That uncomfortable subject, religion …

_{Denyse O'Leary

April 11, 2009

Intelligent Design}

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

In choosing a religion, personally I would be sceptical of one which proffered scientific proof of its integrity.flaminia_{April 12, 2009
April
04
Apr
12
12
2009
02:15 PM
2
02
15
PM
PDT}

-----Jtaylor: I think the research into eyewitness testimony is actually very relevant; there’s also been considerable research into the reliability of memory in general. It’s quite clear that our brains are not the reliable tools we would like to think they are. Many people can barely remember what they were doing this time last week, and there is no reason to think that people 2000 years ago fared any better. And just look at the way urban myths proliferate. As I pointed out earlier, your point loses its force based on the fact that the Gospel’s offer multiple witnesses, observing at multiple times, and in multiple contexts. Besides, you are alluding to only one study, which may not even be valid. Has your source convinced the U.S. Court systems to stop prosecuting criminals on the basis of eyewitness testimony? I would like to examine this study. -----As to the testimony of hundreds…in terms of the historical events surrounding Jesus we don’t have this. Yes, I think Acts mentions that ‘many hundreds’ witnessed Jesus - but that is not eyewitness testimony. That’s somebody (one person) writing about an event. Not the same at all. However, if everybody who witnessed that event and then had each individually written about it, that would be a different matter. We have thousands of people witnessing these things. Your only real objection is that you disbelieve all the reports because they are contained in the Bible. But the Bible is not all theology, some of it is history, and much more is narration. Are you aware of the fact that Luke’s Gospel, for example, has been analyzed by secular historians and found to be sound” from a narrative perspective. 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. So, when he writes that hundreds of people saw things, it seems reasonable to hold that hundreds of people saw things. -----“And of course we still have the issue that we don’t have any clear authorship for the Gospels (and even John is disputed) and some scholars even dispute Acts. There is reasonable doubt that they were written as eyewitness accounts. And again we don’t have a single contemporary witness who wrote anything down while Jesus actually lived, despite the fact that there were active historians alive in the area at the time. Not one. That’s rather amazing when you think about it.” Most respectable scholars are on board with the attributed authorship of the four gospels and most of the other New Testament books. About the only holdouts are Jesus Seminar freaks and atheists with a chip on their shoulder. Which books in particular do you have doubts about? In terms of writing things down in real time, we have no way of knowing one way or the other. Christ’s disciples may well have written everything down prior to the time that they organized it as part of Scripture. Indeed, I can’t imagine how they got along without doing that. What we do know is that the oral tradition, which may or may not have been written about beforehand, was committed to Scripture, just as Scripture reports. -----As to the people who draw on their experiences (presumably people living now), again that is also questionable. It’s questionable because we know that many people in different religious traditions, spiritual practices also can claim positive ratification of their beliefs. Buddhists do. Sufis do. New Age practitioners do. Muslims do. They will all speak (at length) to the “experiences” of their faith and how real and tangible these experiences are. And many of these same people will die for their particular version of the truth (that is by no means the exclusive domain of Christians, as we unfortunately witnessed on 9/11). Once again, you are conflating religions that were simply conceived out of thin air with the Christian religion which was based on historical facts. It’s not the same thing at all. With regard to claims about miracles, those things can be tested by scientists and have been. Indeed, it is the scientists and medical professionals who confirm miracles attributed to saints as a part of the Canonization process for the Catholic Church. Do your other religions submit to that kind of scrutiny? Yes, some people other than Christians have been known to die for their religion, all of which is based on their “belief” that their religion is true. In any case, having a psychic experience is not the same thing as living through real life events. The apostles died for faithfully reporting on hard facts and historical events, not for holding on to some imaginary earth God or Sun God that they make up in their own minds. -----What’s a skeptic to do? I look at a number of religious truths, each claiming historical veracity, each claiming that their particular faith provides tangible experiences, even healings. Why should I not believe that this are all manifestations of something that is better explained through natural psychological processes? What about my earlier point about the prophecies being fulfilled as historical manifestations [all 459 of them]? What about the fact that Jesus claimed to be God? What about the fact that the Christian religion produced all the cultural institutions that I alluded to in an earlier post. You seem to be consciously skipping over all the arguments that promise to answer your objections.StephenB_{April 12, 2009
April
04
Apr
12
12
2009
01:45 PM
1
01
45
PM
PDT}

We should also not ignore the example of Scientology. Here we have something that has grown into a huge - and hugely profitable - worldwide cultural phenomenon just a few decades after it emerged from the mind of a man who, up until that point, had been nothing more than a minor science-fiction writer. Given that, is it so hard to imagine that the teachings of someone who may have been no more than a maverick Middle-Eastern preacher with a small band of followers - assuming they existed at all - could have caught on and, over the centuries, grown into a worldwide religion?Seversky_{April 12, 2009
April
04
Apr
12
12
2009
12:08 PM
12
12
08
PM
PDT}

JTaylor: "And of course 20 years is still a long time for oral transmissions to mutate." If you think 20 years is a long time, consider the ancient sources for Alexander the Great; Arrian, Curtius, Plutarch, Diodorus, and Justin. All of these were written more than 300 years after Alexander. Now there may be historical disputes about the details and reliability of some of these sources, yet no reasonable historian doubts that an accurate depiction of Alexander's exploits can be gleaned from these accounts. On the other hand, we have the gospels, written some 20 to 60 years after the actual events, not to mention the accounts from the Church fathers, writing from 100 to 250 years after the events, and we have "scholars" from such questionable organizations as the Jesus Seminar (who use colored beads and a popular vote) to cast doubt on the very sayings of Jesus as mentioned in the gospels. It's laughable. It's important to note that the Jesus Seminar is a very media savvy group, which influences popular opinion concerning the gospels more than any other scholarly group in the field of Biblical studies. Yet they only represent a small fraction of the numbers of scholars involved in Biblical studies. Yet because of their broad influence, many believe they speak for a majority. They do not. In fact, 20 to 60 years is phenomenal for the source of any ancient history. Most of what we know, with few exceptions are from sources well beyond the events themselves. One such exception would be political leaders like Julius Caesar. However, much of what we know about Julius Caesar from contemporaries comes from his political rival Cicero. Nonetheless the argument falls flat in context with other anceint histories. I was involved in a discussion one time when I was exclusively debating atheists online. At that time I didn't know as much as I know now about the sources of ancient histories. This person explained that one would expect some contemporary writings about Jesus, since he was so influential according to the gospels. This might be true in context with current events, but we are talking about the ancient world, when the printing press had not been invented, and average people did not have access to writing materials as readily as we have today. Papyrus was expensive. Those writing the gospels would have had to make sacrifices in order to obtain those materials. Also writing on Papyrus took time. It could take years to write a gospel on papyrus. Furthermore, the gospels were written at a time when there was still much official religious and political hostility towards Christianity. There were many religious and political leaders who wanted to suppress any mention of Jesus. It is therefore, in light of these factors, quite phenomenal that the gospels were written at all, and in so short a time after the events - within the same generation, when the eyewitnesses were still living. Given that there were eyewitnesses still living, it seems odd that we don't have contemporary writings that present a contrary account. In fact, we don't start to see contradictory accounts of the gospels until the Gnostic accounts, which were written some 300 or more years after the events.CannuckianYankee_{April 12, 2009
April
04
Apr
12
12
2009
11:34 AM
11
11
34
AM
PDT}

to JTaylor: Good points, in this post and others. I particularly think the last two paragraphs of 41 are quite pertinent.hazel_{April 12, 2009
April
04
Apr
12
12
2009
11:10 AM
11
11
10
AM
PDT}

StephenB: "Such research is not helpful as a standard for judging the credibility of Chritianity. On the one hand, you have [A] the eyewitness testimony of one person at a moment in time, which can indeed be unreliable [in some cases] and quite reliable in other cases depending on the context. On the other hand, you the have [B] the eyewitness testimony of hundreds, maybe thousands of testimonials that draw on experiences day after day, week after week, and year after year. Further, you have corroborating evidence from hundreds of others on the other side of that testimony that were in a position to refute it if it wasn’t accurate." I think the research into eyewitness testimony is actually very relevant; there's also been considerable research into the reliability of memory in general. It's quite clear that our brains are not the reliable tools we would like to think they are. Many people can barely remember what they were doing this time last week, and there is no reason to think that people 2000 years ago fared any better. And just look at the way urban myths proliferate. As to the testimony of hundreds...in terms of the historical events surrounding Jesus we don't have this. Yes, I think Acts mentions that 'many hundreds' witnessed Jesus - but that is not eyewitness testimony. That's somebody (one person) writing about an event. Not the same at all. However, if everybody who witnessed that event and then had each individually written about it, that would be a different matter. And of course we still have the issue that we don't have any clear authorship for the Gospels (and even John is disputed) and some scholars even dispute Acts. There is reasonable doubt that they were written as eyewitness accounts. And again we don't have a single contemporary witness who wrote anything down while Jesus actually lived, despite the fact that there were active historians alive in the area at the time. Not one. That's rather amazing when you think about it. As to the people who draw on their experiences (presumably people living now), again that is also questionable. It's questionable because we know that many people in different religious traditions, spiritual practices also can claim positive ratification of their beliefs. Buddhists do. Sufis do. New Age practitioners do. Muslims do. They will all speak (at length) to the "experiences" of their faith and how real and tangible these experiences are. And many of these same people will die for their particular version of the truth (that is by no means the exclusive domain of Christians, as we unfortunately witnessed on 9/11). What's a skeptic to do? I look at a number of religious truths, each claiming historical veracity, each claiming that their particular faith provides tangible experiences, even healings. Why should I not believe that this are all manifestations of something that is better explained through natural psychological processes?JTaylor_{April 12, 2009
April
04
Apr
12
12
2009
10:45 AM
10
10
45
AM
PDT}

theface 9: If God creates a rock he cannot lift he would still be omnipotent, however he can't do the impossible so he can't lift it. He can't exist and not exist at the same time, he can't break the rules of mathematics or logic. He can break the laws of nature he himself made. In other words omnipotent doesn't mean impossipotent.critiacrof_{April 12, 2009
April
04
Apr
12
12
2009
10:39 AM
10
10
39
AM
PDT}

Lutepisc: "Not so fast, JTaylor. First of all, the earliest author, Paul, is writing not 30 years after the crucifixion, but less than 20 years after the crucifixion, in about 50 C.E. I used to think 20 years was a long time…but now that I’m 60 myself, I realize it’s not so terribly long after all! " Yes, you are quite right, Paul did write his letters before the Gospels. I think scholars say they were written from 50-62. And it's true that Paul talks about Jesus although he was not of course an eyewitness. However, it's always puzzled me why Paul never mentions the specific details of Jesus's life (particularly since the Gospels had yet to be written). I know the counter-argument is that people say the recipients of Paul's letters would already know the story of Jesus's life, but I'm not sure that is entirely convincing. And of course 20 years is still a long time for oral transmissions to mutate. Yes Paul had "received" some tradition, but can verify that what he received is reliable. Even in modern times, with modern communications, myths and legends are easily propagated (look what happened on 9/11). My issue is that there is always some considerable amount of doubt remaining as to whether these events really took place, or whether the events took place but the stories have become so completely elaborated that we cannot really know what happened. I suppose some people would say I need to just have 'faith', but again, if you want me to make a life-altering decision based on this information, I need something more concrete. Lutepisc: "Excuse me? Which other early Church fathers are you referring to here, JTaylor? Please let us hear from the “majority view.” Evidence?? Please??" Without going into a detailed synopsis of church history (and I admit I'm no expert here), but my brief survey clearly shows that the church fathers were in agreement on all matters - in fact we know from the disputes between Arianus and Athanasius that there were significant disputes over even basic matters of Christology. My reading indicates that what we now understand as 'orthodox' faith was only one of multiple doctrinal lines that were in existence at the time. Lutepisc: "The existence of the Church, I believe, is itself the most persuasive evidence of the resurrection." Well, yes the Church still persists. But looking at the modern Church today, I'm not sure (IMHO) I see much evidence of the involvement of a supernatural entity. What I do see is a lot of scandal, sexual misconduct, corruption, greed and divisiveness. There are something like over 30,000 cults, denominations, sects (all mainly because nobody can really agree on what the Bible is trying to say). Yes, there are pockets of sincere, well-meaning good people who are trying to follow their religion with all their hearts. I look at the Church especially in America and frankly I found it utterly repulsive. I'm particularly appalled at the way the Catholic church has failed to properly deal with the sexual abuses under its own roof (too little, too late) - how anybody can continue to be associated with such an institution is completely beyond me. I also know a lot of Christians who are quite disappointed with their faith (and often turn to secular therapy to get any real help). If God is working in the church today it is not very apparent. As an outsider looking in it looks and operates just like other human-inspired and human-run religious institutions. For me this is one part of the many lines of evidence of why I think Christianity is not true. So, yes, there is a Church, but I'm not sure what that means.JTaylor_{April 12, 2009
April
04
Apr
12
12
2009
10:25 AM
10
10
25
AM
PDT}

He has risen indeed!CannuckianYankee_{April 12, 2009
April
04
Apr
12
12
2009
10:19 AM
10
10
19
AM
PDT}

RESURREXIT EST!! Vere resurrexit est!Lutepisc_{April 12, 2009
April
04
Apr
12
12
2009
08:23 AM
8
08
23
AM
PDT}

theface: I am surprised that you cite the Paradox of the Stone as an argument against God's omnipotence. The paradox has been resolved. I suggest you have a look at a paper entitled "Anything You Can Do God Can Do Better" by Campbell Brown and Yujin Nagasawa, at http://philrsss.anu.edu.au/~yujin/Stone.pdf . You also ask why God doesn't heal amputees. Well, He does. See the following link, which describes a well-documented healing in Spain in 1640 (the miracle of Calanda): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miracle_of_Calanda There is also a case recorded in the New Testament (Luke 22: 49-51) of Jesus healing an amputee:
49 When Jesus' followers saw what was going to happen, they said, "Lord, should we strike with our swords?" 50 And one of them struck the servant of the high priest, cutting off his right ear. 51 But Jesus answered, "No more of this!" And he touched the man's ear and healed him.
Thus there is no reason for a Christian to argue that God would not work such a miracle, lest it compel faith. God already has. You ask: "How then, do you suppose, that an atemporal being affects events within time?" If God is atemporal, God could still timelessly decide to intervene at certain points in history. We would perceive that as an intervention in time, but it would not necessitate a change of mind on God's part. I should add that not all Christian theologians view God as atemporal. Some view God as omnitemporal, occupying every point in space and time. This is the view of Professor William Lane Craig, which he argues for in his paper, "Timelessness and Omnitemporality," at http://www.leaderu.com/offices/billcraig/docs/omnitemporality.html . Interestingly, the atheist philosopher David Misialowski also defends such a view as coherent in his paper, "Theological Fatalism, Part 2: Reply to Robert P. Taylor," at http://www.galilean-library.org/manuscript.php?postid=43828 . The classic view that God is atemporal is defended by Professor Paul Helm in his article "Eternity," in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, at http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/eternity/ . J Taylor:
Thirty years is plenty of time for myths and legends to flourish...
Your argument proves too much. If you are right, then similar legends about other characters must have abounded in the days of the Roman Empire. Which raises the question: in that case, how did Christianity ever win so many adherents in the first place? It would have been but one among many "miracle religions," if the skeptics are right. Some skeptics might be tempted to answer that Christianity triumphed because of Constantine, but that puts the cart before the horse, doesn't it? For it invites the question: Why did he become a Christian in the first place? What was the attraction? Why didn't some other religion win out? And why couldn't Gnosticism out-compete orthodox Christianity? If you want to understnad the triumph of Christianity from a sociological perspective, I suggest you read Rodney Stark's book "The Rise of Christianity" (HarperOne, 1997). The Amazon Web page is here: http://www.amazon.com/Rise-Christianity-Marginal-Movement-Religious/dp/0060677015 . Much of the book can be viewed online at http://books.google.com/books?id=HcFSaGvgKKkC&dq=rodney+stark+the+rise+of+christianity&printsec=frontcover&source=bn&hl=en&ei=-vHhSdnaBZCGkAXDkdnXCw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=4#PPA35,M1 . Concerning the Christian doctrine of the Resurrection of Jesus from the tomb, you write:
Given the extremely improbable nature of such an event...
With the greatest respect, that argument (which goes back at least to Hume) begs the question. How do we know that the Resurrection is improbable? Probability assessments can only be formed relative to a set of background assumptions. If one of your assumptions is that the laws of nature always hold, or have always held in the past, then of course the probability of the resurrection will be very low: in fact, it'll be zero! If, on the other hand, you merely assume that the laws of nature usually hold, then all that follows is that at any randomly selected time in the past, the probability of a miracle occurring is very low. But the whole point of Christian belief is that what happened on Easter Sunday in 33 A.D. was not a random occurrence. You also suggest that the Trinity may have been a theological innovation on the part of the early Church. You might like to look at the following: "The Doctrine of the Trinity Defended" at http://www.spotlightministries.org.uk/trinitydefended.htm "The Biblical Basis for the Doctrine of the Trinity" by John Bowman at http://www.irr.org/trinity-outline.html "Did the Early Christians Believe in the Doctrine of the Trinity?" - a collection of quotes by Catholic Answers at http://www.catholic.com/library/Trinity.asp . You also write:
Perhaps you should take John Loftus’s Outsider test.
What's wrong with the Outsider Test is that it ignores God's supernatural grace. Faith is a gift from God. The Outsider Test assumes that we should make up our minds about which religion to believe from a detached, purely rational perspective, as if we had never been exposed to any of them. In other words, it explicitly rules out the way in which the Spirit of God might move the human heart to faith, as happened with the disciples on the road to Emmaus:
And they said one to another, Did not our heart burn within us, while he talked with us by the way, and while he opened to us the scriptures? (Luke 24:32, King James Version.)
We are not Martians, and we should stop pretending to be. A Martian might have a hard time believing in the Resurrection, but then again, God might not expect him/her to. We have all been shaped by history. Some of us have absorbed the faith with our mothers' milk; others came by it late in life; others have barely heard of it; others, not at all. But "to whom much is given, much will be required" (Luke 12:48). I was raised in the faith, rejected it in my late twenties, and managed to find it again more than fifteen years later, when I finally realized that: (a) what I had thought were knock-down arguments against the Christian faith could in fact be answered; (b) that there was no convincing spiritual rival to Christianity; and (c) that the person of Jesus Christ could be viewed as an Exemplar of what a perfect human being ought to be - a model of whom we all fall far short. Anyway, a happy Easter to you both.vjtorley_{April 12, 2009
April
04
Apr
12
12
2009
07:45 AM
7
07
45
AM
PDT}

No one here, I presume, is denying anyone the right to hold and express their religious beliefs but is a blog such as this, ostensibly dedicated to the discussion of a scientific proposal, the most appropriate platform from which to allow one individual to promote her personal faith, particularly bearing in mind that she has a number of other personal blogs from which she can do the same without any conflict of interest? Would it be correct to assume that agnostics and atheists would not be granted the same latitude here?Seversky_{April 12, 2009
April
04
Apr
12
12
2009
06:21 AM
6
06
21
AM
PDT}

JTaylor, your skepticism regarding authenticity and historical authority of the New Testament books is understandable. I used to have much of the same opinion about the subject as you do. Seeing that you are interested in the subject I recommend the following book written in 2006. It is rigorous, scholarly study of the Gospels as eyewitness testimony. Richard Bauckham, Jesus and the Eyewitnesses
inunison_{April 12, 2009
April
04
Apr
12
12
2009
01:38 AM
1
01
38
AM
PDT}

theface, Flannery pointed out in #3 that God is "transtemporal," leaving another possibility other than temporal or atemporal. I don't find any logical incongruities in this concept.CannuckianYankee_{April 12, 2009
April
04
Apr
12
12
2009
12:23 AM
12
12
23
AM
PDT}

theface, Regarding the rock argument, there is an excellent chapter in "Philosophical Foundations For a Christian Worldview" (J.P. Moreland and William Lane Craig - 2003), which addresses just that. Moreland and Craig refer to the "Maximal Power" by Thomas Flint and Alfred Freddoso (1983). Apparently the rock argument is an example of "theologial fatalism," which can be refuted, but not easily due to the conflation of semantics involved. M & C state that theological omipotence should be viewed less as a term of raw power, and rather as "unlimited in quantity and variety." Thus, they conclude that the rock argument stems from a "faulty concept of omnipotence." (pg. 528) In other words, we shouldn't expect that an omnipotent being be capable of anything that is broadly possible. They state that due to the passage of time, there are events, which at one time were braodly possible, but no longer possible in actuality, such as the Phillies winning the World Series in 1997, for example (sorry, I'm a Phillies fan). The rock argument, while not limited to the passage of time, is such an example of a broadly possible concept, but not actually possible due to other factors. Craig and Moreland delve heavily into the concept of the necessary being, which they also conclude as trumping any argument against the attributes inherent in any necessary first cause or being. Thus, there are limits to any broad possibility - even if there is an omnipotent god. These limits do not necessaily negate such a god's existence. I suggest a heirarchy of arguments regarding God's existence, whereby the higher arguments trump any foreseen incongruities in the lower arguments. Thus, the necessary being argument is at the top of such a heirarchy, leaving omnipotence, omniscience, eternality, atemporality, etc, while still necessary, but limited in such a way as to avoid contradicting the top of the heirarchy. It might sound like a wishful expedience, but if viewed in this way we get the following: God exists as a necessary being. As such, he is omnipotent as in unlimited ability in quantity and variety. He is also necessarily omniscient as in unlimited in knowledge that can be known. He is atemporal, yet due to his omnipotence, can be present in any temporal realm He actualizes, and so on and so forth. I'm not certain if I have explained this thoroughly and satisfactorily enough, but I assure you that Craig and Moreland go into these concepts much more in depth than I could ever hope to.CannuckianYankee_{April 12, 2009
April
04
Apr
12
12
2009
12:00 AM
12
12
00
AM
PDT}

theface: "Lets say that god does exist, as you say, outside of time. In other words, god is atemporal. The act of a first cause is, however, a temporal event (what are the best estimates these days, 13.7 billion years ago?), as would any interventions by god with earth today. How then, do you suppose, that an atemporal being affects events within time? Wouldn’t that being have to become temporal, as the events he/she causes or influences have a temporal “stamp”, if you will?" You ask an excellent question, which has an answer found in scripture. The scriptures imply that God is triune - Father, Son, Spirit, but one being. In the Genesis account the Spirit of God moves across the face of the deep, and a personage called God is present with Adam, walking with him in the garden. This implies that God can leave (or rather enter) the temporal realm as He pleases, and affect it. Now perhaps you don't accept the scriptural explanation - but it does show an example of how such a god could be both atemporal, yet present in the temporal realm. In fact, the gospel accounts claim that Jesus is God incarnate. "“Omnipotence is an ultimate. It cancels out all other “omnipotentialities” by definition. O’Leary is correct.” The implications of this are non-sensical. Lets stop by the rock example. Can god create a rock which he cannot lift? If yes, then god is not omnipotent because there is an object god cannot lift. If no, god is not omnipotent because he cannot create such an object. Please explain how this is canceled out by the definition of omnipotence." I don't find the rock example very persuasive - it's more semantics than reality. Again, I sense that you completely ignore the argument that there needs to be a first cause for all that exists in order to escape the absurdity of an infinite regress. That argument certainly trumps any argument negating the attributes of a necessary first cause or being. Let's just say that God is omnipotent as far as the definition for omnipotence will allow. The definition does not allow for the semantics you suggest.CannuckianYankee_{April 11, 2009
April
04
Apr
11
11
2009
11:00 PM
11
11
00
PM
PDT}

"This is like saying: “God cannot create a being greater than himself therefore he is not omnipotent” The proposition is self-contradictory." Unfortunately, the statement is not self-contradictory, rather the concept of omnipotence is a paradox. I would suggest checking out Martin's analysis of the omnipotence argument in Atheism: A Philosophical Justification. Under numerous definitions, omnipotence is logically incoherent, and interferes with omniscience and other attributes typically associated with god. Kind of dense, but it's a trip.theface_{April 11, 2009
April
04
Apr
11
11
2009
10:16 PM
10
10
16
PM
PDT}

-----J Taylor: “I know there are many writers that reference Jesus (or more usually His followers). We have Tactitus, Suetonius, Pliny and others. But not one of these are contemporary. And most are sparing in their details and usually refer to the followers not the person of Jesus. And the one that is most cited and provides the most information, Josephus, is probably not at all reliable (and Josephus was not even alive at the time of Jesus).” Your time line is reasonable, but that’s an awful lot of people saying the same thing from radically different perspectives. How likely is that all the apostles, all their disciples, all their enemies, and all the secular historians got it wrong? Tall tales in conflict with historical facts don’t get those kinds of legs. Tall tales as legends maybe, but not tall tales disguised as historical facts in the face of hostile witnesses. -----“What reports at the time? There were no reports at the time. All we have are Gospels written by people many, many years after the event, who were not eyewitnesses - and furthermore we’re not even sure who wrote the Gospels. Thirty years is plenty of time for myths and legends to flourish, even with reliable oral transmission. We have no direct eyewitness accounts who wrote down what they saw at the time.” The Gospels are reports from those that were there and who were put to death for reporting it. They are narrations, not mere stories. Not many people, much less whole communities, are willing to be tortured to death for something they know to be a lie. With regard to the alleged thirty year gap, there really is no gap. I hearken back to the continuous unbroken line of preaching, the oral tradition, which was eventually committed to Scripture.StephenB_{April 11, 2009
April
04
Apr
11
11
2009
10:12 PM
10
10
12
PM
PDT}

I agree with EndoplasmicMessenger in reference to the book he suggested (I Don't have enough Faith to be an Atheist). I thouroughly enjoyed it. Another good one I just finished is Lee Strobel's The Case for the Real Jesus. I think I enjoyed more than his previous books. It touches on all the fabrications that are being forwarded about Jesus and why they are inaccuarte. It also provides several other relevent books on the subject. As always, I challenge people to look up the evidence for themselves..don't take Strobel's word for it. And as Lutepisc said, if one reads the works of the early church fathers, you have no choice but to come to the conclusion that comments like this.... "All we have are Gospels written by people many, many years after the event, who were not eyewitnesses - and furthermore we’re not even sure who wrote the Gospels. Thirty years is plenty of time for myths and legends to flourish, even with reliable oral transmission. We have no direct eyewitness accounts who wrote down what they saw at the time...." ...are simply in error. Read the books....check out the evidence....it's amazing what you'll find.FtK_{April 11, 2009
April
04
Apr
11
11
2009
10:01 PM
10
10
01
PM
PDT}

The face@29: "Can god create a rock which he cannot lift? If yes, then god is not omnipotent because there is an object god cannot lift." This is like saying: "God cannot create a being greater than himself therefore he is not omnipotent" The proposition is self-contradictory.mad doc_{April 11, 2009
April
04
Apr
11
11
2009
09:19 PM
9
09
19
PM
PDT}

"I think you forget that the god in question, if he/she/it exists, exists outside of time. Time is meaningless in the context of an eternal, omniscient, ominpotent god." Lets say that god does exist, as you say, outside of time. In other words, god is atemporal. The act of a first cause is, however, a temporal event (what are the best estimates these days, 13.7 billion years ago?), as would any interventions by god with earth today. How then, do you suppose, that an atemporal being affects events within time? Wouldn't that being have to become temporal, as the events he/she causes or influences have a temporal "stamp", if you will? "Omnipotence is an ultimate. It cancels out all other “omnipotentialities” by definition. O’Leary is correct." The implications of this are non-sensical. Lets stop by the rock example. Can god create a rock which he cannot lift? If yes, then god is not omnipotent because there is an object god cannot lift. If no, god is not omnipotent because he cannot create such an object. Please explain how this is canceled out by the definition of omnipotence.theface_{April 11, 2009
April
04
Apr
11
11
2009
09:09 PM
9
09
09
PM
PDT}

20 years ago, when I was 30, I had the view that religion was evil and I was not afraid to tell people this. Then, six years ago I had a personal encounter with Jesus. This was a life changing event, but I told no one in case they thought me mad. Not quite two years ago I discovered "intelligent design" and investigated the historical evidence for Jesus and also the Bible. I found, to my pleasant surprise, the factual evidence for God and Jesus was overwhelming. I was previously under the impression that the evidence was scanty at best. Now if I am challenged about my beliefs I do not have to rely on my personal testimony alone. So thank you to you Denyse and the rest of he intelligent design team and may God bless you all this Easter.mad doc_{April 11, 2009
April
04
Apr
11
11
2009
08:07 PM
8
08
07
PM
PDT}

For those who need help in their unbelief, I found the book I Don't Have Enough Faith to Be an Atheist to be a great summary of logical, scientific and historical reasons to be a faithful Christian. And also why being an atheist just doesn't cut it on any of these levels. As a Catholic, I might have concluded it slightly differently, but nevertheless it does provide many forms of argument that are very relevant in today's world. I have shared the entire book with my daughter as a form of inoculation against the kind of ideas she will be flooded with as she grows to adulthood.EndoplasmicMessenger_{April 11, 2009
April
04
Apr
11
11
2009
06:29 PM
6
06
29
PM
PDT}

Hoki, You write, "So, the ID compatible hypothesis that aliens seeded life on Earth is preposterous?" Answer: yes. The only reason it's "ID compatible" is that ID makes no claims as to the nature of the designer. Thus, among competing theories as to the nature of that designer (which goes well beyond ID), space aliens is, well, preposterous. It is compatible but that's about all you can say for it. As you admit, there is absolutely no evidence for it. If you still fail to see the logic of points 2 and 3 I'm afraid I can no longer help you.Flannery_{April 11, 2009
April
04
Apr
11
11
2009
06:28 PM
6
06
28
PM
PDT}

theface: "Though I believe omniscience is logically allowed by itself, it just means that god does not truly have a free will, in that he/she is always aware of how he/she will behave in future circumstances. What you are left with, is a god that is “very powerful” and, by definition, that does not preclude any other gods from existing." I think you forget that the god in question, if he/she/it exists, exists outside of time. Time is meaningless in the context of an eternal, omniscient, ominpotent god. Therefore the argument that this god would know what his decisions are in a future (in the pov of a god) is really meaningless. Everything to an omniscient god is in the present (in the pov of a god) or in non-time. It makes no sense to assign temporal properties to a god, when we know by definition that such a god would not exist within the context of what is temporal. Therefore, when you assume that a god could not be at the same time omniscient, omnipresent and omnipotent, you make all kinds of assumptions from the context of temporality, that are not necessarily the case in an eternal context. Obviously there are limits to omnipotence in order to avoid absurdities. An omnipotent god, for example cannot cause himself to cease existing. The god we speak of can have all of the attributes in question; however, omnisicience implies logical soundness, thus everything about that god would have to exist without defying logic. Assigning "can't" to the dustbin in order to deny the logic of God's existence does not take into account the logical arguments for his existence. It seems to me that atheists do this all the time - a sort of bait and switch tactic when dealing with arguments for the existence of God: "can't not exist" implying that such a god by definition cannot exist and be omnipotent, for example - completely ignoring the cosmological argument showing that a first cause for everything is necessary. If a first cause is necessary, it is necessarily outside of everything else, and everything else is contingent on its existence. This understanding leads to the attributes of a necessary being - eternality, omnipotence, omniscience and immutibility. All of these are implied by a first cause. It must have all possible knowledge and power, and it must be eternal - not created in order to escape an infinite regression of causes. If you find a contradiction in this, perhaps it's a contradiction in your own reasoning. Omnipotence is an ultimate. It cancels out all other "omnipotentialities" by definition. O'Leary is correct.CannuckianYankee_{April 11, 2009
April
04
Apr
11
11
2009
06:27 PM
6
06
27
PM
PDT}

JTaylor: "People have spiritual and religious experiences in many different traditions (and non-traditions). They are not the exclusive domain of Christianity." And this is precisely why it would be faulty to apply miracles as a contextual argument for the efficacy of Christianity. However, the fact that people of many faiths claim to have experienced miraculous healing does cause one to wonder if miracles do happen. It's not a proof of anything, but it can be combined with other evidences that something other than material forces exist. There is no Christian doctrine claiming that miracles happen only to the faithful. Contrary, many of those whom Jesus healed according to scripture were not yet believers.CannuckianYankee_{April 11, 2009
April
04
Apr
11
11
2009
05:51 PM
5
05
51
PM
PDT}

----JTaylor "And I think a lot of believers in the Catholic Church also probably did not understand that difference. Especially when they were faced with the loss of a loved one (especially an unbaptized infant) and the local Priest assured them that their loved one was now resting peacefully (or not) in “limbo”. I agree. When someone says that baptism is necessary for salvation, people start looking for answers to some very difficult questions about the fate of an unbaptized infant. And the Church has to take on all the hard questions. The one thing they just couldn't buy was Augustine's reluctant, but painful conclusion that unbaptized infants go to hell. Good call. ----"But if we want other strange doctrines we only need to look to transubstantiation, indulgences, purgatory, and of course many would say the Trinity itself is rather a murky concept to put it mildly." I would say that what matters most is whether or not these teachings are true or false. I will take a hard to understand truth over an easy to understand lie any day of the week.StephenB_{April 11, 2009
April
04
Apr
11
11
2009
05:49 PM
5
05
49
PM
PDT}

StephenB: "Are you aware that Roman and Jewish historians corroborated many of the facts written about Christ in the New Testament? " I know there are many writers that reference Jesus (or more usually His followers). We have Tactitus, Suetonius, Pliny and others. But not one of these are contemporary. And most are sparing in their details and usually refer to the followers not the person of Jesus. And the one that is most cited and provides the most information, Josephus, is probably not at all reliable (and Josephus was not even alive at the time of Jesus). StephenB: "Well, we know that, according to all reports at the time, Christ’s tomb was empty three days after he was crucified. If his enemies knew that such was not the case, they would surely have drawn attention to that fact. So, it seems like a good bet that the tomb is still empty." What reports at the time? There were no reports at the time. All we have are Gospels written by people many, many years after the event, who were not eyewitnesses - and furthermore we're not even sure who wrote the Gospels. Thirty years is plenty of time for myths and legends to flourish, even with reliable oral transmission. We have no direct eyewitness accounts who wrote down what they saw at the time.JTaylor_{April 11, 2009
April
04
Apr
11
11
2009
05:47 PM
5
05
47
PM
PDT}

JTaylor
StephenB: “The Gospels were preached orally every day for all those thirty years.” We know this how? Every day? Besides, it is well established that oral transmission is not without issue. Yes, I’m aware that some historians claim that non-literate societies were more skilled at it then today, that maybe true. However, we still have to contend with the basic problems that eyewitness testimony is usually unreliable (as per Elizabeth Loftus’s research). And of course there is no corroborated evidence of Jesus or his followers for those 30 years. For a movement that turned the world upside down they were certainly quiet about it.
Not so fast, JTaylor. First of all, the earliest author, Paul, is writing not 30 years after the crucifixion, but less than 20 years after the crucifixion, in about 50 C.E. I used to think 20 years was a long time...but now that I’m 60 myself, I realize it’s not so terribly long after all! :-) In referring to the resurrection, Paul often makes reference to the “traditus,” that is, to “what was handed down;” to “the tradition.” Note especially what he writes (in about 57 C.E.) in I Cor. 15:3ff.
For I handed on to you as of first importance what I in turn had received: that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the scriptures, and that he was buried, and that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the scriptures, and that he appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve. Then he appeared to more than five hundred brothers and sisters at one time, most of whom are still alive, though some have died. Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles. Last of all, as to one untimely born, he appeared also to me. For I am the least of the apostles, unfit to be called an apostle, because I persecuted the church of God.
Paul, in other words, is writing about 20 years after the events about “the tradition he had received.” Eyewitnesses were available who could confirm or deny what he was writing about. John (John 19:35 and John 21:24) refers to himself as an eyewitness, and we know that John was still living when Paul wrote his letters. In fact, as you probably know, John’s gospel was probably written about 30 years after Paul’s letters. In turn, the early church father Polycarp, martyred in about 156, knew John. Irenaeus testifies to this in about 185, having met Polycarp in his youth. So there seems to be a continuous line of witnesses to the resurrected Christ which proceeds to the time of the early Church fathers.
StephenB: “The early Church fathers believed in the Trinity and all the other articles of faith that are accepted today.” Which early Church fathers? You mean the ones whose views become the “orthodox” tradition, rather than what was probably the majority view at the time?
Excuse me? Which other early Church fathers are you referring to here, JTaylor? Please let us hear from the “majority view.” Evidence?? Please?? The historian Pinchas Lapide (who is an orthodox Jew), after studying the relevant historical documents, noted: “When these peasants, shepherds, and fishermen, who betrayed and denied their master, and then failed him miserably, suddenly could be changed overnight into a confidant mission society, convinced of salvation and able to work with much more success after Easter than before Easter, then no vision or hallucination is sufficient to explain such a revolutionary transformation .... If the defeated and depressed group of disciples overnight could change into a victorious movement of faith, based only on autosuggestion or self-deception - without a fundamental faith experience - then this would be a much greater miracle than the resurrection itself. In a purely logical analysis, the resurrection of Jesus is 'the lesser of two evils' for all those who seek a rational explanation of the worldwide consequences of that Easter faith." The Resurrection of Jesus: A Jewish Perspective, 1983. The existence of the Church, I believe, is itself the most persuasive evidence of the resurrection.Lutepisc_{April 11, 2009
April
04
Apr
11
11
2009
05:44 PM
5
05
44
PM
PDT}

----JTaylor: "We still have to contend with the basic problems that eyewitness testimony is usually unreliable (as per Elizabeth Loftus’s research). Such research is not helpful as a standard for judging the credibility of Chritianity. On the one hand, you have [A] the eyewitness testimony of one person at a moment in time, which can indeed be unreliable [in some cases] and quite reliable in other cases depending on the context. On the other hand, you the have [B] the eyewitness testimony of hundreds, maybe thousands of testimonials that draw on experiences day after day, week after week, and year after year. Further, you have corroborating evidence from hundreds of others on the other side of that testimony that were in a position to refute it if it wasn’t accurate. -----“Which early Church fathers? You mean the ones whose views become the “orthodox” tradition, rather than what was probably the majority view at the time?” How many Church fathers do you want me to mention? Are you asking for quotes? If so, pick a subject. Where did you get the impression that the majority view was at variance with the orthodox view. In any case, the Catholic Church is not a democracy, so I don’t get your point here. ------“People have been making up religions for thousands of years.} How does it follow that because some people have been making up religions, all religions are made up. In fact, the Christian religion is based on specific events that occurred in space/time/history. The ones you seem to be referring to [sun God’s etc] were conceived out of thin air. -----“If there is one thing that is clear from history is that anybody can make up a lot of bizarre untruthful stuff and people will still believe it many hundreds of years later. Look at recent history and success of Mormonism, or any number of strange cults. Even those that predict the end of the world and fail still seem to manage to survive.” There are a lot of strange religions. I will grant you that. ------“But what about other religions - I bet you have no issue that their stories are fabricated or made up. Perhaps you should take John Loftus’s Outsider test?” I hadn’t heard of that, but I thank you for the reference. Loftus’s point reminds me of the story about someone who once asked Ghandi why he was a Hindu, to which he responded, “Because I was born in India, of course.” How convenient, right? There are many other points to take into account that you may not be aware of. For one thing, Jesus Christ is the only religion leader that was foretold. All others just popped up on the scene and said, “trust me.” For another, none of the other leaders claimed to be God. Even more astounding, there were 459 Old Testament prophecies about Christ’s life that were fulfilled in New Testament history, including, among other things, the place of his birth, his tribe, his miracles, the virgin birth, the fact that he would be betrayed by thirty pieces of silver, and all sorts of other events. What are the chances that all these prophecies would become manifest in one era? What are the chances that even one of them would become manifest period. It will not do to say that these things were redacted back into the Old Testament, because that simply did not happen. You can’t logically compare this to other religions. It just isn’t the same ball game. Are you aware that Roman and Jewish historians corroborated many of the facts written about Christ in the New Testament? Also, Judeo/Christianity gave us Western civilization, modern science, jurisprudential theory, natural rights, and the notion of the “inherent dignity of the human person.” That doesn’t sound very kooky to me. What have the other religions given us? ------No, it’s an assertion and supposition on your part. (Christ’s empty tomb) Given the extremely improbable nature of such an event, the lack of any external corroboration, the delay in recording this event, this can only be accepted on a faith basis, not as fact. Well, we know that, according to all reports at the time, Christ’s tomb was empty three days after he was crucified. If his enemies knew that such was not the case, they would surely have drawn attention to that fact. So, it seems like a good bet that the tomb is still empty.StephenB_{April 11, 2009
April
04
Apr
11
11
2009
05:32 PM
5
05
32
PM
PDT}

Prev 1 … 4 5 6 7 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply