Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

That uncomfortable subject, religion …

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

Things have been a bit quiet here recently, but in case you wondered, that’s because most list authors are Christians and this is the Triduum (last three days) of Holy Week.

Some are busy with religious matters and others won’t post on principle. I am also indexing a book (always a rush job in principle because the index is the only thing that keeps a book from the press at that point – so no one cares that it’s Holy Week for me).

But as this is Holy Saturday, I am going to talk briefly for a moment about … Religion.

One of the dumbest things I hear “new atheists” say is that faith means “belief without evidence.”

I don’t know what kind of a sheltered life such people can have lived, but their views might have something to do with tenure at tax-supported universities.

Religious doctrines are believed for a variety of reasons. For convenience, I’ll refer only to my own, Catholic Christian, tradition, and this is by no means an exhaustive list, just five reasons for now:

1. Some doctrines are based strictly on evidence. The existence of God, for example, is attested by the nature of the universe. A revealing moment in the Expelled movie was when arch-atheist Richard Dawkins admitted to Ben Stein that space aliens creating life and multiple universes were alternative ideas he’d consider.

What? That’s the best they’ve got? Well, let’s see if I can fiddle the dial and find the Back to God Hour. Glad it’s still on the air …

2. Some doctrines are based on logic. For example, why are there not Two Gods? Well, what happens when the irresistible force meets the immovable object? The point is, it can’t happen. So there are not Two Gods. Or Many.

3. Some doctrines are based on reason. One of the sillier new atheist arguments is “Who designed the designer?” Well, any series can have a beginning. If, as most now think, the Big Bang started the universe, there must have been a wider context. It is reasonable to think this context was the will of God, based on the fine-tuned universe we actually see.

The question of God’s origin, if even askable, lies outside this universe and outside anything the human mind can think. That is why God was traditionally called, in philosophical contexts, the First Cause. That’s like the number 1. Don’t ask which natural number comes before it. The answer is none.

4. Some doctrines are based on the testimony of reliable witnesses – sane, stable people with no record of deceit, who would rather lose their property, liberty, or life than deny what they saw or heard, and have nothing to gain from promoting a story that would cost them all that. The usual way they explain it is “We must fear God rather than men.”

5. Some doctrines are based on experience – a form of evidence. I have observed that a great many people who come to an active faith later in life had an experience that they could only account for by returning to the practice of their faith (or finding a new one). An unexpected healing, perhaps?: The doctors have pronounced the patient’s case hopeless but the patient has decided to try prayer and repentance, and suddenly the burden of illness lifts. After that, the patient takes little interest in the views of new atheists, or the views of any atheists at all, on a permanent basis.

By the way, since I am here anyway, this may be a convenient time to make a “hint” announcement: I will shortly be offering a contest in which interested contributors may win a free copy of the Expelled vid or other works, as arranged. I will ask a question, based on a news story, and all responses will be judged. I will try not to be too partisan; I am mainly interested in rewarding the best contribution in 400 words or less.

More details later, once I get this index out of my life.

Comments
JTaylor:
I have to be honest and say that if the Bible is God’s primary message to His people - it is really quite a botched job and does not represent the supposedly awesome and impotent God he is purported to be.
The contradiction is that when speaking of a hypothetical creator, you measure him using your own knowledge and wisdom as the ruler. His existence or lack thereof depends on whether he conforms to your standards and does what you think is best. If there were, hypothetically, someone smart enough to create DNA, something we don't fully understand, is it reasonable to expect that every other decision he made would be perfectly transparent to us? And your argument regarding the Bible is certainly begging the question, as is this:
e) Did not see fit to intervene to remove all of the contradictions, obvious myths, and inconsistencies from His word
ScottAndrews
April 17, 2009
April
04
Apr
17
17
2009
11:53 AM
11
11
53
AM
PDT
Still got some stretching left in me... StephenB: "But discounting Jesus existence in time/space/history is a really, really, really big stretch, a far greater stretch than discounting the existence of Alexander the Gread, Plato, or Aristotle." I'm not necessarily denying the existence of Jesus. But you have to wonder about a deity who apparently loved the world so much that he: a) Didn't bother to have anybody write anything down about his chosen Messenger for some 25-30 years after the event b) Did not make sure that what was written down was properly preserved and immune from editing and malicious hacking c) Did not preserve the original documents d) Did not clarify important theological and doctrinal matters so that some key doctrines were not resolved until decades and hundreds of years later. And even today, Christians still spend countless hours squabbling over what the Bible really means - and to the point that it has caused serious factions and divisions in the church e) Did not see fit to intervene to remove all of the contradictions, obvious myths, and inconsistencies from His word, thus providing confusion and doubt over what it really means. After all, according to Christian belief, this is the very same God that apparently created the Universe we see around us - with its incredibly complex physical laws, with a ~100 billion galaxies,each with ~100 billion stars. The same God that created DNA/RNA. I have to be honest and say that if the Bible is God's primary message to His people - it is really quite a botched job and does not represent the supposedly awesome and impotent God he is purported to be. If I didn't know better I'd say it's much more likely the Bible is purely a human endeavor.. StephenB: "You seem to have forgotten my earlier point that facts in Luke’s gospel have been corrobrated by other historians, and Luke himself has been credited for being an excellent source for some of those facts, BY THE HISTORIANS." What are the facts that have been corroborated? You mentioned above: "As an example, his reports of cultural events on the times that people met at temples, the pedigrees of the various tribes, and other matters suggest a careful, thoughtful reporter." Can you be more specific, I'm curious. Of course in some ways that wouldn't be surprising - even novelists will include real places, real events, and cultural traditions. We still have a puzzle though as to who exactly Luke was. Again he himself was not an eyewitness, so by trusting him we are implicitly trusting his sources (probably Mark and Q). I'd say it again we don't have evidence of a single eyewitness who knew Jesus themselves and wrote something down. Not one. I'll say this again too - maybe we do have more evidence for Jesus or Plato. Possibly. But nobody is telling me I need to accept Plato as my savior and repent of all my sins. The standard of evidence therefore has to be considerably higher.JTaylor
April 17, 2009
April
04
Apr
17
17
2009
11:17 AM
11
11
17
AM
PDT
----JT: As to the prophecies - that would imply accepting the authority of the OT, and I’ve explained the problems with that above. We could go through each of the 300-400 prophecies and I think many of them would be questionable (and out of context - for example lifting a verse from Psalms and then calling it out as ‘prophecy’ is a stretch). But even the ones such as Is 53, which some dispute, can be explained by the legend making that occurred in the formation of the Gospels." Well, sure, if the events didn't really happen and if Jesus didn't live, then the prophecies didn't become manifest. But discounting Jesus existence in time/space/history is a really, really, really big stretch, a far greater stretch than discounting the existence of Alexander the Gread, Plato, or Aristotle. Those people do not have an apostolic succession of bishops or anything else to remind us of their existence, and anyone could have authored their texts. We have far more evidence for Christ's existence than for any other major figure in antiquity. You seem to have forgotten my earlier point that facts in Luke's gospel have been corrobrated by other historians, and Luke himself has been credited for being an excellent source for some of those facts, BY THE HISTORIANS. That is a lot of credibility extended to a very careful writer. To shug that off is to make another one of those stretches. You are stretching from the front end, the back end, and the middle. That's dedication! I'll give you credit for one thing, though. You don't seize on what you perceive to be your adversaries weakest arguments, while refusing to confront the stronger ones. So, you get points for that. Still, all this stretching has got to be loosing up you tendons, so you are probably in good physical health.StephenB
April 17, 2009
April
04
Apr
17
17
2009
10:12 AM
10
10
12
AM
PDT
Lutepisc: "True. The fact that someone lived doesn’t validate what they taught. In the case of Jesus, though, as you say: “But I probably lean to accepting that Jesus was a real person, perhaps even a remarkable teacher.” True. Think about it. But not too much. I wouldn’t want to mess with your doubt!" I did say "perhaps"...the truth is we don't really know, and may never know. As I said in another reply there could be same evidence that there was a person called Jesus who may have said some wise things (the "Q" source). Perhaps "remarkable" is an overstatement (I personally like some of the teachings in the NT, but also think that there are many other teachers who have had as much or greater insight). As to my doubt - I think it is an honorable position given the evidence available and I'm not ashamed to say "I don't know"...after all, don't many people herey hold a similar skeptical position to evolution?JTaylor
April 17, 2009
April
04
Apr
17
17
2009
09:09 AM
9
09
09
AM
PDT
KF: "On the OT’s authoritative voice on morality issue. I find it first interesting that in a context where Is 52 - 3 is cited as a datable text that documents a specific — and fulfilled — prophecy, we are suddenly distracted by an issue that is at best distractingly tangential." It is not all tangential. You are claiming the OT contains a prophetic voice. I do not know if you are a literalist are not, but even you are not, you must give the same or similar weight to other passages in the OT as you do Is 53. It is completely reasonable to ask the question then as to whether the OT is indeed the voice of God, and whether it is indeed prophetic (at least in parts). As I pointed out there are major issues and problems with accepting this. It's really the crux of the matter. KF: "So, we would be well advised to look askance at that which trots out litanies of real or imagined difficulties and sins of the Israelite Commonwealth and/or Christendom, without reckoning up the other side of the balance. (By contrast of course the advocates of such litanies of he sins of the Judaeo-Christian tradition far too often fail to reckon frankly and fairly with the patent results over the past century or so of the rise of secularism to power across our civilisations.)" So does that somehow excuse the God of Israel executing and approving heinous acts because secularists apparently did the same things many centuries later?JTaylor
April 17, 2009
April
04
Apr
17
17
2009
08:37 AM
8
08
37
AM
PDT
StephenB: "JT, it is evident that you passionately do not want to believe in the Christian faith. I discovered that when I noted your reaction to the prophecy argument. Anyone who would ignore the power of hundreds of prophecies and go looking for three or four questionable ones, which as it turns out, are not really questionable, is clearly looking for loopholes." If I'm passionate about not believing the Christian faith I share this passion with not believing scientology, Mormonism, Islam and a host of other religions and cults for which there is not sufficient evidence. They are all the same. We focus here on Christianity because that is our primary tradition in the West. As to the prophecies - that would imply accepting the authority of the OT, and I've explained the problems with that above. We could go through each of the 300-400 prophecies and I think many of them would be questionable (and out of context - for example lifting a verse from Psalms and then calling it out as 'prophecy' is a stretch). But even the ones such as Is 53, which some dispute, can be explained by the legend making that occurred in the formation of the Gospels. And in the end if I don't want to believe in the Christian faith, is it so unforgivable that I cannot bring myself to worship a God who practices genocide? Does it make you proud of your God when you read those old OT stories?JTaylor
April 17, 2009
April
04
Apr
17
17
2009
07:44 AM
7
07
44
AM
PDT
StephenB: "JT, you are missing the the point. You can only say he was a “good” teacher if you believe what he said. You said he was a good teacher, so you are accepting that which was written about him. If he was only a legend, then he was not a good teacher. I wasn’t saying Lord, lunatic, or liar as the only possible choice. I was saying Lord, lunatic, or lunatic or liar IF you accept that he was a good teacher, which you did. See how that works?" It is entirely within the realm of possibility that Jesus existed as a person that he was a "good teacher" Although I have to be honest, given all that he could have said and didn't (e.g., against slavery), he wasn't a perfect teacher by any means. Maybe we even have some of the sayings of Jesus (perhaps the ones from "Q" which after all, and this is suggestive, just a book of sayings and no more). But legends can and have been built upon the shoulders of real people (probably the history of the saints falls into this category). So it would not be without precedent to say that the story of Jesus is legend based on a real person, but the miracles, the resurrection etc are later interpolations. It is a position that many scholars hold and one that cannot be just dismissed out of hand.JTaylor
April 17, 2009
April
04
Apr
17
17
2009
07:37 AM
7
07
37
AM
PDT
JTaylor:
I think I prefer to be in a position of doubt…
Yes, I suspect this is the bottom line for you.
Or I can quote from the Quran:
How does what the Quran says here differ from what the Bible says in the passage I referred to from Jeremiah? They seem to be saying the same thing, although the Quran passage is a little difficult for me to understand. Here’s Paul, saying the same thing again: “Indeed, when Gentiles, who do not have the law, do by nature things required by the law, they are a law for themselves, even though they do not have the law, since they show that the requirements of the law are written on their hearts, their consciences also bearing witness, and their thoughts now accusing, now even defending them.” (Rom. 2:14, 15)
Or I can believe that goodness was dispensed to humans from a pink teapot orbiting the earth…
Of course you can!
I guess I would treat this in the same way we might the story of Joseph Smith...Undoubtedly the person lived, but I think few people other than Mormons really believe the outlandish stories he conquered up.
True. The fact that someone lived doesn’t validate what they taught. In the case of Jesus, though, as you say: “But I probably lean to accepting that Jesus was a real person, perhaps even a remarkable teacher.” True. Think about it. But not too much. I wouldn’t want to mess with your doubt!Lutepisc
April 17, 2009
April
04
Apr
17
17
2009
06:35 AM
6
06
35
AM
PDT
Jtaylor:
So basically, we’re saying we can’t possibly understand God’s ways, and that there are (and have been apparently) when God chooses to practice what we need to label genocide? It’s also saying that God, despite wanting to be our Father, never wants us to grow up to the point where we can be taken into confidence that we can understand His ways? Sorry, but it sounds like a cop out.
I'm not going to go to deeply into this, because I think it deserves to be discussed scripturally (this doesn't seem like the place) or not at all. When we apply the term "Father" to God, it describes a relationship. It doesn't literally mean that we are little baby Gods waiting to grow up. All of creation is designed to function correctly when His authority and role are recognized. When they aren't, everything breaks down and there are awful consequences. What we see now is a one-time demonstration of that. Some people wonder why they can't have obvious miracles to show them the truth. Others provide Hallmark answers like, "You have to have faith," which on their own make no sense and do nothing to convince curious, reasoning people. Here's how God and the Bible and creation solve those problems: They give us enough information to reach an accurate conclusion, and then let us decide according to what we inwardly want to believe. We examine the evidence, but it, in turn, examines us. It's not conventional wisdom, but it empowers each individual to make a decision. That's why I'll try not to belabor the argument. Because it's not a limitation of the evidence or one person's faith or another one's intellect. It's a personal preference, a choice that we each make. Another person can sometimes influence it, but can never overturn it.ScottAndrews
April 17, 2009
April
04
Apr
17
17
2009
05:50 AM
5
05
50
AM
PDT
PPS: On the OT's authoritative voice on morality issue. I find it first interesting that in a context where Is 52 - 3 is cited as a datable text that documents a specific -- and fulfilled -- prophecy, we are suddenly distracted by an issue that is at best distractingly tangential. So, we need to draw attention to the primary issue, and underscore that the rhetorical resort to tangential issue is a sign of weakness on the primary one; just as in the case of Weasel above. So, let us keep first things first. As to he secondary issue, I will briefly note -- for those who need an initial outline on where to go to investigate the matter -- that personal community level morality and judicial responsibility of those who bear rule are materially different, that God as Creator and Pantokrator is in that position, and observe that the core of OT morality -- Love God and neighbour (made in God's image) and treat them in that context -- [and its NT extensions and refocussing on the heart of the matter] have played a pivotal role in the emergence of justice, fairness, mutual respect and liberty as key concerns of our civlisation. [So, we would be well advised to look askance at that which trots out litanies of real or imagined difficulties and sins of the Israelite Commonwealth and/or Christendom, without reckoning up the other side of the balance. (By contrast of course the advocates of such litanies of he sins of the Judaeo-Christian tradition far too often fail to reckon frankly and fairly with the patent results over the past century or so of the rise of secularism to power across our civilisations. A fact that 100+ million ghosts of victims of democide will warn us on, not to mention dozens of millions of victims of unbridled slaughter of the unborn on reasons that in the main boil down to convenience.)] Indeed, arguably the very same OT and its morality of the state is foundational to the rise of modern liberty and democracy, starting from Vindiciae Contra Tyrannos of 1579 and the Dutch Declaration of Independence of 1581, leading up to the emerging tradition of libertarian thought, and culminating in the US Declaration of Independence of 1776 -- on a tax revolt that significantly parallels the secession of the Northern tribes from Rehoboam -- and the birth of modern democracy. So, let us get back on track. The watershed issue on the table is whether we have in Is 52 - 53 an example of a successful messianic prophecy, in the context of 459 or so prophecies, and a furter context of histrorical fulfillment that is if true decisive on the issues of which worldview is better on comparative difficulties of the major ones in front of us. Once we settle the main issue we can be in a much better position to address the remaining questions and concerns.kairosfocus
April 17, 2009
April
04
Apr
17
17
2009
03:00 AM
3
03
00
AM
PDT
Gentlemen |esp JT): I think the excerpt below aptly sums up the real problem with many exchanges at UD, which beyond a certain limit become utterly fruitless:
[JT, 117:] I still remain skeptical of the “500 eyewitnesses” account, because one person writing that there were 500 eyewitnesses, is not the same at all 500 eyewitnesses individually writing about that event. What we have here is one person who themselves was not an actual eyewitness. It would be the equivalent of me writing a report that at a recent soccer match 500 people saw a UFO. Without any corrrobating evidence such a report holds no water. As to the Is 53 alleged propehcy, obviosly there are different interpretations, and both sides can make them equally compelling. Again, what’s a skeptic to do…
1 --> 1 Cor 15:1 - 11, of course, is the Apostle Paul [by then a public figure who in the same city of Corinth in AD 50 had been before Seneca's brother in defence of his teaching; Seneca being in 55 AD the effective Prime Minister of the Roman Empire in the "good" days of Nero.] 2 --> Paul is writing in a primary source document in AD 55, to a known (and known problematic; cf Clement's letter of 96!) church with which he had serious issues and appealing to a fact in common -- and indeed the widespread official testimony of the C1 church with 20+ identifiable eyewitnesses (some of whom we also have corroborative written and recorded oral statements from [including the very first ever Christian Sermon, delivered by Peter in Jerusalem six weeks after the crucifixion burial and empty tomb outside its walls, which triggered the birth of the Christian movement in the headquarters city of its fiercest opponents; duly reported by an historian whose habitual accuracy is abundantly demonstrated]) -- to resolve an issue in dispute. 3 --> How likely do you think it is that the cited summary of the official witness was not just that? [And, remember, this is about 25 - 30 years after the event. that he summary was inauthentic or the equivalent of a tabloid newspaper account is simply an incredible, question-begging comparison.] 4 --> How, then, does the skeptic address this, in light of the general principles of historiography? Simple: brush it aside by using a dismissal that would never be used for any other primary source document on a matter not disputed by the skeptic, and begging the question that the largest, longest-lived movement in our civilisation provides an unparalleled mass of supportive evidence. Selective hyperskepticism, in a nutshell. 5 --> On Is 52 - 53, c. 700 BC [with direct DSS textual confirmation dating to c 160 BC and translations to Gk dating to about the same time], we have several specific points of prophetic prediction including a distinction between a specific servant of God and the hostile covenant people who abuse, oppress and dismiss him, unjustly handing him over to punishment and death. 6 --> That individual is cut off from the living and yet is restored to seeing the light of life. What is more, that individual is going to have a global impact all the way up to kings. 7 --> There is precisely one individual in the long history of Israel who fits that bill. A certain man from Nazareth, c. 30 AD. 8 --> But, what do we see: in effect, well, you can interpret any which way and can present the interpretation more or less persuasively. 9 --> ANS: yes, if you ignore the evident textual and associated abundant historical facts on the merits and associated inference to best, well-warranted explanation as the decisive issue. _______________ What is going on in our civilisation's intellectual culture as modernist rationalism, relativism and hyperskepticism have reached the ultra-stage commonly called "post- modernism" should be plain, and where that is going to end up is equally plain. Time to wake up and turn back from the abyss now. Before it is too late. GEM of TKI PS: I cannot but note that the above bears, sadly, more than a passing resemblance (save, I trust, on the side where uncivil conduct emerged) to the debates -- and I almost never use that word with a positive context -- that have happened in recent weeks on the Weasel 1986 program by Mr Dawkins. [For those interested in it, my summing up on the merits of the weasel issue is here. (And, no, this is not an invitation to further exchanges. There is enough there and in the recent threads for the serious-minded onlooker to make up his or her mind for him or her self. Let's just say that those who beg and refuse to seriously address the central question, and then focus on a tangential issue inadvertently reveal the true lack of strength of their main case. And, even on the side issue, the balance on the merits is not as such may be wont to boast.)]kairosfocus
April 17, 2009
April
04
Apr
17
17
2009
02:18 AM
2
02
18
AM
PDT
JT, it is evident that you passionately do not want to believe in the Christian faith. I discovered that when I noted your reaction to the prophecy argument. Anyone who would ignore the power of hundreds of prophecies and go looking for three or four questionable ones, which as it turns out, are not really questionable, is clearly looking for loopholes.StephenB
April 17, 2009
April
04
Apr
17
17
2009
12:37 AM
12
12
37
AM
PDT
JT, you are missing the the point. You can only say he was a "good" teacher if you believe what he said. You said he was a good teacher, so you are accepting that which was written about him. If he was only a legend, then he was not a good teacher. I wasn't saying Lord, lunatic, or liar as the only possible choice. I was saying Lord, lunatic, or lunatic or liar IF you accept that he was a good teacher, which you did. See how that works? So, you see your example of William Lane Craig isn't applicable.StephenB
April 17, 2009
April
04
Apr
17
17
2009
12:30 AM
12
12
30
AM
PDT
It's interesting to note that even William Lane Craig isn't impressed with C S Lewis's old chestnut, the trilemma: "This basic criticism of the trilemma is echoed by Christian apologist William Lane Craig[3]: An example of such an unsound argument would be: Jesus was either a liar, a lunatic, or Lord. Jesus was neither a liar nor a lunatic. Therefore, Jesus is Lord. This is a valid argument inferring one member of a disjunction from the negation of the other members. But the argument is still unsound, because the first premiss is false: there are other unmentioned alternatives, for example, that Jesus as described in the gospels is a legendary figure, so that the trilemma is false as it stands." (Craig, William Lane, Reasonable Faith: Christian Truth and Apologetics, revised edition, 1994, pp. 38-39.)JTaylor
April 16, 2009
April
04
Apr
16
16
2009
11:14 PM
11
11
14
PM
PDT
StephenB: "That one doesn’t work. Jesus claimed to be God, explained that he came to save the world from sin, and promised to come back at the end of time to judge mankind. Anyone who says that, and is not telling the truth, is not a good teacher or even an ethical man. Jesus was either Lord, lunatic, or liar. There are no other options." You mean it doesn't work for you. It is quite a reasonable interpretation of the evidence we have. But you are of cause looking at it through the lens of faith, so some confirmation bias is inevitable. What we have are documents written by anonymous writers claiming that Jesus said these things. Actually we don't have the documents, we have copies of copies of copies etc. We also have non-canonical writings that claim Jesus said other things (and did some strange miracles). And of course Jesus himself never actually wrote down a single thing that we know of. You can assert all you like that Jesus said these things, but the truth is we simply don't know. And even if he said it, it doesn't make it so. So for me we have at least four choices: Lord, Lunatic, Liar or... Legend (with a kernel of historical truth).JTaylor
April 16, 2009
April
04
Apr
16
16
2009
11:02 PM
11
11
02
PM
PDT
----JTaylor; "But I probably lean to accepting that Jesus was a real person, perhaps even a remarkable teacher." That one doesn't work. Jesus claimed to be God, explained that he came to save the world from sin, and promised to come back at the end of time to judge mankind. Anyone who says that, and is not telling the truth, is not a good teacher or even an ethical man. Jesus was either Lord, lunatic, or liar. There are no other options.StephenB
April 16, 2009
April
04
Apr
16
16
2009
10:22 PM
10
10
22
PM
PDT
Lutepisc: "Well, there are several extrabiblical historical references to the crucifixion." Yes, there are several references to Jesus and his death. But many of these references are problematical, for a variety of reasons - not the least of which is that not a single one of them is contemporary (and most of these authors weren't even alive at the time, not even as children). This is despite the fact that several historians were known to be active at the purported time of Jesus and in the region. Furthermore, many are really of the nature of hearsay...Thallus is a good example of this, as it is third-hand at best. What is striking about them all is that they mostly mention that there was a movement of Christians and that their founder died - other than that there is very little detail of how, when (or of any other details of the life of Jesus). Here's an alternative view: http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/scott_oser/hojfaq.html I guess I would treat this in the same way we might the story of Joseph Smith. There were certainly reports about Joseph Smith, but that obviously doesn't validate what Smith believed was real (looks like contemporary newspapers were quite scornful). Undoubtedly the person lived, but I think few people other than Mormons really believe the outlandish stories he conquered up. Lutepisc: "But if I’m understanding you correctly, the crucifixion is just as difficult for you to believe as the resurrection. If you question the crucifixion as well…then the whole thing could be a made-up story, and the resurrection narrative has no extra explanatory power at all. Did I get that right?" The honest answer is that I simply don't know. It's possible he may have been crucified. It's possible he died a natural death. It's possible Jesus was a composite figure, composed of the lives of several gurus of the day. It's possible it was all entirely made-up. I've read some of the mythicist books on the subject (e.g., The Jesus Puzzle by Earl Doherty) and there is a plausible case (the silence in Paul's writing is particularly interesting), although I know that view is not accepted by the majority of NT scholars. But I probably lean to accepting that Jesus was a real person, perhaps even a remarkable teacher. But as to anything more than that I'd say there is considerable reasonable doubt whether Jesus was anything more than human. Too many things simply don't add up - the lack of a historical Jesus, the issues with manuscripts (Bart Ehrman is good on this), the formation of the canon, the rather checkered history of the church, the lack of any evidence of God working today...etc. It's possible we'll never have enough evidence. For me personally there simply isn't enough (or enough quality evidence) to the leap of faith - particularly when I can't really distinguish Christianity as being particularly unique amongst religious stories.JTaylor
April 16, 2009
April
04
Apr
16
16
2009
10:10 PM
10
10
10
PM
PDT
Lutepisc: "Why not? This universal and innate sense of morality, which is found in the hearts of Muslims as well as atheists and Christians, is “written on the hearts of men” by God, according to Jeremiah (31:33)." Or I can quote from the Quran: "...To be one of those who believe and urge each other to steadfastness and urge each other to compassion. Those are the Companions of the Right. (Surat al-Balad: 17-18)" Or I can believe that goodness was dispensed to humans from a pink teapot orbiting the earth... Or maybe there's just a very simple and natural explanation? I think I prefer to be in a position of doubt rather than base my life on ancient writings of dubious provenance...JTaylor
April 16, 2009
April
04
Apr
16
16
2009
07:35 PM
7
07
35
PM
PDT
After all, Islam also has a charitable side - but I’m sure many Christians would not attribute that good will to a Divine spark.
Why not? This universal and innate sense of morality, which is found in the hearts of Muslims as well as atheists and Christians, is "written on the hearts of men" by God, according to Jeremiah (31:33).Lutepisc
April 16, 2009
April
04
Apr
16
16
2009
07:07 PM
7
07
07
PM
PDT
ScottAndrews: "If a nation is engaged in deplorable religious practices such as child sacrifice and temple prostitution, and God decides they need to go sooner rather than later, then that’s His decision." But don't you think He could at least "dispatch" these people in a humane way? Do you think it's humane for children and women to die by the sword with God's full approval? ScottAndrews: "The Bible says that His thoughts are higher than ours as the heaven is higher than the earth. That rules out any hope I might have of perfectly understanding everything." So basically, we're saying we can't possibly understand God's ways, and that there are (and have been apparently) when God chooses to practice what we need to label genocide? It's also saying that God, despite wanting to be our Father, never wants us to grow up to the point where we can be taken into confidence that we can understand His ways? Sorry, but it sounds like a cop out.JTaylor
April 16, 2009
April
04
Apr
16
16
2009
05:40 PM
5
05
40
PM
PDT
CannukianYankee @112 & 113 Firstly thank you for your long and thoughtful replies! Thanks for the recommendation on the book by the ex-JW - sounds interesting. CY: "Of course I disagree with that judgment - I believe that God is more forgiving than He is condemning, but there is evil in the world, and what should be done about it? Do we as imperfect humban beings really have the authority to judge and condemn evil apart from a God given authority?" I think my answer @117 probably addresses this to some extent. To me God violates what I believe is an innate morality that all humans share (well, most) - for example the practice of genocide in the OT, which the majority (I hope) of well-adjusted human beings find abhorrent. And of course many skeptics find the very idea of a God who created humans then decided to effectively banish (for eternity) the majority of them (based on the actions of two individuals) quite at odds with a loving Father. Is this really the reality of the Universe, or a mythical story to explain why 'sin' exists? Of course we could then discuss where does this innate morality I speak of comes from. Obviously I'm going to reply that this is an artifact of evolution and developed as way to preserve the good of the social group. And I think we can back this up with evidence by observing past and present non-Christian societies (e.g., Japan) or even present-day societies which do not regard Christian morality as the source of their moral behavior (and there are some interesting stats from increasingly secular countries such as Stockholm that not only have very low crime rates but enjoy stability and prosoperity). I can speak of this personally too - as an atheist,despite popular misconceptions, I'm not compelled to perform all kinds of anti-social behaviors just because "I can". CY: "I think rather, if there were no God, Christians would not at all be motivated to be a part of the alleviating of suffering in the world. Christianity started a spark that has reached around the world - people coming to see that there is hope in the midst of their mundane and often tragic lives." I have a lot of doubt here! I think it's wonderful that some Christians are committed to reducing suffering in the world. The church you described sounds like a good place. But is that motivation caused by a spark from God or is it something altogether more natural? After all there are many other groups, individuals, organizations who are also doing some charitable things, yet these are either affliated to different religions or some are even secular. So we have enough evidence to realize that religion is not necessary as a motivator for doing good. After all, Islam also has a charitable side - but I'm sure many Christians would not attribute that good will to a Divine spark. How can we tell the difference? We're saying A causes B, but the evidence suggests that X causes B too? Isn't this really evidence that religion and belief systems cause these kinds of behaviors?JTaylor
April 16, 2009
April
04
Apr
16
16
2009
05:26 PM
5
05
26
PM
PDT
JTaylor
the same God that did these terrible things is exactly and completely the same God that Christians worship today.
This explanation won't logically reason away your understandable objections. In fact, I'm afraid it might come across as facetious. But I'll offer it anyway. A Christian doesn't accept a God that does terrible things. Instead, we believe that if God created everything, he thereby has the authority to set the ultimate standards of right and wrong. If I say that He has acted wrongly, it's a claim that my conscience and justice and morality are superior. If a nation is engaged in deplorable religious practices such as child sacrifice and temple prostitution, and God decides they need to go sooner rather than later, then that's His decision. It's noteworthy that quite a few people, i.e. the Gibeonites, who were marked for elimination, were spared when they repented. It's like being a small child. (I can still remember.) When our parents made decisions that seemed unfair, odds are it was because we didn't know what they did. Sometimes our parents told us why. Other times they didn't, because the reasoning was beyond our limited comprehension. The Bible says that His thoughts are higher than ours as the heaven is higher than the earth. That rules out any hope I might have of perfectly understanding everything.ScottAndrews
April 16, 2009
April
04
Apr
16
16
2009
02:00 PM
2
02
00
PM
PDT
KariosFocus wrote: "How many such individuals have had upwards of 500 eyewitnesses to their resurrection, and in that context upwards of twenty of which are identifiable by name: the circle of women led by Mary Magdalene [not listed in the C1 list as women were not official witnesses then], the 12, the brothers of Jesus, and Paul the former arch persecutor? Do you see why Is 52 - 53 is the brightest gem among about 500 prophecies on the life and ministry of Jesus of Nazareth?" I still remain skeptical of the "500 eyewitnesses" account, because one person writing that there were 500 eyewitnesses, is not the same at all 500 eyewitnesses individually writing about that event. What we have here is one person who themselves was not an actual eyewitness. It would be the equivalent of me writing a report that at a recent soccer match 500 people saw a UFO. Without any corrrobating evidence such a report holds no water. As to the Is 53 alleged propehcy, obviosly there are different interpretations, and both sides can make them equally compelling. Again, what's a skeptic to do... But thinking about it, to even accept that an OT prophecy has validity would require that I recognize that the OT has some authoritative voice. That doesn't of course mean (I hope!) that I would have accept that the OT is a literal account, but it would mean I would have to not only buy into the broad history but also the morality portrayed. That brings up some very difficult issues. Firstly I would have to deal with some very fantastical stories: man-eating fish, earth-wide deluges, talking snakes, bears being set on kids, self-combusting shrubs, a vessel that accomodate all species on the planet. Etc. I would have to somehow delineate which is fantastical and which isn't. Not such an easy task. We can debate whether Jesus was a legend, but it is a hard case to make that many of the more fantastical OT stories are best explained as myths. But it gets worse - I would also have to deal with the very questionable morality in the OT - which is basically that of an extreme jealous deity, who has no issue with severely punishing the enemies of His chosen people (or even them directly if they misbehave) - and often in viscious and inhumane ways (even to the extent of violently taking the lives of infants and women - even pregnant women!). If we say these are examples of genocide, it is by no means an exagerration or misuse of the term. And of course we have morality tales such as Abraham and Issac that to an outsider are utterly horrific and anti-family - it's a wonder they haven't been expunged from the Bible. No parent in their right mind would or should ever agree to do what Abraham agreed to. And no benevolent and loving God should ever ask of such a thing. I know Christians have many explanations for these things - but most of them seem to be elaborate and sophisticated post-hoc arguments - e.g., the people of Israel were extraordinarily wicked, it was a different time, it was pre-NT convenant, God was making a "point" about the difficulties of following the law etc. But there is one inescapable reality here - the same God that did these terrible things is exactly and completely the same God that Christians worship today. I guess Christians have become comfortable in rationalizing this - I suppose because it was such a long time ago and in a different culture we can somehow divorce ourselves from the horror. For me (and a lot of skeptics) it remains one of the biggest stumbling blocks to accepting the OT (let alone the NT) as anything but the mythical history of an ancient tribal nation. In the end you have to ask yourself - is there ever a circumstance or situation where genocide is allowable. Christians are tacitly saying, yes, there is -- that's not a place I want to go to. So, yes, in the end it is not so hard to dismiss the authority of the OT just on this alone.JTaylor
April 16, 2009
April
04
Apr
16
16
2009
12:40 PM
12
12
40
PM
PDT
I think perhaps Lutepisc is frustrated because of my refusal to acknowledge that the story of Jesus and his followers is somehow special and the reason for its success could only be attributed to the resurrection. That because Jesus allegedly rose from the death (for which there is not a scrap of physical or contemporary evidence for) it sparked this movement that has been with us for two thousand years (I guess if it hadn’t been this it would have been something else).
JTaylor, thank you; this sheds some light on why we have seemed to be passing like two ships in the night. My point has been that, following the horrors of the crucifixion, with all that it implied for the Jesus movement to that point, something like a resurrection experience in the lives of his followers could fully explain the sudden reversal in the motivations and lives of those followers. But if I’m understanding you correctly, the crucifixion is just as difficult for you to believe as the resurrection. If you question the crucifixion as well...then the whole thing could be a made-up story, and the resurrection narrative has no extra explanatory power at all. Did I get that right? Well, there are several extrabiblical historical references to the crucifixion. Tacitus, who has been called “the greatest historian of ancient Rome” covered the period from about 14 C.E. to 68 C.E. (from the death of Caesar Augustus to the time of Nero). His own life (55 to 120 C.E.) overlaps this time. He writes of “Christus,” who “suffered the extreme punishment under the procurator Pontius Pilate, in the reign of Tiberias” . (Interestingly, in referring to “Christus,” he also speaks of “the pernicious superstition” which “repressed for a time, broke out again, not only through Judea, where the mischief originated, but also through the city of Rome." The “pernicious superstition” is thought to have referred to the resurrection...but my purpose in quoting Tacitus here is only to establish the crucifixion, and not to establish the narrative about the resurrection.) Also Thallus, a historian whose works are lost to us, but who wrote in the latter half of the first century, is quoted by the second-century historian Julius Africanus, noting that “it was at the season of the Paschal full moon that Christ died.” Although this passage does not describe the means of death, it corroborates the time of death as the season of Passover, which in line with the gospel narratives. Suetonius, a Roman historian writing at about 120 C.E., under the Emperor Hadrian, notes that Christians were expelled from Rome because of Christ (whom he calls “Chrestus”): "As the Jews were making constant disturbances at the instigation of Chrestus, he [i.e., Claudius...the Roman Emperor from 41 to 55 C.E., whose biography Suetonius is writing] expelled them from Rome.” Suetonius also records the punishment that Christians were receiving in Rome during the time of Nero (64 A.D.): "Punishment by Nero was inflicted on the Christians, a class of men given to a new and mischievous superstition." The punishment inflicted on Christians was the same in degree as that inflicted on their leader...namely, capital punishment. Mara Bar Serapion, a Stoic philosopher in Syria, writing a letter to his son in about 70 C.E., asks the rhetorical question, “What advantage did the Jews gain from executing their King? It was just after that that their kingdom was abolished." We still have the letter; it’s in the British Museum of History. I could go on. There are others. But let me ask: if you don’t believe Jesus was crucified, then how do you suppose he died? Or is it your thought that there’s nothing here to explain at all, because the whole thing is just made up, and no such person as Jesus ever existed? That would be a rare and, I think, fairly untenable point of view. Even the Jesus Seminar accepts that there was a historic person named “Jesus,” although there is disagreement about what he said and did. As far as I know, there’s never been a peer-reviewed publication in a scholarly, respected history journal which has maintained that position.
I’m not reading it as an insult, JT. I’m not certain he had that in mind. It sounds more like a soft-spoken wake up call. I left a list of sources, which you apparently ignored.
Thanks, Cannuckianyankee. Your interpretation is correct. I’ll admit that my words had an edge, though, and I apologize to you for that, JTaylor.
I personally know a few Christians who have struggled with mental illnesses and it’s only been through secular therapy that they’ve obtained any real help. You can’t help think why their faith ultimately, while certainly providing comfort, did not actually have much of a solution.
I appreciate your struggle here, JTaylor. Many Christians also confuse “mental illness” with “lack of faith.” Although there is evidence that a faith-filled perspective and regular participation in a religious community have “protective effects” for mental illnesses (cf. for example Dr. Harold Koenig’s many books, including “Faith and Mental Health: Religious Resources for Healing”), many other factors play into the development of a mental illness, and many other factors are involved in helpfully addressing a mental illness. I think it’s important for pastors, in their training, to achieve some acquaintance with the interface and the distinctions between religious practice and mental illnesses, so they can help their parishioners marshall their faith-oriented resources. But there still exist a lot of prejudices and misunderstandings out there, even within religious communities. I am happy to say that most seminary-trained pastors do get this exposure and training. Finally, you wrote
Belief is a powerful driver in peoples lives and can make them do both wonderful (and awful) things.
I completely agree with you here, JTaylor. Here’s where I think it’s helpful for the religious community to listen to the criticisms of the “new atheists.” To me, this is what Jesus was getting at with the parable of the weeds and the wheat (cf. Matt. 13:24-30). A man sows “good seed” in a field. But an “enemy” comes along at night and scatters weeds among the sown wheat. So the man’s servants ask: “Would you like us to go and weed your field?” “No,” replies the man. “Because you might not be able to tell the weeds from the wheat. Let them both grow until the harvest [and then I’ll take care of it].” A lot of the “evil” done in the name of religion comes, itself, from “weeding out evil.” St. Augustine advised: “Never fight evil as if it is something which arose entirely outside yourself.” Would that we would pay better attention to this!Lutepisc
April 15, 2009
April
04
Apr
15
15
2009
10:10 AM
10
10
10
AM
PDT
Going back to the original title of this post, "that uncomfortable subject, religion," I agree it is uncomfortable but needs to be addressed in terms of the Intelligent Design movement. I think an important aspect that has been missed (as far as I know) is that there is a difference between the believer and non-believer, even among Intelligent Design advocates. Using Christianity as an example, the believer is bound to the Creeds of the Christian Church. We believe in God the Father Almighty, maker of Heaven and Earth. We hold our faith as foundational, whereas others may consider science foundational. We can't go to Church in the morning declaring we believe God made us (included in our doctrine) and to an Intelligent Design conference in the afternoon saying the Designer could be anyone. (It seems that between the comments in the Bible about God creating and all things being created through Christ can cover design.)womanatwell
April 15, 2009
April
04
Apr
15
15
2009
06:37 AM
6
06
37
AM
PDT
Allanius @ 82 "Let’s start with the extant manuscripts canard. Dear would-be forensic manuscript scientists: please identify the dates of the first complete manuscripts (or even substantial fragments) for the Iliad, the Symposium, the Metaphysics, the Aeneid, the Annals of Rome, the Metamorphoses—or in fact any book written before 1000 AD. The smug tone of your critique shows nothing more than your own preening ignorance." Nobody claims that we have exact copies of the original Iliad, Symposium or any other ancient document. In fact, there may not be any true original document of things like the Iliad and Aeneid. People who have recorded the few story tellers who still operate today have discovered that no two peformances are alike and that the shortest rendition of a tale can be half the length of the longest. Likewise, we may be missing huge sections of the Annals of Rome or any other ancient tale. Now it doesn't matter if we only have half the "true Iliad", but if we've only got half the Bible, then any religion that depends on the accuracy of that Bible is in big trouble.djmullen
April 15, 2009
April
04
Apr
15
15
2009
04:16 AM
4
04
16
AM
PDT
JTaylor, OK, I'm not done yet - one last point. I have to use as an example the church that my siter and her husband (the lawyer) attend. It's a large church of several thousand, and there's lots of wealthy people as members. One could look at this church on the surface and see complacency without looking at the larger picture - and that would be a mistake. This church is perhaps one of the best organizations for good that I have seen in my life. This church involves its members in all kinds of volunteer work in the local community - including cleanup days at local elementary schools, where hundreds of church members spend a Saturday painting, building playgrounds, gardening and beautifying schools at no cost to the school. Also, they have groups that go down to Mexico once per month and assemble prefabricated loft houses for poor mexican families who are accostomed to living in city dumps. Every Christmas the members assemble gift packages to bring to the mexican families they have built houses for, while they continue to support these families throughout the year. Members of the church are encouraged to volunteer at local food banks, soup kitchens and homeless shelters, as well as in building houses with Habitat For Humanity. Doctors who are members of the church go on short-term missionary trips with Doctors Without Borders to bring much-needed medical services to ravished people in remote parts of the world. After hurricane Katrina several groups of volunteers made numerous trips to New Orleans and the surrounding areas to provide relief work. The church is also a sender and supporter of dozens of missionaries in many different countries, including dangerous places such as Iraq and Afghanistan. These people do these things from their hearts because they love God. To love God is to do good to others. And the leaders of the church believe that this charity is predicated on the notion that to whom much is given, much is required. Yet I don't sense that these people feel burdened by this work - rather, it gives them a sense that they are a part of something larger than themselves. It's easy to look at the outward appearance of a church with its wealth and prosperity without seeing the inward workings of people devoted to God.CannuckianYankee
April 15, 2009
April
04
Apr
15
15
2009
01:10 AM
1
01
10
AM
PDT
I apologize for this being the longest post on here, JT raised some interesting issues that I would like to address. All of the following quotes are from........ ....JTaylor: "Yes I agree I was probably hasty in saying that Lutepisc insulted me. I guess I was frustrated too because I felt I had replied as best I could, but I obviously disagreed with him and the source he(she?) was quoting." Well I do that sometimes too. One thing I realize though is that I'm not going to change a person's mind by any post I have put on here. I might just enlighten some on things that I know, and more often than that I'm enlightened by what others say, whether I agree with them or not. So I have to keep reminding myself not to get frustrated; that people are where they are, and that's OK. "As to the list of sources you mentioned I have read “Who Moved the Stone” a long time ago." Well that particular book, while not by a scholar per se, is a classic in Christian apologetics. It's interesting, JT, many scholars who are more on the conservative side tend to do less apologetic type work and more solid scholarship, and that's the type of stuff I'm more interested in. I do this because I want real researched answers to my questions, not assumptions, guesses, assertions, speculation or complete fiction. I try to brush up on biblical studies from a number of perspectives, including those with whom I disagree. It appears as though you do the same. "More recently I’ve read a couple of Alistair McGrath’s books (e.g., his refutation to Dawkins’ God Delusion)" I haven't read that one yet. Heck, I haven't read "The God Delusion" yet either. I plan to. "...and some more populist apologetics books. I suppose I could spend more time reading more books and then perhaps in a few years I might eventually convince myself of the authenticity of the Gospels." Interesting, because I could never convince myself of the truth of the gospels. I was more or less convicted of their truth. My tendency was to say "OK, I believe this, but I still have some reservations." But more recently - over perhaps the last decade, I have become more convinced through both the lives and teaching (we call it discipleship) of Christians I've come to know, and also through my studies. "Perhaps I might even have a profound conversion experience which would solidify my research." That's pretty much what happened in my case: seeing more of the whole picture, rather than the snippets that others want me to see from one perspective or another. There is much theology that I disagree with, and that is part of being human. I think this explains why there are so many churches. One thing I have noticed that is common to all mainstream churches - be they Catholic, Protestant or Orthodox, is the centrality and deity of Christ. The only exeptions to this seem to be the quasi-Christian cults and organizations, such as the Mormons, Jehovah's Witnesses, and a few others. But you will notice a pattern to these churches - they stray from certain orthodox foundations, such as the authority of scripture and in many cases the attributes of God and a denial of the Trinity doctrine. They also seem to have started from the teachings of a charismatic figure, who was unorthodox to begin with (Joseph Smith, Charles Taze Russell, Sun Myung Moon, etc). I have an excellent book by a former leader in the Jehovah's Witnesses. Raymond Franz is the nephew of former president Frederick Franz, who was among the "transaltors" for the New World Translation of the scriptures back in the 1950s (of course the Watchtower does not officially acknowledge this fact). R Franz's book tells the story of how he was labeled an apostate due to his questioning certain leadership practices, and how he and his wife left the JWs. It's probably the best, most thorough former JW book I have read - "IN Search of Christian Freedom." The book goes into detail about the Watchtower power structure, from an insider's perspective. On the other hand, if you read the doctrinal statements of most mainstream churches (you can read most of them online), Baptist, Presbeterian, Catholic, Evangelical churches, United Methodist, Episcopalian, and even the more charismatic churches such as the Assemblies of God and The Vinyard, and so on and so forth, there is really not much that is different as far as orthodox beliefs. They all affirm the deity of Christ, the doctrine of the Trinity, the historicity of the resurrection, and for the most part the authority of scripture; which are central to orthodoxy. "Of course we haven’t even discussed the content of the message of Jesus, which is of course not without issue (I’m afrid I’m rather sympathetic to people like Robert Ingersoll who once said: “If there is a God who will damn his children forever, I would rather go to hell than to go to heaven and keep the society of such an infamous tyrant…)" That seems to be where Dawkins is at right now as well. Of course I disagree with that judgment - I believe that God is more forgiving than He is condemning, but there is evil in the world, and what should be done about it? Do we as imperfect humban beings really have the authority to judge and condemn evil apart from a God given authority? If there is a God, certainly the problem of evil would be the first thing on His mind. Scripture seems to confirm this as the case. Since I am not omniscient as God is, perhaps I might not be the best judge of who should be forgiven and who should be condemned. I can't read into the hearts of others very well. I would like it best if nobody was condemned, but what are the consequences then for doing evil? I know for certain that for my sin I deserve condemnation, so my attitude is gratitude for forgiveness, which is available for free. That seems to be what the scriptures teach. "But I think though, that that would have to be only one line of evidence that would convince me. A lot of people say that ‘knowing God’ is the ultimate proof of the reality of God." I would have to agree with that: The profound release that forgiveness brings. I look at Alcoholics Anonymous as a microcosm of the gospel. An alcoholic has to admit that he/she is an alcoholic, and profess this before the group at every meeting. There is a huge release in that experience. Then that person is more able to talk openly about his/her issues that led him/her to drink, and the result is quite often successfully overcoming the addiction. I am not an alcoholic, but I understand the experience of no longer denying who I truly am, and then being able to relate to others in a more real and less self-conscious, more lovng manner. Of course you could argue that there are also secular organizations engaged in that sort of group therapy, which would of course be the case, but I would argue that it has been Christian organizations, which first set that model in motion, because it comes directly from the gospel. Of course AA has become much more secularized over the years in order to reach out and help people who are not believers. "It’s interesting at times to conduct a simple thought experiment that goes something like this. Imagine that Chrisianity is indeed not based on a historical person, but nevertheless succeeded in becoming an established religion, and in fact a wildly successful one. What would that look like? And more to the point, would it in fact look any different from what we observe today and have observed in history the last 2,000 years? Although some people will naturally object that such a religion without a founder could have started, we do have plenty of precedents of rather strange religions and beliefs becoming quite successful (Mormonism comes to mind)." Your "experiment" seems more like speculation to me. "The human capacity to belief is incredibly strong and there is enough historical precedent to realize that belief does not have to be grounded in facts or even real events." This is absolutely true. I think you will find that Christian apologists are in the forefront of arguing the incongruities of world religions - particularly the ones that stray from Christian orthodoxy. The gospel accounts and the writings of Paul, Peter, James and John do not appeal to esoteric tendencies as do most other religions. They appeal to historical witness. I have not found any other world religion that does this. Reason is above feeling in Christianity - of course not all Christians practice this principle, but those are the ones that are farthest from orthodoxy. The Gnostics are a classic example of this, and there are modern manifestations of the esotericism of the Gnostics and of other ancient Christian heresies. It was the "feeling above reason" cults that the early Chuch fathers stood up against, and if they had not become successful in this endeavor, I don't believe that reason would have gained the stronghold in the Western world that it has. "And besides, for me one of the things that stops me becoming a Christian isn’t just doubt about the authenticity of the Bible" Isn't it interesting though that the Bible begs for being authenticated? Have you ever thought about authenticating the Baghvad Gita, for example? It does not appeal to authentication, because it assumes a particular insight, which does not always rest on reason. Look at the Quran - it's mostly poetry. While it is much more like the Bible than the Baghvad Gita, it is still more esoteric and "faith" based than the Bible. It does not need to be authenticated to be true. But the Bible boldly appeals to reson, and thus, authentication. It's no surprise then that the Bible has been more scrutinized than any other religious text in modern history - the age of reason. "(altbough that’s a large part of it), but it’s also as to whether Christianity really changes lives." I think there is always an element of free-will going on, along with it's paradoxical counter-element - predestination. Some believe but have the choice to continue as though they do not. I think all Christians have this experience as part of their Christian journey. So I think it would be difficult to judge change when some people are more along that road to change than others. Let's not forget that one of the primary teachings in scripture is that we are all sinners. Change takes time and does not happen over night. We learn sin over time, and conversely, it takes time to overcome sin's habit. Alcoholics do not become healed by going to one or two meetings. In fact, they struggle with the addiction for the rest of their lives, for the most part. But I have seen that the change is real. I think because we live in a country where Christianity has had a huge impact in our institutions and politics, we tend to overlook the very real change that the gospel leaves in a culture. We Americans have institutionalized Christianity perhaps more than any other culture in history. Yet the gospel does not mandate this sort of institutionalization. I think missionaries see that change more than most. And most missionaries are not here in the US, but around the world in places you and I would not have thought to go. I have had the great benefit to have known some missionaries - (my young niece is one). One I know who died recently spent the better part of his life in inland China. China is seeing one of the largest growths of Christian conversion in the world today. In fact, China has more Christian believers than most Western countries, but because of the fact that Christian missions are illegal, there is much persecution, and churches for the most part meet in people's houses, rather than in public areas. "If this stuff is real, it is reasonable to expect that it should have some consequences in the lives of its followers" well with examples like China and Ethipia, and Indonesia, areas of South America, Middle Eastern countries that have been opened up to the gospel due to wars, such as Iraq and Afghanistan, I think if you were there you would see the change for the better: hospitals and schools being built - basic amenities being provided that were not available before - giving people a sense of hope in seemingly hopeless situations; missionary work among Aids stricken African countries, where huge numbers of children are suffering from the disease. These are activities that missionaries for the most part are doing in the world, and they do it without judgment of the culture. They are in the culture, and learn from the culture, and the majority of the new missionaries are natives, reaching out to their own people. "...and this should be beyond that which could normally be expected through just the benefits of adopting a belief system. Not everybody would agree with this, but I think many Christians and churches do preach that faith is supposed to be living matter, rather than just a dry cerebral concept." Exactly. I think at least that you understand something about Christianity that is supposed to be so. It's an exciting journey, not a mundane yoke of enslavement. It's exciting to bring hope to the hopeless. "I know many Christians claim their lives have been changed, and some even talk about healings or miracles. It isn’t helped much that in the US at least the church seems (IMHO) largely narcissistic, and sometimes unduly focused on materialism (the whole prosperity Gospel movement is completely baffling). In other words, if God is truly alive and working in His church today, I personally have not observed any evidence of this. I know, I know - there are plenty of Churches and individuals that do wonderful things, help people, and sometimes even feed the poor!(although again for a lot of US-based churches that doesn’t seem to be much of a priority). Yes, and there are probably more Christian-based charities than atheist-based charities. I understand all of that. But could that happen just through natural processes of belief without a supernatural originator?" It's true that the American Church is somewhat complacent. However, Americans are some of the most charitable people in the world (I'm not an American, but I admire what goes on for the good in this country). But if you read the Old Testament, the Israelites became complacent at times when they had so much. It seems to be a natural tendency, and a learning tool. It's a common insight that the areas of the world where Christianity tends to grow more are places where there is no room for complacency due to persecution. American Christians are not being persecuted, and thus are more complacent. "But in fact there are also quite a number of ex-Christian sources on the Internet that suggest, for some at least, Christianity has been a damaging experience and that they only found real help in their lives once they left their faith. I personally know a few Christians who have struggled with mental illnesses and it’s only been through secular therapy that they’ve obtained any real help. You can’t help think why their faith ultimately, while certainly providing comfort, did not actually have much of a solution." Well I have to wonder if those ex-Christians fell victim to the complacency you pointed out. I think it's important to grasp that Christianity is not life-changing when change is expected without effort, and without involvement in the larger picture - the great commission. If being a Christian does not cause me to reach out to others (which is my free choice), I can see how some could have false expectations for the gospel to change them, when they haven't invested the necessary perspective that they are a part of a new family, and families help one another and their neighbors. The idea that "God helps those who help themselves" is contrary to Christian teaching. This is a speculation, but I have observed this in reality myself among ex-Christians that I have known. "So there is good and bad in the church, but is the good caused by a Divine spark, or is it just the natural outworking of having a belief system? If there was no God would the world really look any different to what we see today? Certainly God seems to want no part in intervening in natural disasters (although we apparently give Him credit for safely landing planes in the Hudson, but don’t seem too concerned when he fails to stop the eradication of 250,000 in Asia through a Tsunami.)" I think rather, if there were no God, Christians would not at all be motivated to be a part of the alleviating of suffering in the world. Christianity started a spark that has reached around the world - people coming to see that there is hope in the midst of their mundane and often tragic lives. "Belief is a powerful driver in peoples lives and can make them do both wonderful (and awful) things." This is no less true if there is no God than if there is. Belief is not really a motivator for good. It depends on the belief, and the force behind that belief. Some believe that they are mandated by God to murder infidels. Such a belief stems from evil, not God. But the scriptures teach that evil often manifests itself in religious garb. I think if there were no God the world would be in anarchy, and suffering would be a thousand times worse.CannuckianYankee
April 14, 2009
April
04
Apr
14
14
2009
09:06 PM
9
09
06
PM
PDT
CannukianYankee said: "I’m not reading it as an insult, JT. I’m not certain he had that in mind. It sounds more like a soft-spoken wake up call. I left a list of sources, which you apparently ignored. I’m not in the least surprised by this, since my experience with atheists over the years shows that they discount Christian sources quite often without reading them. Not saying that’s the case with you. Perhaps you have read them, I don’t know" Yes I agree I was probably hasty in saying that Lutepisc insulted me. I guess I was frustrated too because I felt I had replied as best I could, but I obviously disagreed with him and the source he(she?) was quoting. As to the list of sources you mentioned I have read "Who Moved the Stone" a long time ago. More recently I've read a couple of Alistair McGrath's books (e.g., his refutation to Dawkins' God Delusion)and some more populist apologetics books. I suppose I could spend more time reading more books and then perhaps in a few years I might eventually convince myself of the authenticity of the Gospels. Perhaps I might even have a profound conversion experience which would solidify my research. Of course we haven't even discussed the content of the message of Jesus, which is of course not without issue (I'm afrid I'm rather sympathetic to people like Robert Ingersoll who once said: "If there is a God who will damn his children forever, I would rather go to hell than to go to heaven and keep the society of such an infamous tyrant...) But I think though, that that would have to be only one line of evidence that would convince me. A lot of people say that 'knowing God' is the ultimate proof of the reality of God. It's interesting at times to conduct a simple thought experiment that goes something like this. Imagine that Chrisianity is indeed not based on a historical person, but nevertheless succeeded in becoming an established religion, and in fact a wildly successful one. What would that look like? And more to the point, would it in fact look any different from what we observe today and have observed in history the last 2,000 years? Although some people will naturally object that such a religion without a founder could have started, we do have plenty of precedents of rather strange religions and beliefs becoming quite successful (Mormonism comes to mind). The human capacity to belief is incredibly strong and there is enough historical precedent to realize that belief does not have to be grounded in facts or even real events. And besides, for me one of the things that stops me becoming a Christian isn't just doubt about the authenticity of the Bible (altbough that's a large part of it), but it's also as to whether Christianity really changes lives. If this stuff is real, it is reasonable to expect that it should have some consequences in the lives of its followers - and this should be beyond that which could normally be expected through just the benefits of adopting a belief system. Not everybody would agree with this, but I think many Christians and churches do preach that faith is supposed to be living matter, rather than just a dry cerebral concept. I know many Christians claim their lives have been changed, and some even talk about healings or miracles. It isn't helped much that in the US at least the church seems (IMHO) largely narcissistic, and sometimes unduly focused on materialism (the whole prosperity Gospel movement is completely baffling). In other words, if God is truly alive and working in His church today, I personally have not observed any evidence of this. I know, I know - there are plenty of Churches and individuals that do wonderful things, help people, and sometimes even feed the poor!(although again for a lot of US-based churches that doesn't seem to be much of a priority). Yes, and there are probably more Christian-based charities than atheist-based charities. I understand all of that. But could that happen just through natural processes of belief without a supernatural originator? But in fact there are also quite a number of ex-Christian sources on the Internet that suggest, for some at least, Christianity has been a damaging experience and that they only found real help in their lives once they left their faith. I personally know a few Christians who have struggled with mental illnesses and it's only been through secular therapy that they've obtained any real help. You can't help think why their faith ultimately, while certainly providing comfort, did not actually have much of a solution. So there is good and bad in the church, but is the good caused by a Divine spark, or is it just the natural outworking of having a belief system? If there was no God would the world really look any different to what we see today? Certainly God seems to want no part in intervening in natural disasters (although we apparently give Him credit for safely landing planes in the Hudson, but don't seem too concerned when he fails to stop the eradication of 250,000 in Asia through a Tsunami.) Belief is a powerful driver in peoples lives and can make them do both wonderful (and awful) things.JTaylor
April 14, 2009
April
04
Apr
14
14
2009
12:17 PM
12
12
17
PM
PDT
A few thoughts regarding prophecies and miracles (again it seems awkward posting anything religious in this forum, but oh well.) Jesus' disciples had little idea what was going to happen. When Jesus told them what would happen, Peter told him to be kind to himself, that those things would not happen to him. The prophecies were more valuable for identifying Jesus after the fact. Miracles aren't proof of anything. Jesus and other Bible writers often warned of false signs. Miracles and cures helped to identify the new congregation. Their purpose has ended. It would be pointless to warn us of false signs if every miracle was a sign from God. Pharaoh's magicians copied many of Moses' miracles. Obviously it wasn't enough to believe anyone who could turn a rod into a snake or water into blood. God doesn't always do things the way we would think logical. Jesus said the greatest commandment was to love God - the first commandment. He said the second greatest was to love your neighbor - "buried" to speak in Leviticus next to a verse about animals. The second greatest law in all the Hebrew scriptures, and it was up to the discerning reader to recognize its significance.ScottAndrews
April 14, 2009
April
04
Apr
14
14
2009
12:05 PM
12
12
05
PM
PDT
1 2 3 4 5 7

Leave a Reply