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
#18 So, if someone, somewhere, at some time, misunderstood the theology... then it's proof that they're not only "...bizarre and arbitrary, but do not pass the test of time"? Good heavens, by that definition, no belief in the history of humanity is less than bizarre, arbitrary and fading with time! Shall you next say the same of lunar phases, because so many believe they are caused by the earth's shadow on the moon, rather than by the moon turning? Please, please don't expound on how silly and illogical something is without good information on the topic!Foxfier
April 11, 2009
April
04
Apr
11
11
2009
05:20 PM
5
05
20
PM
PDT
Re: Limbo Firstly, I'm not really all that interested in the ecclesiastical differences of whether it's theology, doctrine or whatever. I think the point is that this is a teaching that the church promoted for centuries in one way or the other. 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". 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.JTaylor
April 11, 2009
April
04
Apr
11
11
2009
03:45 PM
3
03
45
PM
PDT
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. 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? StephenB: "If the first century Christians had been making things up, their enemies would have called them on it right then and there. " People have been making up religions for thousands of years. Yes, and sometimes their enemies do call them upon it, but religious ideas (even very strange ones) have a tendency to take root. 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. Christianity just happens to be one of the more successful ones. I see absolutely no reason to treat it any differently from all of the other made-up stories (although I concede it's possible there was a person called Jesus, but even that isn't certain). 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? Stephen B: " Fact....Christ, tomb empty." No, it's an assertion and supposition on your part. 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.JTaylor
April 11, 2009
April
04
Apr
11
11
2009
03:34 PM
3
03
34
PM
PDT
I think that I understated the case at #15. Limbo really was more than a theological speculation, otherwise there would have been little controversy about the prospect of doing away with it. At the moment, the Church is silent about it. There is nothing about it in the Universal Catechism ,so it has neither been reaffirmed nor denied.StephenB
April 11, 2009
April
04
Apr
11
11
2009
03:27 PM
3
03
27
PM
PDT
----J Taylor: A good example of this is the doctrine of limbo, which the Catholic church recently overturned. It suggests that either the Catholic church is not as tuned into hearing the voice of God, or God keeps changing His mind. Which is it? Limbo was never a defined truth of the faith. It was more of a theological speculation than anything else.StephenB
April 11, 2009
April
04
Apr
11
11
2009
02:52 PM
2
02
52
PM
PDT
------J Taylor: In the case of Christianity is whether we do indeed have reliable witnesses. All of the canonical Gospel accounts were written at least 30 years or more after the events they portray. And many would question the authorship of these Gospels (at least Mark, Matthew, Luke), that the authors were not in fact eye witnesses. Furthermore we don’t have originals (autographs but copies of copies etc, the earliest of which dates from (I think) the early 2nd century. And there is evidence that suggests that multiple changes (deliberate and accidental) have been made to the manuscripts. The Gospels were preached orally every day for all those thirty years. What was finally recorded in Scripture had already been part of the belief system and was well established. It was a continuous process from day one. -----“We also have to deal with the fact that ‘doctrine’ as we know it today was not immediately established; some doctrines such as the Trinity were not established until the 4th - after much politicalizing, infighting and debate within the Church. Similarly, there was the whole controversy of arianism about the very nature of Christ. All the doctrines were there, but not all the implications had been expounded. The early Church fathers believed in the Trinity and all the other articles of faith that are accepted today. The only thing that changed were the words that they used to define the already establshed teaching. You are confusing doctrine, which doesn't change, with development of doctrine, which takes the same teaching and applies it to ever changing situations. No substantive changes have occurred in the Scriptures. All that is pure myth. -----“For me that leads me to one inescapable conclusion - that there is reasonable doubt about the origins of Christianity in terms of what happened, how it happened, and when it happened. So, it isn’t so much that there isn’t evidence, but rather that the quality of evidence is poor. I for one am not going to make a life-altering decision based on such questionable evidence - particularly when the evidence we do have suggests that the origins of Christianity are better explained through the workings of man than any supernatural involvement. Your mistaken conclusion is based on your earlier mistaken premise. If the first century Christians had been making things up, their enemies would have called them on it right then and there. Moving back in time, we can say the same thing about the apostles and the events that were being reported at the time. What could be more ridiculous that a bunch of Jewish scribes and Roman soldiers standing around a grave trying to prevent its occupant from rising from the dead. They had more faith than the apostles, and their faith was realized. Some of us celebrate that event tomorrow. Fact: Mohammed, tomb occupied, Confucius, tomb occupied, Buddha, tomb occupied, Christ, tomb empty.StephenB
April 11, 2009
April
04
Apr
11
11
2009
02:39 PM
2
02
39
PM
PDT
Denyse writes: "One of the dumbest things I hear “new atheists” say is that faith means “belief without evidence.” That's because they do not understand the difference betsween blind faith and informed faith.DonaldM
April 11, 2009
April
04
Apr
11
11
2009
02:31 PM
2
02
31
PM
PDT
Re: #4 In the case of Christianity is whether we do indeed have reliable witnesses. All of the canonical Gospel accounts were written at least 30 years or more after the events they portray. And many would question the authorship of these Gospels (at least Mark, Matthew, Luke), that the authors were not in fact eye witnesses. Furthermore we don't have originals (autographs but copies of copies etc, the earliest of which dates from (I think) the early 2nd century. And there is evidence that suggests that multiple changes (deliberate and accidental) have been made to the manuscripts. We also have to deal with the fact that 'doctrine' as we know it today was not immediately established; some doctrines such as the Trinity were not established until the 4th - after much politicalizing, infighting and debate within the Church. Similarly, there was the whole controversy of arianism about the very nature of Christ. For me that leads me to one inescapable conclusion - that there is reasonable doubt about the origins of Christianity in terms of what happened, how it happened, and when it happened. So, it isn't so much that there isn't evidence, but rather that the quality of evidence is poor. I for one am not going to make a life-altering decision based on such questionable evidence - particularly when the evidence we do have suggests that the origins of Christianity are better explained through the workings of man than any supernatural involvement.JTaylor
April 11, 2009
April
04
Apr
11
11
2009
01:50 PM
1
01
50
PM
PDT
Flannery (#3): On item one, I think Denyse is saying that the “mere possibility” that aliens created life here on earth (suggested by Dawkins) is utterly preposterous and based, in fact, on no evidence. So, the ID compatible hypothesis that aliens seeded life on Earth is preposterous? Of course, there is no evidence for this and Dawkins never claimed there was either. As for item 2: is the claim that there can't be two gods because there can't be two omnipotent gods? If that is the case, then I still can't see the logic. As for item 3: maybe she meant what you think she meant. I still don't get the point of the item, however...Hoki
April 11, 2009
April
04
Apr
11
11
2009
01:20 PM
1
01
20
PM
PDT
If religious doctrines may be based on evidence and logic then what is the difference between "faith" and "current best estimate based on evidence available"?Mark Frank
April 11, 2009
April
04
Apr
11
11
2009
01:08 PM
1
01
08
PM
PDT
"TheFace, you can’t get more than one omnipotent being, by definition. Think about it." By defintion, you actually can't get ANY omnipotent beings, as omnipotence is a logical paradox (e.g., create a rock that one cannot lift, I'm sure you know this one). As is a being that is omnipotent and omniscient, in that an omniscient god would know all past/present/future events, such as how he/she would eventually intervene in my life. This would insinuate, however, that god could not change his/her mind regarding how he/she would intervene in my life, which insinuates that god is not omnipotent. 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.theface
April 11, 2009
April
04
Apr
11
11
2009
12:07 PM
12
12
07
PM
PDT
Re: #2 Some doctrines are based on logic. And some doctrines are not only bizarre and arbitrary, but do not pass the test of time. A good example of this is the doctrine of limbo, which the Catholic church recently overturned. It suggests that either the Catholic church is not as tuned into hearing the voice of God, or God keeps changing His mind. Which is it?JTaylor
April 11, 2009
April
04
Apr
11
11
2009
11:26 AM
11
11
26
AM
PDT
Flavinia wrote: "A regenerated limb would cross the line from ‘miracle’, to ’sign’, and would thus not require faith to believe it. Therefore it would cease to be a matter of religion, let alone an opportunity for salvation by faith." That seems a very fine line to me. I don't that distinction is clear in the Bible. In fact I think Jesus seems to indicate that miracles had a very definite purpose that really fits the bill as a 'sign':
John 10:37,38 "Do not believe me unless I do what my Father does. But if I do it, even though you do not believe me, believe the miracles, that you may know and understand that the Father is in me, and I in the Father."
It's also easy to read the New Testament and come away with the impression that the followers of Jesus should expect to see both "signs and wonders" occur (and many Christian groups, particularly Charismatic groups, explicitly preach this). So it is indeed a very valid question to ask why we don't see the same kind of miracles/signs today that occurred in the NT.JTaylor
April 11, 2009
April
04
Apr
11
11
2009
11:00 AM
11
11
00
AM
PDT
Re : #5 People have spiritual and religious experiences in many different traditions (and non-traditions). They are not the exclusive domain of Christianity. Healings too occur in non-Christian contexts. And sometimes the doctrines of those traditions contradict each other. It's hard therefore to take somebody's personal experience as any reliable evidence of the veracity of a particular doctrine. It does of course raise many interesting questions as to how and why people have these kinds of experiences. But to me the fact that they are not the exclusive property of one particular religious school, suggests something else going on.JTaylor
April 11, 2009
April
04
Apr
11
11
2009
10:52 AM
10
10
52
AM
PDT
theface wrote: "If I were to be convinced of the power of prayer or belief to heal, I would search for it in areas where humans do not heal naturally. If an amputee prayed to (any) god, and regenerated a limb, I would be inclined to believe as well." A regenerated limb would cross the line from 'miracle', to 'sign', and would thus not require faith to believe it. Therefore it would cease to be a matter of religion, let alone an opportunity for salvation by faith. I could quote a page-full of scripture references to explain this very simple yet elegantly bulletproof Christian doctrine, but I respect that this is a scientific blog, so I will desist. Suffice to say that most ID adherents on here understand what I'm talking about, and if you'd like to contact me privately, I'll be happy to explain it. Oh, and a Happy Easter to you. It could turn out to be your best one yet.flaminia
April 11, 2009
April
04
Apr
11
11
2009
10:44 AM
10
10
44
AM
PDT
TheFace, you can't get more than one omnipotent being, by definition. Think about it. Re No. 5: Maybe due to my age, I'll accept cures from cancers considered untreatable and postponements of amputation surgery that turns out to be unneeded.O'Leary
April 11, 2009
April
04
Apr
11
11
2009
10:36 AM
10
10
36
AM
PDT
Hoki, On item one, I think Denyse is saying that the "mere possibility" that aliens created life here on earth (suggested by Dawkins) is utterly preposterous and based, in fact, on no evidence. Hence the "That's the best they've got?" comment. Recast, the logic of item 2 is simply that if God is the greatest being (an immovable object as it were) the idea of another God is simply illogical, since "greatest" after all means "greatest" no equal to or coextensive with. God's authority was indeed challenged by Satan, which was promptly dealt with accordingly. As for item 3, the doctrine that God is omnipresent, without begining and without end, is logically entailed the previous doctrine she mentioned of monotheism. Thus the argument of "who created the creator" is indeed "silly" if one accepts that God is, if fact, omnipresent and without beginning or end. In short, the Christian formulation of the Godhead has no logical need for a creator of the Creator, since He is the First Cause, both transtemporal and omniscient. I know that's all a bit wordly, so I'll simply default back to Denyse's more economical language. Occam's razor . . . I hope this helps.Flannery
April 11, 2009
April
04
Apr
11
11
2009
10:35 AM
10
10
35
AM
PDT
"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." Is it not possible that they would cancel each other out, leaving the universe with no gods? OR, perhaps there were three. Two canceled out, leaving the universe with one. This is fun. Regarding number 5, this is a case of correlation vs. causation if I ever saw one. If I were to be convinced of the power of prayer or belief to heal, I would search for it in areas where humans do not heal naturally. If an amputee prayed to (any) god, and regenerated a limb, I would be inclined to believe as well.theface
April 11, 2009
April
04
Apr
11
11
2009
10:18 AM
10
10
18
AM
PDT
Are you implying that the mere possibility that aliens created life means that there exists evidence that they did so? I fail to see the logic in #2. I have no idea what you are trying to say in #3.Hoki
April 11, 2009
April
04
Apr
11
11
2009
09:09 AM
9
09
09
AM
PDT
1 5 6 7

Leave a Reply