, then it's not really a choice on your part, rather it's just a random selection. You cannot call that free will. [3]

1. Are you really asking me if it is probable that tens of billions people making hundreds of millions of interacting choices each would always choose good? I am highly confident that it is impossible. 

2. I do not have to show that it is impossible in order to undercut your premise. I have shown that your premise is highly improbable--probably approaching impossible--and that is sufficient to cast doubt on the conclusion.

3. This might be a definition problem of Free Will. This is the one I go by:

Definition: A personal explanation of some basic result R brought about intentionally be person P where this bringing about of R is a basic action A will cite the intention I of P that R occurred and the basic power B that P exercised to bring about R. P, I and B provide a personal explanation of R: agent P brought about R be exercising power B in order to realize intention I as an irreducible teleological goal. (Moreland, Blackwell's Companion to Natural Theology. p 298)

Of course there are internal factors that shape our choices (circumstance/knowledge/memories/beliefs/feelings/etc.). The fact that we decide what to do without any external constraints is free will.