The Argument From Mundanity [Archive] - Whistle Stopper Political Forums

Lumpen Prole

09-23-2007, 05:59 PM

If you're going to start screaming about another atheistic thread then please ignore this one. My participation will be, at best, minimal due to a very busy schedule over the coming weeks. Anyways, I will be interested to hear responses from both fellow non-believers and any theists who wish to comment. Enjoy.

Sam Harris and Christopher Hitchens are among the most intellectually formidable, witty and persuasive atheists currently writing. Although Harris tends to attack theism from a philosophical standpoint, and Hitchens prefers consulting history and using religions' own texts against them, both have elegantly articulated a sound, unanswerable argument against Christianity (and every other religion currently vying for adherents among people who ought to know better). I shall call it The Argument from Mundanity.

In the minds of many Christians, the Bible was written (or, at the least, inspired) by the creator of the cosmos. This fantastical entity, children have been inculcated to believe, is comprehensively aware of the thoughts and inner conflicts of every individual roaming the planet. Certainly, considering its author, one might expect the Bible to be full of dazzlingly specific information (of which none of its readers previously had been aware). Considering the author, it should be the pinnacle of intellectual achievement, featuring innumerable accurate tidbits about events and discoveries still to come. Yet, this certainly is not the case.

More eloquently than could I, Sam Harris articulates the point in Letter to a Christian Nation[1], writing, "... just imagine how breathtakingly specific a work of prophecy would be, if it were actually the product of omniscience. If the Bible were such a book, it would make perfectly accurate predictions about human events. You would expect it to contain a passage such as 'In the latter half of the twentieth century, humankind will develop a globally linked system of computers--the principles of which I set forth in Leviticus--and this system shall be called the Internet.' The Bible contains nothing like this. In fact, it does not contain a single sentence that could not have been written by a man or woman living in the first century. This should trouble you."

Indeed, it should.

The reference to the first century should immediately grab one's attention. It is easy to forget just when modern religions, such as Christianity, were invented. The Bible was written some 2000 years ago (obviously with some texts older and some more recent). During the time Jesus is alleged to have walked the earth, our species suffered from embarrassing, comprehensive ignorance. The most basic of scientific truths eluded our distant ancestors, who concocted a vastly smaller universe of which the earth was the center, a demon theory of disease, and a climatic paradigm from which rain-dances sprang. The most knowledgeable individual in the first century now would be a pitiable fool--an ancestral curiosity.

Lumpen Prole

09-23-2007, 06:03 PM

Christopher Hitchens observes this very fact in god is not Great[2], writing, "One must state it plainly. Religion comes from the period of human prehistory where nobody--not even the mighty Democritus who concluded that all matter was made from atoms--had the smallest idea what was going on. It comes from the bawling and fearful infancy of our species, and is a babyish attempt to meet our inescapable demand for knowledge (as well as for comfort, reassurance, and other infantile needs). Today the least educated of my children knows much more about the natural order than any of the founders of religion, and one would like to think--though the connection is not a fully demonstrable one--that this is why they seem so uninterested in sending fellow humans to hell."

The Bible presents plenty of positive assertions that are plainly false, and these have been mined by atheists for decades, if not centuries. I shall not regurgitate those. This essay's focus is Christianity's sins of omission, the punishment for which should be universal apostasy among all intellectually honest individuals.

Let us start with Genesis, which has been corrupting the United States' science classrooms for much too long. Hitchens demonstrates the level of ignorance Genesis reveals.

Why, he asks, can Genesis be proven the mundane work of ignorant humans in merely a paragraph? "Because," he writes, "man is given 'dominion' over all beasts, fowl and fish. But no dinosaurs or plesiosaurs or pterodactyls are specified, because the authors did not know of their existence, let alone of their supposedly special and immediate creation. Nor are any marsupials mentioned, because Australia--the next candidate after Mesoamerica for a new 'Eden'--was not on any known map. Most important, in Genesis man is not awarded dominion over germs and bacteria because the existence of these necessary yet dangerous fellow creatures was not known or understood. And if it had been known or understood, it would at once have become apparent that these forms of life had 'dominion' over us, and would continue to enjoy it uncontested until the priests had been elbowed aside and medical research at last given an opportunity."

Harris picks up the argument, making the salient point that a great deal of human misery could have been wiped out had the Bible simply provided a single nugget of previously unknown medical knowledge. "Why," he asks, "doesn't the Bible say anything about electricity, or about DNA, or about the actual age and size of the universe? What about a cure for cancer? When we fully understand the biology of cancer, this understanding will be easily summarized in a few pages of text. Why aren't these pages, or anything remotely like them, found in the Bible? Good, pious people are dying horribly from cancer at this very moment, and many of them are children. The Bible is a very big book. God had room to instruct us in great detail about how to keep slaves and sacrifice a wide variety of animals. To one who stands outside the Christian faith, it is utterly astonishing how ordinary a book can be and still be thought the product of omniscience."

snip

http://www.secweb.org/index.aspx?action=viewAsset&id=767

Izdaari

09-23-2007, 06:44 PM

Hmm, if such a prophecy had been made... I wonder which ancient Hebrew word we would translate as "computer"... and how would we know that's what they meant?

I have enormous respect for both Harris and Hitchens, but I think they're missing the point. God never intended to provide us with unmistakable proof. That would leave no room for faith. If that had been His intention, He might've done just as those two gentlemen suggest, but He chose not to. Neither did He want to give us no evidence at all and make us rely on faith only. There's just enough evidence to make it intellectually respectable to believe... if one chooses to. He wanted it that way for some reason. But there are many specific prophecies about the Messiah, all of which Jesus fulfilled.

burntgorilla

09-23-2007, 06:57 PM

I agree that the Bible was written from the perspective of first century people, with the knowledge of first century people (apart from the older sections, but then those people were even more ignorant), but I don't think it's reasonable to expect the Bible to mention anything like the Internet. If you go down that route you'll get sidetracked into a big discussion about self-fulfilling prophecies, omniscience and free will, etc. etc.

However, it is telling that the Bible does not contain any proven information that people in those days did not already know. The bits that weren't known at the time are generally accepted as false these days (eg. the Genesis account). This reminded me of the mustard seed debate, where Jesus said that the mustard seed was the smallest seed. Now, I view that as simply Jesus, being a mortal man, not knowing about smaller seeds, in keeping with the knowledge of his time. But others view it as Jesus talking down to the crowd. If Jesus did that over a mustard seed, he's not likely to divulge secrets about what will happen in the future.

Cedars

09-23-2007, 07:24 PM

“Certainly, considering its author, one might expect the Bible to be full of dazzlingly specific information (of which none of its readers previously had been aware). Considering the author, it should be the pinnacle of intellectual achievement, featuring innumerable accurate tidbits about events and discoveries still to come. Yet, this certainly is not the case.”
Not the case? I beg to differ. The Old Testament is full of specific information about the coming of the Messiah. The New Testament fulfills the promises of the Old Testament of the Messiah and what He will accomplish and who will believe and not believe. The Bible is for all men, not just the intellectuals (although certainly for them as well). There are layers of meaning in the Bible, for the simple man and for the scholar.

”If the Bible were such a book, it would make perfectly accurate predictions about human events. You would expect it to contain a passage such as 'In the latter half of the twentieth century, humankind will develop a globally linked system of computers--the principles of which I set forth in Leviticus--and this system shall be called the Internet.' The Bible contains nothing like this. In fact, it does not contain a single sentence that could not have been written by a man or woman living in the first century. This should trouble you."
Hello, what about, again, the predictions of the Messiah? God revealed what He wanted us to know. The Bible was not written as a manual for science so that atheists could believe; it was written for believers.

” During the time Jesus is alleged to have walked the earth, our species suffered from embarrassing, comprehensive ignorance.”
This person obviously discredits great thinkers, then, such as Socrates and the like.

” The Bible presents plenty of positive assertions that are plainly false, and these have been mined by atheists for decades, if not centuries. I shall not regurgitate those.”
Again, we only have had great minds in the last few decades? That is a gross (and naïve) error.

Cedars

09-23-2007, 07:26 PM

’Why, he asks, can Genesis be proven the mundane work of ignorant humans in merely a paragraph? "Because," he writes, "man is given 'dominion' over all beasts, fowl and fish. But no dinosaurs or plesiosaurs or pterodactyls are specified, because the authors did not know of their existence, let alone of their supposedly special and immediate creation. Nor are any marsupials mentioned, because Australia--the next candidate after Mesoamerica for a new 'Eden'--was not on any known map. Most important, in Genesis man is not awarded dominion over germs and bacteria because the existence of these necessary yet dangerous fellow creatures was not known or understood. And if it had been known or understood, it would at once have become apparent that these forms of life had 'dominion' over us, and would continue to enjoy it uncontested until the priests had been elbowed aside and medical research at last given an opportunity."’
The story of Genesis was never intended as a science manual. In Job 38 God says:

4 "Where were you when I laid the earth's foundation? _ Tell me, if you understand.
5 Who marked off its dimensions? Surely you know! _ Who stretched a measuring line across it?
6 On what were its footings set, _ or who laid its cornerstone-
7 while the morning stars sang together _ and all the angels [a] shouted for joy?
8 "Who shut up the sea behind doors _ when it burst forth from the womb,
9 when I made the clouds its garment _ and wrapped it in thick darkness,
10 when I fixed limits for it _ and set its doors and bars in place,
11 when I said, 'This far you may come and no farther; _ here is where your proud waves halt'?
12 "Have you ever given orders to the morning, _ or shown the dawn its place,
13 that it might take the earth by the edges _ and shake the wicked out of it?
14 The earth takes shape like clay under a seal; _ its features stand out like those of a garment.
15 The wicked are denied their light, _ and their upraised arm is broken.
16 "Have you journeyed to the springs of the sea _ or walked in the recesses of the deep?
17 Have the gates of death been shown to you? _ Have you seen the gates of the shadow of death [b] ?
18 Have you comprehended the vast expanses of the earth? _ Tell me, if you know all this.
19 "What is the way to the abode of light? _ And where does darkness reside?
20 Can you take them to their places? _ Do you know the paths to their dwellings?
21 Surely you know, for you were already born! _ You have lived so many years!
22 "Have you entered the storehouses of the snow _ or seen the storehouses of the hail,
23 which I reserve for times of trouble, _ for days of war and battle?
24 What is the way to the place where the lightning is dispersed, _ or the place where the east winds are scattered over the earth?
25 Who cuts a channel for the torrents of rain, _ and a path for the thunderstorm,
26 to water a land where no man lives, _ a desert with no one in it,
27 to satisfy a desolate wasteland _ and make it sprout with grass?
28 Does the rain have a father? _ Who fathers the drops of dew?
29 From whose womb comes the ice? _ Who gives birth to the frost from the heavens
30 when the waters become hard as stone, _ when the surface of the deep is frozen?
31 "Can you bind the beautiful [c] Pleiades? _ Can you loose the cords of Orion?
32 Can you bring forth the constellations in their seasons [d] _ or lead out the Bear [e] with its cubs?
33 Do you know the laws of the heavens? _ Can you set up God's [f] dominion over the earth?
34 "Can you raise your voice to the clouds _ and cover yourself with a flood of water?
35 Do you send the lightning bolts on their way? _ Do they report to you, 'Here we are'?
36 Who endowed the heart [g] with wisdom _ or gave understanding to the mind [h] ?
37 Who has the wisdom to count the clouds? _ Who can tip over the water jars of the heavens
38 when the dust becomes hard _ and the clods of earth stick together?
39 "Do you hunt the prey for the lioness _ and satisfy the hunger of the lions
40 when they crouch in their dens _ or lie in wait in a thicket?
41 Who provides food for the raven _ when its young cry out to God _ and wander about for lack of food?

Dangerrmouse

09-23-2007, 08:48 PM

The point being, irrelevant mumbo-jumbo such as the above, is from the bronze age, is written by men from that time, and relates to its setting, both in time and place..

Ethos

09-23-2007, 11:50 PM

The problem with "unanswerable arguments against X religion", aside from the phrase being an oxymoron (since we all know there is always an answer, regardless of how the debate is constructed), is that the only people it will bring to agreement are other atheists or agnostics.

Honestly I agree with Izdaari. If god had made it that easy to believe, there would be no point in faith.

As an addition, even as a Christian I did not believe the Bible to be an infallible instrument, written by god himself and designed to be read literally.

Ethos

lawman

09-24-2007, 01:26 AM

Excellent thread, and the logic is unimpeachable. The Internet example is a bit peculiar, perhaps -- but really, the book wouldn't even have to contain actual prophecy in order to establish its credibility (indeed, I've never quite bought prophecy as a necessary component of omniscience anyway, given the unsettling questions of predestination it raises) -- it would only have to reveal any scientific information, whatsoever, that would not otherwise have been known in the period it was set down in writing.

A corollary to the same argument, I think, is the seldom-asked question of why God would make one tribe of middle-eastern nomads his "chosen people," and reveal himself to them only. If he created and loved all mankind, why not reveal himself to Asians, or Africans, or Australians, or northern Europeans, or native Americans, or etc.?... Why wait for his Word to be delivered to them second- or third-hand centuries later? It makes no sense on its face... but it's perfectly consistent with an imaginary deity who happened to belong to one particular tribe -- just like countless others, except that through historical contingency this tribe happened to wind up exerting widespread cultural influence.

I have enormous respect for both Harris and Hitchens, but I think they're missing the point. God never intended to provide us with unmistakable proof. That would leave no room for faith. If that had been His intention, He might've done just as those two gentlemen suggest, but He chose not to... There's just enough evidence to make it intellectually respectable to believe... if one chooses to.
God seemed to have no problem providing unmistakable proof to any number of Old Testament figures, or for that matter medieval saints... he just stopped doing so right around the time procedures for documentation and verification became available. But even taking your explanation at face value, it really only begs the question. Why would God want to leave his existence in doubt, knowing that it would therefore be questioned by humans he had endowed with rational thought? Why should he place such a premium on blind faith?

Not the case? I beg to differ. The Old Testament is full of specific information about the coming of the Messiah. The New Testament fulfills the promises of the Old Testament of the Messiah and what He will accomplish...
No, not really: what it contains are various prophecies of a Jewish messiah, just ambiguous enough that various Gospel writers could massage the narrative to make them seem to be fulfilled (although they did so in different ways; e.g., the divergent genealogies in the synoptic Gospels), while Jews could nevertheless continue claiming they weren't fulfilled at all.

Hello, what about, again, the predictions of the Messiah? God revealed what He wanted us to know. The Bible was not written as a manual for science so that atheists could believe; it was written for believers.
You do realize that's circular, right? If the Bible is only for believers, then what is the source of that belief to be, if not the Bible (since we've already precluded extrinsic evidence)?

Again, we only have had great minds in the last few decades? That is a gross (and naïve) error.
No, that's not the point -- it's that we've only have verifiable scientific information about many aspects of nature for the last few generations. That's not an insult to earlier thinkers, just a fact about the data they had to work with.

Honestly I agree with Izdaari. If god had made it that easy to believe, there would be no point in faith.
I'll go you one further: if that's the argument, then there is no point in faith.

As an addition, even as a Christian I did not believe the Bible to be an infallible instrument, written by god himself and designed to be read literally.
That only goes to show that you were more rational than quite a few self-professed Bible-believing Christians. However, it does leave hanging that question of the source of belief... if the Bible itself can't be taken at face value, then what are the "intellectually respectable" reasons to believe?

(Moreover, there's another step in the process that's seldom interrogated, either: i.e., even if one chooses to believe in God's existence, why should that necessarily lead to worship? Just because a being is more powerful than us doesn't mean he/she/it deserves obedience and devotion. That is definitely pre-modern thinking.)

GI Joe

09-24-2007, 02:13 AM

Excellent thread, and the logic is unimpeachable. The Internet example is a bit peculiar, perhaps -- but really, the book wouldn't even have to contain actual prophecy in order to establish its credibility (indeed, I've never quite bought prophecy as a necessary component of omniscience anyway, given the unsettling questions of predestination it raises) -- it would only have to reveal any scientific information, whatsoever, that would not otherwise have been known in the period it was set down in writing.

A corollary to the same argument, I think, is the seldom-asked question of why God would make one tribe of middle-eastern nomads his "chosen people," and reveal himself to them only. If he created and loved all mankind, why not reveal himself to Asians, or Africans, or Australians, or northern Europeans, or native Americans, or etc.?... Why wait for his Word to be delivered to them second- or third-hand centuries later? It makes no sense on its face... but it's perfectly consistent with an imaginary deity who happened to belong to one particular tribe -- just like countless others, except that through historical contingency this tribe happened to wind up exerting widespread cultural influence.

There is a simple answer to why he chose them. God works in mysterious ways. That is why.:lol: :lol: :lol:
Its the standard answer to anything theists cant explain logically

Anyway from what I know of the Jews is that they were not chosen but they chose god being the first montheistic religion and to reconize him. They are not chosen as superior but as obligated to keep the faith and be an example.

Rabbinic Jewish views of chosenness

The idea of chosenness has traditionally been interpreted by Jews in two ways: one way is that God chose the Israelites, while the other idea is that the Israelites chose God. Although collectively this choice was made freely, religious Jews believe that it created individual obligation for the descendants of the Israelites. Another opinion is that the choice was free in a limited context; that is, although the Jews chose to follow precepts ordained by God, Kabbalah and Tanya teach that even prior to creation, the "Jewish soul" was already chosen.

Crucial to the Jewish notion of chosenness is that it creates obligations exclusive to Jews, while non-Jews receive from God other covenants and other responsibilities. Generally, it does not entail exclusive rewards for Jews. Classical rabbinic literature in the Mishnah Avot 3:14 has this teaching:

Rabbi Akiva used to say, "Beloved is man, for he was created in God’s image; and the fact that God made it known that man was created in His image is indicative of an even greater love. As the verse states [Genesis 9:6], 'In the image of God, man was created.')" The mishna goes on to say, "Beloved are the people Israel, for they are called children of God; it is even a greater love that it was made known to them that they are called children of God, as it said, 'You are the children of the Lord, your God. Beloved are the people Israel, for a precious article [the Torah] was given to them ...

Most Jewish texts do not state that "God chose the Jews" by itself. Rather, this is usually linked with a mission or purpose, such as proclaiming God's message among all the nations, even though Jews cannot become "unchosen" if they shirk their mission. This implies a special duty, which evolves from the belief that Jews have been pledged by the covenant which God concluded with the biblical patriarch Abraham, their ancestor, and again with the entire Jewish nation at Mount Sinai. In this view, Jews are charged with living a holy life as God's priest-people.

snip
Chosenness is not superiority

Views of superiority have been explicitly rejected by all Reform and Conservative Jews and by Modern Orthodox Jews and all Jews alike. Communal Jewish organizations such as the B'nai Brith, American Jewish Committee and Anti-Defamation League reject discrimination against Gentiles as well as against Jews.

The Encyclopedia Judaica provides a secular, historical explanation of this belief, stating that "It would seem that the more extreme, and exclusive, interpretations of the doctrine of election, among Jewish thinkers, were partly the result of reaction to oppression by the non-Jewish world. The more the Jew was forced to close in on himself, to withdraw into the imposed confines of the ghetto, the more he tended to emphasize Israel's difference from the cruel gentile without. Only thus did his suffering become intelligible and bearable....When the Jew was eventually allowed to find his place in a gentile world, the less exclusivist aspect of the doctrine reasserted itself."

GI Joe

09-24-2007, 02:14 AM

cont

snip
Views of chosenness

The three largest Jewish denominations -- Orthodox Judaism, Conservative Judaism and Reform Judaism -- maintain the belief that the Jews have been chosen by God for a purpose.

Modern Orthodox views

Rabbi Lord Immanuel Jakobovits, former Chief Rabbi of the United Synagogue of Great Britain (Modern Orthodox Judaism), describes chosenness in this way:

Yes, I do believe that the chosen people concept as affirmed by Judaism in its holy writ, its prayers, and its millennial tradition. In fact, I believe that every people - and indeed, in a more limited way, every individual - is "chosen" or destined for some distinct purpose in advancing the designs of Providence. Only, some fulfill their mission and others do not. Maybe the Greeks were chosen for their unique contributions to art and philosophy, the Romans for their pioneering services in law and government, the British for bringing parliamentary rule into the world, and the Americans for piloting democracy in a pluralistic society. The Jews were chosen by God to be 'peculiar unto Me' as the pioneers of religion and morality; that was and is their national purpose.

Conservative views

Conservative Judaism and its Israeli counterpart Masorti Judaism, views the concept of chosenness in this way:

Few beliefs have been subject to as much misunderstanding as the "Chosen People" doctrine. The Torah and the Prophets clearly stated that this does not imply any innate Jewish superiority. In the words of Amos (3:2) "You alone have I singled out of all the families of the earth - that is why I will call you to account for your iniquities". The Torah tells us that we are to be "a kingdom of priests and a holy nation" with obligations and duties which flowed from our willingness to accept this status. Far from being a license for special privilege, it entailed additional responsibilities not only toward God but to our fellow human beings. As expressed in the blessings at the reading of the Torah, our people have always felt it to be a privilege to be selected for such a purpose. For the modern traditional Jew, the doctrine of the election and the covenant of Israel offers a purpose for Jewish existence which transcends its own self interests. It suggests that because of our special history and unique heritage we are in a position to demonstrate that a people that takes seriously the idea of being covenanted with God can not only thrive in the face of oppression, but can be a source of blessing to its children and its neighbors. It obligates us to build a just and compassionate society throughout the world and especially in the land of Israel where we may teach by example what it means to be a "covenant people, a light unto the nations.[10]

Reform Judaism

Reform Judaism views the concept of chosenness in this way:

Throughout the ages it has been Israel's mission to witness to the Divine in the face of every form of paganism and materialism. We regard it as our historic task to cooperate with all men in the establishment of the kingdom of God, of universal brotherhood, Justice, truth and peace on earth. This is our Messianic goal.[12]

In 1999 the Reform movement stated:

We affirm that the Jewish people are bound to God by an eternal covenant, as reflected in our varied understandings of Creation, Revelation and Redemption....We are Israel, a people aspiring to holiness, singled out through our ancient covenant and our unique history among the nations to be witnesses to God's presence. We are linked by that covenant and that history to all Jews in every age and place.[13]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jews_as_a_chosen_people

serenity

09-24-2007, 12:48 PM

As an addition, even as a Christian I did not believe the Bible to be an infallible instrument, written by god himself and designed to be read literally.

This has become a bit of a standard answer to atheistic critiques; and while it’s certainly good enough for me, I find its selective usage peculiarly telling.

What I mean is this: an atheist makes an argument against literalist interpretation; and a Christian answers them much as you have done. The problem is the metaphorical Christian and the atheist actually share a common opponent: the fundamentalist literalist.

So I find it interesting that the statement you have uttered is always directed against the atheist…and virtually never towards the literalist, who after all is a professed enemy of knowledge.

It’s almost a matter of “supporting the team,” or something. But I think the rational, metaphorical Christians have a strange tendency (perhaps based on the old and now-fallacious notion of persecution) to back the wrong team in this debate.

Ethos

09-24-2007, 12:58 PM

This has become a bit of a standard answer to atheistic critiques; and while it’s certainly good enough for me, I find its selective usage peculiarly telling.

What I mean is this: an atheist makes an argument against literalist interpretation; and a Christian answers them much as you have done. The problem is the metaphorical Christian and the atheist actually share a common opponent: the fundamentalist literalist.

So I find it interesting that the statement you have uttered is always directed against the atheist…and virtually never towards the literalist, who after all is a professed enemy of knowledge.

It’s almost a matter of “supporting the team,” or something. But I think the rational, metaphorical Christians have a strange tendency (perhaps based on the old and now-fallacious notion of persecution) to back the wrong team in this debate.

I suspect you're reading too much into my comment. The non-literalist statement was not directed at fundamentalists simply because the response was to an atheist argument. When I was a Christian (and hopefully you have noted by now I am an atheist), I questioned literalists in the same way. My interaction with non-theists was actually quite limited at the time.

Ethos

serenity

09-24-2007, 01:07 PM

I suspect you're reading too much into my comment.

Oh, no doubt about it. I was using you for my own ends, using your comment as a jumping point to expound on somehting I've noticed.

I could have been more clear, and pointed it away from you.

Mickey Shane

09-24-2007, 02:01 PM

Ethos

09-24-2007, 04:11 PM

Look at the written prophecy in the book of Revelations.

Start with the 4 horsemen.

End with the 12 tribes of Judea.

This is supposed to happen some day. How long do I have to wait? Perhaps I shall not live so long.

Every generation since Christianity was founded has believed theirs would see this particular prophesy come to fruition. A fact that is curiously overlooked by each succeeding generation.

Quite a few people today make a living at fitting modern events to the vague predictions in Revelations. The United Nations, debit cards, and the Iraq war itself are seen as signs the end times are upon us.

Ethos

Cedars

09-24-2007, 11:10 PM

No, not really: what it contains are various prophecies of a Jewish messiah, just ambiguous enough that various Gospel writers could massage the narrative to make them seem to be fulfilled (although they did so in different ways; e.g., the divergent genealogies in the synoptic Gospels), while Jews could nevertheless continue claiming they weren't fulfilled at all.
Prophecies of the Messiah speak of the genealogy, the birth, infancy, names and titles, offices, public life and work, sufferings, and glory of Christ. The prophecies are not as ambiguous as you might think when you take into consideration that not just a few messianic prophecies of the OT were fulfilled, but ALL prophecies of the Messiah were fulfilled in Christ – including the Jews’ rejection of Christ. Not a small feat. However, since prophecy is not something that even moves you, let’s move on.

You do realize that's circular, right? If the Bible is only for believers, then what is the source of that belief to be, if not the Bible (since we've already precluded extrinsic evidence)?
Sola scriptura is circular, but Catholics do not believe in sola scriptura. One cannot prove the inspiration of Scripture, or any text, from the text itself. The Bible does not and cannot answer questions about its own inspiration or about the canon. The Church was established and functioning as the infallible spokesperson for the Lord decades before the New Testament was written. It was members of this kingdom on earth, the Church, who wrote Scripture, preserved its many texts, and eventually canonized it. Scripture alone could not do any of this. If we did not have Scripture, we would still have the Church. But without the Church, there would be no New Testament Scripture.

No, that's not the point -- it's that we've only have verifiable scientific information about many aspects of nature for the last few generations. That's not an insult to earlier thinkers, just a fact about the data they had to work with.
Mm, even so, the books of the Bible were written for people who already believe. It was never intended to be a manual (with scientific proofs or otherwise) for convincing atheists why they should believe in God. Belief is already assumed. Its purpose is for the believer, not the nonbeliever.

lawman

09-25-2007, 01:07 AM

Mm, even so, the books of the Bible were written for people who already believe. It was never intended to be a manual (with scientific proofs or otherwise) for convincing atheists why they should believe in God. Belief is already assumed. Its purpose is for the believer, not the nonbeliever.
You may well be intent when speaking of the original intent of the authors and compilers of various scriptures. However, that's hardly the only way in which the original intent of early Christians wound up changed in later centuries...

Cedars

09-25-2007, 08:06 PM

You may well be intent when speaking of the original intent of the authors and compilers of various scriptures. However, that's hardly the only way in which the original intent of early Christians wound up changed in later centuries...

I'm not sure I understand your meaning here.

burntgorilla

09-25-2007, 10:13 PM

I'm not sure I understand your meaning here.

I'm assuming he's talking about people who use the Bible to try and prove things such as the existence of god or creationism.

lawman

09-25-2007, 11:42 PM

I'm not sure I understand your meaning here.
Sorry, typo. I meant to write "you may well be correct when..."

Cedars

09-27-2007, 07:22 PM

However, that's hardly the only way in which the original intent of early Christians wound up changed in later centuries...
I am still not sure where you are going with this. It is the early Christians (those who wrote, gathered and canonized the New Testament) who know the intent for which they wrote, gathered and canonized -- and its purpose was for its believers and was never intended as a scientific manual for atheists. They did not convert others to Christianity with the NT (when many of the NT writings did not even exist until at least some decades later and the NT was not even canonized until late in the 4th or 5th century).

heel31ok

09-28-2007, 12:40 AM

heel31ok

09-28-2007, 12:45 AM

lawman

09-28-2007, 03:15 AM

I am still not sure where you are going with this. It is the early Christians (those who wrote, gathered and canonized the New Testament) who know the intent for which they wrote, gathered and canonized -- and its purpose was for its believers and was never intended as a scientific manual for atheists. They did not convert others to Christianity with the NT (when many of the NT writings did not even exist until at least some decades later and the NT was not even canonized until late in the 4th or 5th century).
Yes -- hence the reference to "later centuries." However, even before they were officially collected many Biblical writings (certainly the various Pauline and pseudo-Pauline Epistles, for instance) were unquestionably used to evangelize nonbelievers. By the time the book was canonized in the 4th century its purpose was considerably different from what the authors may have intended; it was absolutely a tool for evangelism.

Hence, "where I'm going," in support of the original argument, is that God (were he extant) would not only know but intend this; he would not desire or expect his Word to be reserved exclusively to the same tribe of middle-eastern believers he had "chosen" long before. As such, he would certainly wish to make the best possible case for himself in whatever text he inspired... and thus it would make no sense whatsoever to limit its content only to knowledge that its human authors could have come up with perfectly well on their own without divine inspiration. See?

If you wish to argue that the purpose of the Bible can and should be limited by the contemporary intent of its human authors, however, and that it should not be used as a tool for evangelism or as the basis of truth claims about the natural world... well, I'd actually have no quarrel with that, but I really wish you could convince a few million evangelicals of the same thing.

heel31ok

09-29-2007, 10:22 PM

Dangerrmouse

09-30-2007, 10:27 AM

Perfect sense in what way? I can imagine many of a Jewish persuasion taking issue with your arrogant assertion.

Cedars

09-30-2007, 10:20 PM

Yes -- hence the reference to "later centuries." However, even before they were officially collected many Biblical writings (certainly the various Pauline and pseudo-Pauline Epistles, for instance) were unquestionably used to evangelize nonbelievers. By the time the book was canonized in the 4th century its purpose was considerably different from what the authors may have intended; it was absolutely a tool for evangelism.

Hence, "where I'm going," in support of the original argument, is that God (were he extant) would not only know but intend this; he would not desire or expect his Word to be reserved exclusively to the same tribe of middle-eastern believers he had "chosen" long before. As such, he would certainly wish to make the best possible case for himself in whatever text he inspired... and thus it would make no sense whatsoever to limit its content only to knowledge that its human authors could have come up with perfectly well on their own without divine inspiration. See?

If you wish to argue that the purpose of the Bible can and should be limited by the contemporary intent of its human authors, however, and that it should not be used as a tool for evangelism or as the basis of truth claims about the natural world... well, I'd actually have no quarrel with that, but I really wish you could convince a few million evangelicals of the same thing.
You are overlooking the fact that the average person could not read until MANY MANY centuries later -- nor were there printing presses to mass copy until MANY MANY centuries later. They evangelized mostly by word of mouth, of course, and they READ the letters (epistles) once copies were available. You have to keep in mind that copies of these documents were relatively rare because they had to be hand written (again, no printing presses) and there were not many people who could read and write.
--"And when this epistle is read among you, cause that it be read also in the church of the Laodiceans; and that ye likewise read the epistle from Laodicea." (Colossians:4-16)
--"I charge you by the Lord that this epistle be read unto all the holy brethren." (1 Thessalonians:5-27)
--"Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle." (2 Thessalonians 2:15)

God would understand that all men were not able to read; He certainly would not have used the written word as the PRIMARY tool for evangelizing. His primary tool was the Church, of which Jesus (THE Word of God) instituted with Peter and the other apostles (and then their successors, as the Church Christ founded would not perish with the apostles). Who was it who wrote the books of the NT? It was the Church members -- if they did not have authority to preach they would certainly not have authority to write -- and certainly their authority was not exclusive of one over the other. The Book of Acts shows that one of the first things the apostles did was to name a successor to Judas (which successor was Matthias). It would certainly not have made sense for God to limit Himself to writing only; obviously, the Church had authority.
--"But if I tarry long, that thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth." (1 Tim:3-15)

lawman

10-01-2007, 06:21 AM

God would understand that all men were not able to read... His primary tool was the Church... obviously, the Church had authority.
I'm afraid I'm now following your point here. You seem to be making an argument for churchly authority to speak about and/or on behalf of God. This would seem to be an argument in support of Catholicism and against ecumenicalism, FWIW... but I don't see how it has any bearing on the discussion at hand.

Given that the Bible does exist, and is put forward as the result of divine inspiration, the question remains why it fails to include anything beyond the scope of ordinary human knowledge at the time of its composition.

(If you want to drag the church into this as another, parallel tool for disseminating God's word, the same basic question applies there: why were saints and holy men not endowed with any special knowledge that might actually be useful to their fellow humans and/or demonstrate the omniscience of their object of worship?)

Groucho

10-01-2007, 11:29 AM

Given that the Bible does exist, and is put forward as the result of divine inspiration, the question remains why it fails to include anything beyond the scope of ordinary human knowledge at the time of its composition.

(If you want to drag the church into this as another, parallel tool for disseminating God's word, the same basic question applies there: why were saints and holy men not endowed with any special knowledge that might actually be useful to their fellow humans and/or demonstrate the omniscience of their object of worship?)

I've seen this same argument used against the UFOers -- if UFOs exist, why haven't we seen one thing that can't be explained by current science? A piece of a UFO made from an unknown material, a piece of information explaining the Grand Unified Theory, anything? Heck, if someone had produced my laptop computer in 1970 it would have seemed miraculous and that was only 25 years ago or so... surely the UFOs are more ahead of us than 25 years. (Although as an aside I am reminded of a Woody Allen story where we were visited by an advanced civilization, but only by about 15 minutes, which meant they were never late for appointments).

But yeah, no religion on earth has ever had its prophets actually predict anything that could not have possibly been foreseen or guessed at (even when they do get it right), nor has any been gifted with real information of a nature far ahead of our own development.

Even I would be hard pressed to explain some uneducated prophet coming forth and saying that God had given him the cure for cancer, the solution to a math problem that has vexed scientists for years, and the DNA code explained completely.

Ethos

10-01-2007, 11:43 AM

I've seen this same argument used against the UFOers -- if UFOs exist, why haven't we seen one thing that can't be explained by current science? A piece of a UFO made from an unknown material, a piece of information explaining the Grand Unified Theory, anything? Heck, if someone had produced my laptop computer in 1970 it would have seemed miraculous and that was only 25 years ago or so... surely the UFOs are more ahead of us than 25 years. (Although as an aside I am reminded of a Woody Allen story where we were visited by an advanced civilization, but only by about 15 minutes, which meant they were never late for appointments).
.

Of course there is a line of thought that says our modern-day electronics actually originated from the reverse engineering of crashed spacecraft.

Groucho

10-01-2007, 12:10 PM

Of course there is a line of thought that says our modern-day electronics actually originated from the reverse engineering of crashed spacecraft.
:D

This thought, of course, fails to explain how every one of the modern advances in electronics happen to have been patented by many different people and corporations, some in other foreign countries.

Ethos

10-01-2007, 12:26 PM

:D

This thought, of course, fails to explain how every one of the modern advances in electronics happen to have been patented by many different people and corporations, some in other foreign countries.

It certainly wouldn't do to bring out the microchip and admit it came from a flying saucer, would it? Front companies or individuals are operated through government control to introduce these items so that the truth is not learned.

Tin foil was also an invention stolen from aliens.

Ethos

steveksux

10-01-2007, 12:57 PM

I've seen this same argument used against the UFOers -- if UFOs exist, why haven't we seen one thing that can't be explained by current science? A piece of a UFO made from an unknown material, a piece of information explaining the Grand Unified Theory, anything? Heck, if someone had produced my laptop computer in 1970 it would have seemed miraculous and that was only 25 years ago or so... surely the UFOs are more ahead of us than 25 years. (Although as an aside I am reminded of a Woody Allen story where we were visited by an advanced civilization, but only by about 15 minutes, which meant they were never late for appointments)..I think the rebuttal to that goes something like: The people the drive the Winnebagos around the country are not necessarily as advanced as the ones that designed them.... :D

Randy

steveksux

10-01-2007, 12:58 PM

Groucho

10-01-2007, 01:34 PM

:lol:

Sorry for the threadjacking!

Cedars

10-02-2007, 07:15 PM

I'm afraid I'm now following your point here. You seem to be making an argument for churchly authority to speak about and/or on behalf of God. This would seem to be an argument in support of Catholicism and against ecumenicalism, FWIW... but I don't see how it has any bearing on the discussion at hand.

Given that the Bible does exist, and is put forward as the result of divine inspiration, the question remains why it fails to include anything beyond the scope of ordinary human knowledge at the time of its composition.
Again, the Bible was written for the benefit of believers; it was not written to convince atheists. My point about the Church has bearing on the discussion at hand because of your assumption that the Bible was a primary tool for evangelism for early Christians (and perhaps you are assuming atheists as well, I do not know). But your assumption could not have been true for the simple reason that the average person could not read or write and books and manuscripts were rare because they had to be hand copied. Regardless, the books of the NT were written for (or to) Christians, not atheists.
--"I charge you by the Lord that this epistle be read unto all the holy brethren." (1 Thessalonians:5-27)

(If you want to drag the church into this as another, parallel tool for disseminating God's word, the same basic question applies there: why were saints and holy men not endowed with any special knowledge that might actually be useful to their fellow humans and/or demonstrate the omniscience of their object of worship?)
The Lord told His Apostles that those who hear you hear Me. He also told them to wipe the dust from their feet in those towns or villages who would not listen and move on to the next. In other words, those who recognize Christ would listen; those who would not recognize Christ would not listen -- it didn't matter in those cases whether miracles were performed or not. If the mind is closed to God, it will be closed no matter the proof (the proof will never be good enough).

Groucho

10-02-2007, 08:30 PM

steveksux

10-02-2007, 08:52 PM

It certainly wouldn't do to bring out the microchip and admit it came from a flying saucer, would it? Front companies or individuals are operated through government control to introduce these items so that the truth is not learned.

Tin foil was also an invention stolen from aliens.Oh, the irony!

Although that explains why it is impervious to their mind control rays...

RandyJust wanted to clarify, I meant the tin foil was impervious to their mind control rays, not the microchip.

Obviously the statement wouldn't make sense otherwise, but just for the grammar police and literalists...

Randy

Cedars

10-02-2007, 10:03 PM

You know, I was raised as a Christian.

Maybe if the Bible did have some of those amazing predictions in it, I wouldn't have started questioning it.

The Bible may have been written for Christians then, but it's obviously written for unquestioning ones. It certainly isn't written to keep them, in my opinion.
Then you would be like the seed that fell on barren ground. But it does not have to continue to be that way. The thing about faith is that one has to feed it, water it, nurture it. If you are brought up in the faith but you do not practice it, learn more about it, or just plain learn WHY, your faith cannot grow or be sustained. That being said, you are a logical person (which I know you to be from your posts), your faith should have been fed with logic just as much as anything else. The Catholic Church teaches that we "should not depend on baseless faith. The Church encourages the use of reason because reason and faith are not mutually exclusive, as people sometimes assume, but rather complement one another. Pope John Paul II stated this in his encyclical letter Fides et Ratio. Either reason or faith by itself is weakened by the absence of the other." (Catholic Answers)

lawman

10-03-2007, 05:08 AM

Again, the Bible was written for the benefit of believers; it was not written to convince atheists.
You keep saying this; I keep failing to see how your point is relevant to this discussion.

Unless you mean to posit a God who wanted his Word to remain the exclusive province of a small group of largely illiterate middle-eastern believers, and who thus either didn't foresee or didn't care about the fact that that Word would eventually be evangelized to hundreds of millions of people around the world, you're not explaining in the slightest why God wouldn't take a somewhat larger-scale view of things and opt to make the only available authoritative version of his Word a bit more, well, convincing.

You can't dismiss those who "would not listen" as having closed minds "no matter the proof" when there's no proof being offered in the first place -- that's the point.

Groucho

10-03-2007, 11:14 AM

You keep saying this; I keep failing to see how your point is relevant to this discussion.

Unless you mean to posit a God who wanted his Word to remain the exclusive province of a small group of largely illiterate middle-eastern believers, and who thus either didn't foresee or didn't care about the fact that that Word would eventually be evangelized to hundreds of millions of people around the world, you're not explaining in the slightest why God wouldn't take a somewhat larger-scale view of things and opt to make the only available authoritative version of his Word a bit more, well, convincing.

You can't dismiss those who "would not listen" as having closed minds "no matter the proof" when there's no proof being offered in the first place -- that's the point.

What he said.

Cedars

10-05-2007, 11:18 PM

You keep saying this; I keep failing to see how your point is relevant to this discussion.
Considering that the OP quote criticizes the Bible for its lack of "convincing" evidence to atheists, I would have thought it would be obvious how my saying that the Bible was not written for atheists would be extremely relevant to the discussion. And if you have ever read the NT, you will know that it was directed to Christians or converts to the Christian faith. It does not speak as if it is talking to atheists.

Unless you mean to posit a God who wanted his Word to remain the exclusive province of a small group of largely illiterate middle-eastern believers, and who thus either didn't foresee or didn't care about the fact that that Word would eventually be evangelized to hundreds of millions of people around the world, you're not explaining in the slightest why God wouldn't take a somewhat larger-scale view of things and opt to make the only available authoritative version of his Word a bit more, well, convincing.
You are missing the point. Regardless of whether vast majorities of populations were illiterate, it was because God didn't want His Word to remain the exclusive province of a small group (whether literate or illiterate) that His Word was spread orally through the evangelizing of the disciples. Copies of manuscripts were precious, rare, and they hand to be hand copied by scribes (because, again, there were no printing presses back then) -- consequently, not many people could afford copies even if they could read and write. God's will is that all should hear His Word and follow God (those who are literate AND illiterate); but He did give us free will to choose whether we would listen or not. Jesus said those who hear you (the disciples of Christ) hear me. ("He that heareth you heareth me; and he that despiseth you despiseth me; and he that despiseth me despiseth him that sent me." Luke 10:16). Today (and since the invention of the printing press), the fact that the average person can read the Bible is a wonderful thing. But just because modern man can be evangelized through reading the Bible does not mean that this was the preferred method from early on in Christian history (and history in fact does not support this belief). Initially, evangelization spread orally, and did for some centuries. The epistles (or letters of the NT) were read aloud in Church so that all may hear (not just the literate). It IS a larger-scale view of things when ALL may hear and not just those who are literate. And authority was never questioned until CENTURIES later, recently in history really (even the Eastern Orthodox Churches to this day do not question Church authority but they believe the presidency of the Roman church is in title only -- but this was not true early on as even the Eastern churches were in full communion with Rome and recognized the presidency of Rome as more than just a title; it was not until the Protestant Reformation that Protestants protested Church authority). Catholics today are the only Christians who still uphold the belief of Church authority AND the presidency of Rome, just as the early Christians did. I do not mean to beat a dead horse, but this is really vital in understanding why there are so many varying and conflicting Christian beliefs today (God is not self-contradictory) -- when you fail to recognize Church authority, then anything goes (the NT does not tell us that we should interpret as we see fit -- we are to convert ourselves to God, not convert God's scripture to suit our own interpretation). It also stands to reason that God would want hundreds of millions of people to have the SAME teaching, not varying and conflicting versions of it; and therefore, it is logical that Jesus left His apostles as a teaching authority and that the apostles would be succeeded so that, even today, we would know what that teaching was. ("But if I tarry long, that thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth." 1 Timothy 3:15) Without it, there is conflict. That teaching authority is the "larger scale view of things." It encompasses both the oral AND written word. ("Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle." 2 Thessalonians 2:15)

You can't dismiss those who "would not listen" as having closed minds "no matter the proof" when there's no proof being offered in the first place -- that's the point.
I am sure that God understands the difference between good evangelization and poor evangelization. He also understands how willing a person is to really listen to the evangelist's argument -- how open or closed that mind is to God.

lawman

10-06-2007, 01:55 AM

Considering that the OP quote criticizes the Bible for its lack of "convincing" evidence to atheists, I would have thought it would be obvious how my saying that the Bible was not written for atheists would be extremely relevant to the discussion. And if you have ever read the NT, you will know that it was directed to Christians or converts to the Christian faith. It does not speak as if it is talking to atheists.
But that's only true if you look at it as a document written by fallible humans bound by a particular time and place -- i.e., if you look at it as an atheist. If you actually are a believer, and assume God exists and meant his Word for all mankind, then you have to assume the Bible would be written (or "inspired") with that larger audience in mind.

(Although, as I already said, if you're willing to concede that the Bible is not a source either for evangelism to nonbelievers or for truth-claims about objective reality, and that Christians should just leave everybody else alone already, I'd be happy to let the discussion drop right there.)

You are missing the point. Regardless of whether vast majorities of populations were illiterate, it was because God didn't want His Word to remain the exclusive province of a small group (whether literate or illiterate) that His Word was spread orally through the evangelizing of the disciples. Copies of manuscripts were precious, rare, and they hand to be hand copied by scribes (because, again, there were no printing presses back then) -- consequently, not many people could afford copies even if they could read and write...
But, again, as a believer, you have to assume God knew what he was doing, and had the long term prospects in view, not just the immediate historical context. Otherwise his choice of that context really makes very little sense -- as the line in Jesus Christ Superstar goes, "If you'd come today you could have reached a whole nation/ Israel in 4 BC had no mass communication!"

...Jesus said those who hear you (the disciples of Christ) hear me. ("He that heareth you heareth me; and he that despiseth you despiseth me; and he that despiseth me despiseth him that sent me." Luke 10:16).
Well, wait -- how do you know he said that? (Or anything else you've quoted?) You've just explained how fallible the Bible is, and how susceptible to scribal errors.

But just because modern man can be evangelized through reading the Bible does not mean that this was the preferred method from early on in Christian history... Initially, evangelization spread orally, and did for some centuries.
Yes. Stipulated and understood. So? How is this relevant to the discussion?

And authority was never questioned until CENTURIES later, recently in history really... the Protestant Reformation...
Well, let's note first that "authority" wasn't even established until centuries later than the "early church" period you were just discussing; more or less the fourth century, to be specific. The Catholic Church really only held that authority in an "unquestioned" sense for a millennium or so, and that mostly as a matter of historical contingency (i.e., it was in a position to ruthlessly suppress anyone who questioned); as soon as political shifts made divergent churches feasible, they sprang up like mushrooms. So again I ask: so what?

(The Reformation, BTW, also paralleled the Renaissance and opened the door for the Enlightenment, without which we would have approximately none of the things we consider valuable about modern society. Not exactly something to speak of dismissively. The "authority" you speak of brought us the Crusades and the Inquisition, among other atrocities, and froze scholarly inquiry in its tracks for a thousand years; it was hardly infallible.)

I am sure that God understands the difference between good evangelization and poor evangelization. He also understands how willing a person is to really listen to the evangelist's argument -- how open or closed that mind is to God.
Right. Okay, then -- again -- why didn't he give his chosen spokesmen the best, most convincing tools available, rather than handicapping them with a flawed, inconsistent version of his Word that was open to wildly varying interpretations, and that from all appearances was obviously the work of fallible humans rather than divine omniscience? Even if you assume the "closed-minded" are a lost cause, why not make the best possible case to the open-minded?

And BTW, you've not yet answered me about what convinced you to come in from the cold of your own self-proclaimed apostasy. Perhaps that personal example would make your reasoning here a bit clearer...

Cedars

10-06-2007, 04:53 AM

But that's only true if you look at it as a document written by fallible humans bound by a particular time and place -- i.e., if you look at it as an atheist. If you actually are a believer, and assume God exists and meant his Word for all mankind, then you have to assume the Bible would be written (or "inspired") with that larger audience in mind.
No, I do not have to assume that the Bible was written to convince atheists to believe in God, for the simple reason that the books of the Bible do not instruct WHY you should believe but, instead, HOW you should live out your faith.

(Although, as I already said, if you're willing to concede that the Bible is not a source either for evangelism to nonbelievers or for truth-claims about objective reality, and that Christians should just leave everybody else alone already, I'd be happy to let the discussion drop right there.)
The Bible can evangelize but not in the way you seem to think. Again, it is not a manual for WHY you should believe in God. But nonbelievers could read it and be moved by it and its message of HOW to live out one's faith.

But, again, as a believer, you have to assume God knew what he was doing, and had the long term prospects in view, not just the immediate historical context. Otherwise his choice of that context really makes very little sense -- as the line in Jesus Christ Superstar goes, "If you'd come today you could have reached a whole nation/ Israel in 4 BC had no mass communication!"
The problem with your logic is that, again, you are making assumptions about the purpose of scripture being to evangelize atheists. The letters (the epistles) of the NT were written to the various Churches. Each of the letters addresses the specific needs of the Church to which it was directed. And each of the Churches would be made up of the believers who attend. Christianity had spread very quickly -- even without the printing press and the forms of mass communication we have today.

Well, wait -- how do you know he said that? (Or anything else you've quoted?) You've just explained how fallible the Bible is, and how susceptible to scribal errors.
You jump to erroneous conclusions, then, if you think that. I never explained "how fallible" the Bible is. What I did explain was that the Bible was not a scientific manual for atheists so that they would believe. This in no way admits that the Bible is "fallible." (And actually, "fallible" or "infallible" is a description for an act. The Holy Spirit is infallible because the Holy Spirit can act, but the correct term for the Bible is "inerrant.")

Yes. Stipulated and understood. So? How is this relevant to the discussion?
It is relevant to the discussion because you seem to think that the Bible is the only means of evangelization -- certainly the means by which atheists should be evangelized. I pointed out that this was not so.

Cedars

10-06-2007, 04:54 AM

Well, let's note first that "authority" wasn't even established until centuries later than the "early church" period you were just discussing; more or less the fourth century, to be specific. The Catholic Church really only held that authority in an "unquestioned" sense for a millennium or so, and that mostly as a matter of historical contingency (i.e., it was in a position to ruthlessly suppress anyone who questioned); as soon as political shifts made divergent churches feasible, they sprang up like mushrooms. So again I ask: so what?
You are wrong, my friend. Authority was established from day one. Even from scripture we see that Christ started a Church through His apostles ("And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it." Matthew 16:18). We see that Christ gave authority to His Church to teach Truth ("But if I tarry long, that thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth." 1 Tim. 3:15). We see that Christ intended His Church and its deposit of faith to be protected from hell prevailing against it ("And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it." Matthew 16:18).

Writings of early Christians support the belief in the teaching authority of the Catholic Church (please note these were written in the first 200 years of Christian history -- St. Ignatius of Antioch was a Christian martyr who lived during the time of the apostles -- surely, he correctly understood the teachings -- if you cannot credit early Christians, then you cannot credit their contributions to the NT canon either):

Ignatius of Antioch

"Ignatius . . . to the church also which holds the presidency, in the location of the country of the Romans, worthy of God, worthy of honor, worthy of blessing, worthy of praise, worthy of success, worthy of sanctification, and, because you hold the presidency in love, named after Christ and named after the Father" (Letter to the Romans 1:1 [A.D. 110]).

"You [the church at Rome] have envied no one, but others you have taught. I desire only that what you have enjoined in your instructions may remain in force" (ibid., 3:1).

Dionysius of Corinth

"For from the beginning it has been your custom to do good to all the brethren in various ways and to send contributions to all the churches in every city. . . . This custom your blessed Bishop Soter has not only preserved, but is augmenting, by furnishing an abundance of supplies to the saints and by urging with consoling words, as a loving father his children, the brethren who are journeying" (Letter to Pope Soter in Eusebius, Church History 4:23:9 [A.D. 170]).

"Today we have observed the Lord’s holy day, in which we have read your letter [Pope Soter]. Whenever we do read it [in church], we shall be able to profit thereby, as also we do when we read the earlier letter written to us by Clement" (ibid., 4:23:11).

Irenaeus

"But since it would be too long to enumerate in such a volume as this the succession of all the churches, we shall confound all those who, in whatever manner, whether through self-satisfaction or vainglory, or through blindness and wicked opinion, assemble other than where it is proper, by pointing out here the successions of the bishops of the greatest and most ancient church known to all, founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul, that church which has the tradition and the faith which comes down to us after having been announced to men by the apostles. With that church, because of its superior origin, all the churches must agree, that is, all the faithful in the whole world, and it is in her that the faithful everywhere have maintained the apostolic tradition" (Against Heresies 3:3:2 [A.D. 189]).

(The Reformation, BTW, also paralleled the Renaissance and opened the door for the Enlightenment, without which we would have approximately none of the things we consider valuable about modern society. Not exactly something to speak of dismissively. The "authority" you speak of brought us the Crusades and the Inquisition, among other atrocities, and froze scholarly inquiry in its tracks for a thousand years; it was hardly infallible.)
You have a distorted view of comparison -- you compare what you don't like about what you think you know about the Catholic Church to what you do like about Protestantism. In any event, without the Catholic Church, we would have no Bible because it was the Church who wrote it and canonized it (both through the guidance of the Holy Spirit). Again, infallibility does not mean that Christians cannot sin or personally err; infallibility means that the teaching magisterium through the Holy Spirit is prevented from error.

Right. Okay, then -- again -- why didn't he give his chosen spokesmen the best, most convincing tools available, rather than handicapping them with a flawed, inconsistent version of his Word that was open to wildly varying interpretations, and that from all appearances was obviously the work of fallible humans rather than divine omniscience? Even if you assume the "closed-minded" are a lost cause, why not make the best possible case to the open-minded?
Most simply put, God gave man free will -- which means man can really mess things up and err and sin -- especially when he is choosing to do his own will and not God's. And closed minds are not necessarily a lost cause because closed minds can open.

Cedars

10-06-2007, 04:59 AM

And BTW, you've not yet answered me about what convinced you to come in from the cold of your own self-proclaimed apostasy. Perhaps that personal example would make your reasoning here a bit clearer...
You asked this in the other thread regarding moral autonomy, to which I responded (I think it was post #105).

lawman

10-06-2007, 07:46 AM

The problem with your logic is that, again, you are making assumptions about the purpose of scripture being to evangelize atheists.
You keep insisting this, but it's really far narrower than what I'm actually claiming. "Atheists," as such, were pretty thin on the ground through most of human history, if only because there was no way other than religion to explain the world. There were, however, lots and lots of nonbelievers in Yahweh, if only because they had never had the chance to be exposed to his Word. Clearly one purpose of scripture was to convince previous nonbelievers (or even Jews, who were at least nonbelievers in Jesus as Messiah) of the virtue of this particular belief system over whatever one they may have held before. Obviously it was used for that purpose (even if indirectly, by in-person evangelists); otherwise where did the growing numbers of new believers come from?

As such, yet again, I maintain that it's quite reasonable to suppose a truly omniscient deity would have taken the trouble to make his holy Word stand out a bit more distinctly from every other variant belief system that was around, by including something unmistakably beyond ordinary human knowledge.

You are wrong, my friend. Authority was established from day one. Even from scripture we see that Christ started a Church through His apostles...
Right. We see this from Scripture that was compiled and canonized centuries later, after the Church had assumed a position of dominance, conveniently including those texts which supported its position of dominance, while excluding myriad alternative views as apocryphal.

You keep asserting that the Bible wasn't "meant" to be used as an evangelical tool. Right or wrong, the fact remains that it was the only source of God's Word for those who were doing the evangelizing... and their claims of exclusive authority to that evangelizing rest entirely on that Bible... over which they had complete editorial control. You see the circularity here?

You have a distorted view of comparison -- you compare what you don't like about what you think you know about the Catholic Church to what you do like about Protestantism.
Actually, I'm not a huge fan of Protestantism either, but it was at least an improvement over a single monolithic church that would brook no dissent.

In any event, without the Catholic Church, we would have no Bible because it was the Church who wrote it and canonized it (both through the guidance of the Holy Spirit).
That parenthetical bit is actually pretty essential to your whole argument. Care to offer any evidence for it?

Again, infallibility does not mean that Christians cannot sin or personally err; infallibility means that the teaching magisterium through the Holy Spirit is prevented from error.
Again: how can you actually validate this claim in a way that any objective observer should take seriously?

Most simply put, God gave man free will -- which means man can really mess things up and err and sin -- especially when he is choosing to do his own will and not God's. And closed minds are not necessarily a lost cause because closed minds can open.
You're not answering the question. You're not really even addressing the question. Do you understand the question? Let me try again to paraphrase: why would God make the job of spreading his Word any harder than it had to be for those committed to do so, or decline to make his Word as convincing as possible for those who did approach it with an open mind, when it was well within his power to do so, simply by including some otherwise unknown knowledge that would have the added benefit of greatly improving the human condition for those who chose to believe it?

Groucho

10-06-2007, 11:35 AM

why would God make the job of spreading his Word any harder than it had to be for those committed to do so, or decline to make his Word as convincing as possible for those who did approach it with an open mind, when it was well within his power to do so, simply by including some otherwise unknown knowledge that would have the added benefit of greatly improving the human condition for those who chose to believe it?

Or to put it another way, given all the other holy books out there for all the other religions, why didn't God make His holy book more compelling for someone who already believed but wasn't sure which religion to choose?

Cedars

10-07-2007, 10:27 PM

You keep insisting this, but it's really far narrower than what I'm actually claiming. "Atheists," as such, were pretty thin on the ground through most of human history, if only because there was no way other than religion to explain the world. There were, however, lots and lots of nonbelievers in Yahweh, if only because they had never had the chance to be exposed to his Word. Clearly one purpose of scripture was to convince previous nonbelievers (or even Jews, who were at least nonbelievers in Jesus as Messiah) of the virtue of this particular belief system over whatever one they may have held before. Obviously it was used for that purpose (even if indirectly, by in-person evangelists); otherwise where did the growing numbers of new believers come from?

As such, yet again, I maintain that it's quite reasonable to suppose a truly omniscient deity would have taken the trouble to make his holy Word stand out a bit more distinctly from every other variant belief system that was around, by including something unmistakably beyond ordinary human knowledge.
I keep insisting this because you are missing the point. I am obviously not making myself clear, then. Regardless of whom you want to talk about (atheists, Jews, Muslims, etc.), what I am trying to say is that you are stuck on the books of the Bible as a means for evangelizing non-Christians. Historically, the average man could not read and copies of books (or letters) of the Bible were rare (because as I said before, printing presses were not available, documents had to be hand written). The primary source of evangelization was ORAL preaching (and epistles and other books of the NT, AFTER they were written) could be read aloud if they were available. Now, I understand you are arguing that God would foresee for the future that the average man could read and that He should have placed scientific knowledge so that future non-Christians may believe. But this is a false expectation, because, again, it was the Church who wrote the books of the NT and it was the Church who canonized the Bible late in the fourth century. They canonized the Bible for the purpose of strengthening the faithful. If you want to insist why didn't God inspire the scientific knowledge you so crave, you might just as well ask why doesn't God physically appear and show Himself to you!

Cedars

10-07-2007, 10:43 PM

Right. We see this from Scripture that was compiled and canonized centuries later, after the Church had assumed a position of dominance, conveniently including those texts which supported its position of dominance, while excluding myriad alternative views as apocryphal.
Your sense of history and fair play is a little warped. It is obvious from scripture that the apostles were to be succeeded (Judas was succeeded by Matthias) so that the Church would last until the end of times. If the Church was to grow (and it did spread like wildfire), it only makes sense that the number of deacons and presbyters would grow also. If the Church was to remain of ONE teaching, that is the teaching of Jesus (who is The WORD of God Himself), it makes sense also that there would be hierarchy (if there is hierarchy among the angels in heaven, why should we think it would be different here on earth?). We see in our own governmental structure the necessity of hierarchy, why would you think that God's structure, the Church, would be any different? God is a God of order, not chaos. Without the authority of the Church, there is chaos.

You keep asserting that the Bible wasn't "meant" to be used as an evangelical tool. Right or wrong, the fact remains that it was the only source of God's Word for those who were doing the evangelizing... and their claims of exclusive authority to that evangelizing rest entirely on that Bible... over which they had complete editorial control. You see the circularity here?
Let me ask you this since you keep insisting on the Bible as the only source of God's Word: What do you think the Church did before the books of the NT were written some 70 years or so before anything was written? Or what did they do before the books were canonized in the fourth century?

Actually, I'm not a huge fan of Protestantism either, but it was at least an improvement over a single monolithic church that would brook no dissent.
Hmm, and it seems to me there is plenty of dissent in the Protestant churches, hence the thousands of denominations. I mean no disrespect to Protestants, but it seems chaotic to me.

Dangerrmouse

10-07-2007, 10:45 PM

That's democracy for you.

Cedars

10-07-2007, 11:14 PM

That parenthetical bit is actually pretty essential to your whole argument. Care to offer any evidence for it?
I'm assuming this is directed to my comment: "In any event, without the Catholic Church, we would have no Bible because it was the Church who wrote it and canonized it (both through the guidance of the Holy Spirit)."
All Christians believe the Holy Spirit guides us. But it is evident that if different persons who believe the Holy Spirit guides them get conflicting interpretations, then something is wrong. Scripture clearly states that the Church is the pillar and ground of truth. ("But if I tarry long, that thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth." 1 Tim. 3:15) Anything that is the pillar and ground of truth can only come from the guidance of the Holy Spirit.

Again: how can you actually validate this claim in a way that any objective observer should take seriously?
This from my comment: "Again, infallibility does not mean that Christians cannot sin or personally err; infallibility means that the teaching magisterium through the Holy Spirit is prevented from error."
Christians believe that God is the pillar and ground of truth. If one believes scripture to be inspired, then it is natural to understand that if scripture states that the Church is the pillar and ground of truth, then it is from God and what is from God is infallible.

You're not answering the question. You're not really even addressing the question. Do you understand the question? Let me try again to paraphrase: why would God make the job of spreading his Word any harder than it had to be for those committed to do so, or decline to make his Word as convincing as possible for those who did approach it with an open mind, when it was well within his power to do so, simply by including some otherwise unknown knowledge that would have the added benefit of greatly improving the human condition for those who chose to believe it?
I have already answered this in post #50. God has given us all that we need. If you only insist on using scientific methods and ignore other methods, then you will be disappointed. It might seem easier if God just appeared to each one of us in physical form and said here I am, obey me. But then, Adam and Eve were fully aware of God's presence but disobeyed anyway -- apparently, even His presence was not enough. We have free will, and we will have the freedom to accept God or to reject God. Anyone who truly wishes to know whether God is real or not need only pray and ask God to help their disbelief. If the person is sincere, God will reveal Himself in some way (it may take a while for the person to realize that God is in fact answering).

Cedars

10-07-2007, 11:22 PM

That's democracy for you.
That is a very flippant response, and inappropriate. There is nothing in scripture that would lead anyone to believe that God's Word is up for grabs in democratic interpretation. There is only one truth, and that is Christ's truth -- not varying and conflicting interpretations of it.

"Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle." (2 Thess. 2:15)

lawman

10-08-2007, 01:51 AM

I keep insisting this because you are missing the point.
I think we keep talking past each other, actually. We evidently disagree about what the point is. I'm trying to explore the logic of the argument in the OP, while you're focusing much more narrowly on the alleged historical purpose of the Bible in particular.

The primary source of evangelization was ORAL preaching...
And what was the source of information for the preaching that was delivered orally? Directly or indirectly (i.e., either straight from the text, or mediated by official Church theologizing), it was the Bible.

Now, I understand you are arguing that God would foresee for the future that the average man could read and that He should have placed scientific knowledge so that future non-Christians may believe.
Yes, precisely. You have yet to offer any persuasive critique of this argument.

But this is a false expectation, because, again, it was the Church who wrote the books of the NT and it was the Church who canonized the Bible late in the fourth century. They canonized the Bible for the purpose of strengthening the faithful.
This is not a persuasive critique of the underlying argument, for several reasons. First, from the very start the Church (and God himself, insofar as we can infer intent; certainly the Church claimed it was doing his will) had every bit as much interest in converting new believers as in strengthening the present ones, and no objective assessment of history could claim otherwise. Second, pointing out that the Church was responsible for what's in the Bible only underscores the fact that it's a human document, not a divine one, which supports the initial argument rather more than it undermines it.

And third, even if we accept (for the sake of argument) your point that the Bible per se wasn't necessarily intended as a tool to persuade people to believe, that merely moves the whole argument back a step, compelling the question: given that God has an interest in people choosing to believe, then if he'd created the Bible for other purposes, why didn't he then create (or provide, or inspire, what have you) something else to make the best possible case for doing so?

Having created humans with intelligence and free will, and having decided to share his Word with them, why in heaven's name (pun intended) would he provide anything other than the most persuasive reasons to believe in that Word? Why provide only something that could so easily be mistaken for other "false" beliefs?

Or, to put it in a single sentence: "Hey, God -- if you expect us to buy into the idea that you're omniscient, why don't you tell us something we don't already know?"

(For that matter, take evangelism out of it: if the Bible was a work for those who already believed, why not make it more useful and accurate for them? At the time it was written, for instance, the germ theory of disease would have been invaluable: why let his followers keep believing that nonsense about demons causing disease? Cluing them in to a heliocentric cosmology would have been pretty helpful, too. And other examples are hardly difficult to imagine...)

If you want to insist why didn't God inspire the scientific knowledge you so crave, you might just as well ask why doesn't God physically appear and show Himself to you!
Now you're getting it. That is, basically, a variant of the same argument. Why doesn't he? God certainly had no problem physically appearing to, or otherwise communicating directly with, any number of humans back in the Bronze Age, and even during the Middle Ages, if we take the available accounts at face value... he just seems to have decided to stop doing so, rather conveniently, right around the time we developed sufficient scientific and technological knowledge to actually test, verify, and/or record such phenomena.

IOW, to broaden the opening argument a bit: there are any number of ways that God, if he existed, could (directly, or through any texts or earthly advocates "inspired" by him) easily convince any open-minded, rational nonbeliever of his existence, not to mention his alleged omniscience, omnipotence, and benevolence. Surely he wants humanity to accept him and his Word. Yet he avails himself of none of these means of persuasion. Why not?

(continued...)

lawman

10-08-2007, 01:51 AM

Your sense of history and fair play is a little warped. It is obvious from scripture that the apostles were to be succeeded (Judas was succeeded by Matthias) so that the Church would last until the end of times. If the Church was to grow (and it did spread like wildfire), it only makes sense that the number of deacons and presbyters would grow also. If the Church was to remain of ONE teaching, that is the teaching of Jesus (who is The WORD of God Himself), it makes sense also that there would be hierarchy (if there is hierarchy among the angels in heaven, why should we think it would be different here on earth?).
Actually, it's your ability to recognize a circular argument that seems a bit warped. As you have just pointed out, the Bible was canonized by the Church. Now, what source do you have for believing in the succession you describe (or the angels, for that matter) other than the scriptures of that Bible, or other teaching of the Church itself? And surely it stands to reason that the Church would canonize only texts and teachings that supported its own authority, no others? Hence, their evidentiary value drops rather precipitously.

We see in our own governmental structure the necessity of hierarchy, why would you think that God's structure, the Church, would be any different? God is a God of order, not chaos. Without the authority of the Church, there is chaos.
Actually, without the authority of the Church, there is freedom. (It's not the same thing as chaos.) The justification you offer here hardly deserves the word: for one thing, human government structures are legitimized by accountability to the governed, which neither God nor his Church ever offered; for another, as discussions like these so often remind us, God is infinitely wiser than humans, so why couldn't he come up with some better structure than the deeply-flawed hierarchy with which we burdened so many of our own institutions?

(continued...)

lawman

10-08-2007, 02:14 AM

I'm assuming this is directed to my comment: "In any event, without the Catholic Church, we would have no Bible because it was the Church who wrote it and canonized it (both through the guidance of the Holy Spirit)."
All Christians believe the Holy Spirit guides us.
You assume correctly: that's what I was asking about. But as the question was directed to the persuasive value of Church doctrine (as opposed to just the Bible itself), even if "all Christians believe" what you claim (which they don't, actually, but never mind), that's beside the point: that those already within a given belief system accept its premises is a truism, and has exactly zero persuasive value to anyone not already inside that belief system.

But it is evident that if different persons who believe the Holy Spirit guides them get conflicting interpretations, then something is wrong.
No: that's only so if you accept a priori that there is only one possible capital-T version of Truth that applies universally, independent of personal or historical context. That's a pretty fundamentalist attitude, and you've already demonstrated that you're not that much of a fundamentalist by your own remarks about how parts of the Bible should be understood symbolically, metaphorically, or in historical terms.

Christians believe that God is the pillar and ground of truth. If one believes scripture to be inspired, then it is natural to understand that if scripture states that the Church is the pillar and ground of truth, then it is from God and what is from God is infallible.
First of all, again, that believers believe it does not validate the statement to an objective observer. Second, again again, given that the scripture asserting the Church's authority was created by the Church, accepting that assertion at face value does not exactly follow as a direct logical consequence from having belief in God.

I have already answered this in post #50. God has given us all that we need. If you only insist on using scientific methods and ignore other methods, then you will be disappointed.
No, you haven't answered it at all. What is the "all we need" that we've been "given"? What "other methods" are you claiming exist other than scientific naturalism? Please name a few. Or even one. ("Methods" from within the belief system that therefore presuppose belief don't count, BTW, since the intended audience in question is not yet within that system.)

It might seem easier if God just appeared to each one of us in physical form and said here I am, obey me. But then, Adam and Eve were fully aware of God's presence but disobeyed anyway...
Yeah, but they sure didn't doubt his existence, did they? :rolleyes: Which is what this thread is about; the legitimacy of worship is the other thread. (Personally, if some being insisted that the one thing he didn't want me exposed to, on pain of severe punishment, was knowledge, I'd be pretty disinclined to worship or even trust him, all issues of existence aside.)

(And I know this is a digression, but please, please tell me you don't actually take the Adam and Eve story literally...)

Anyone who truly wishes to know whether God is real or not need only pray and ask God to help their disbelief.
That's logically inconsistent in a number of ways. First of all, why pray to a deity in which you don't yet believe? Second, why pray at all, since the efficacy of prayer even for devout believers is demonstrably nonexistent?

If the person is sincere, God will reveal Himself in some way (it may take a while for the person to realize that God is in fact answering).
Still flawed. First of all, the "takes a while" part obviously lends a pretty subjective element to God's alleged "answers." How is any nonbeliever to distinguish such things from the sort of delusions and simple misunderstandings to which all humans are so notoriously susceptible? (In particular, given the crucial mediating influence of the Church for your particular version of Christianity, why should someone expect God to respond directly at all, or to understand that response if he did? Doesn't that call for exactly the sort of personal "interpretation" you disdain?)

Second, and rather troubling, is the "if sincere" part. You're saying that God assesses whether a given nonbeliever has a sincere desire to believe, in the absence of any actual persuasive evidence. IOW, God's criteria for "revealing himself" is whether a person is willing to throw away his or her intelligence, rationality, and free will -- the very characteristics that most distinguish us as humans, and of which any Creator should be most proud -- and instead seek to discover blind faith.

Third, any seeker who really does have that "sincere" desire is frankly quite likely to delude him/herself into believing the prayer has been answered. It's hardly controversial to point out that as a matter of basic psychology, people are remarkably talented at finding excuses to believe what they genuinely want to believe, whether they have anything to do with reality or not.

Please understand: through all this discussion, no one is trying to convince you to give up your personal beliefs. What we're doing is pointing out that the only basis for those beliefs seems to be subjective... since you haven't yet said a word that would convince anyone else to share them, much less rebutted any aspect of the fairly persuasive opening argument (merely one among many) for not accepting those beliefs on objective terms.

Dangerrmouse

10-08-2007, 02:13 PM

That is a very flippant response, and inappropriate. There is nothing in scripture that would lead anyone to believe that God's Word is up for grabs in democratic interpretation. There is only one truth, and that is Christ's truth -- not varying and conflicting interpretations of it.

"Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle." (2 Thess. 2:15)

Succinct, but not flippant. What could be more democratic than a direct interface, instead of a self-appointed self-sustaining hierarchy of interpreters and intercedents?

As for the quotation, "Well, they would say that, wouldn't they?" - M. Rice-Davies

rjamortega

10-08-2007, 02:56 PM

I really like Hitchens and his thoughts. But it is very uplifting for me to see these brilliant minds waste their time in futility and ignorance over the subject of religion. I myself see the same discrepancies and foolishness in the scriptures as they do, but only on the surface. They actualy believe their assessments are poigniant. But they are blind to the wisdom that is inherent in these old writings as well as all of the good "religion" has caused for the world because they can only see what they can see and touch.

The thing that most impresses me though is that none of these brilliant secular thinkers can present us with something that inspires deep inner hope and peace. Ultimately, with their lead we are left with nothing but more books and whatever thought they inspire.

Dangerrmouse

10-08-2007, 03:12 PM

It's all a snare and a delusion....

lawman

10-08-2007, 03:29 PM

The thing that most impresses me though is that none of these brilliant secular thinkers can present us with something that inspires deep inner hope and peace. Ultimately, with their lead we are left with nothing but more books and whatever thought they inspire.
Piffle. There are plenty of aspects of secular and scientific thought which can and do inspire "deep inner hope and peace." Look back a handful of years and read some Sagan, for instance, to mention just one of my personal favorites.

Meanwhile, of course, it's worth pointing out that whether or not something is inspiring or comforting has no bearing on whether it's true, which is what the thread is about.

Ethos

10-08-2007, 04:16 PM

The thing that most impresses me though is that none of these brilliant secular thinkers can present us with something that inspires deep inner hope and peace. Ultimately, with their lead we are left with nothing but more books and whatever thought they inspire.

This is more or less the argument against fundamentalist philosophy. The mentality which says that another form of reasoning is incapable of producing the same basic qualities as religious faith - hope, peace, morality, etc.

Of course you would be wrong, but ultimate understanding on this front requires a perspective you may lack. Certainly writings that offer these elements outside of a religious frame are not nearly so widespread as their mainstream religious counterparts. Combine this with the general lack of a compulsion to proselytize and you find it is a far greater challenge to know or seek these philosophies.

Ethos

rjamortega

10-08-2007, 04:36 PM

Piffle. There are plenty of aspects of secular and scientific thought which can and do inspire "deep inner hope and peace." Look back a handful of years and read some Sagan, for instance, to mention just one of my personal favorites.

Meanwhile, of course, it's worth pointing out that whether or not something is inspiring or comforting has no bearing on whether it's true, which is what the thread is about.

What I'm saying is, considering the particular examples Harris and Hitchens choose to fire upon, their volleys have little affect other than pleasing other atheists. The great "scurge" still stands as tall as ever. The real truth behind religion is untouched because they never attacked it. And they never attacked it because they don't recognize it.

rjamortega

10-08-2007, 04:40 PM

This is more or less the argument against fundamentalist philosophy. The mentality which says that another form of reasoning is incapable of producing the same basic qualities as religious faith - hope, peace, morality, etc.

Of course you would be wrong, but ultimate understanding on this front requires a perspective you may lack. Certainly writings that offer these elements outside of a religious frame are not nearly so widespread as their mainstream religious counterparts. Combine this with the general lack of a compulsion to proselytize and you find it is a far greater challenge to know or seek these philosophies.

Ethos

I am lacking, I know that much.

Ethos

10-08-2007, 04:52 PM

I am lacking, I know that much.

Do you believe it, or are you only placating?

The important distinction between "knowing" and "lacking" is that someone can always learn what they lack, but it is so much more difficult to learn when they already think they know.

In this age you have the option to find virtually any information you wish in very short order, often without leaving your home. Is it enough to claim ignorance for its own sake, or do you ever intend to learn what you think you "know"?

Book Description
Atheists are frequently demonized as arrogant intellectuals, antagonistic to religion, devoid of moral sentiments, advocates of an "anything goes" lifestyle. Now, in this revealing volume, nineteen leading philosophers open a window on the inner life of atheism, shattering these common stereotypes as they reveal how they came to turn away from religious belief.
These highly engaging personal essays capture the marvelous diversity to be found among atheists, providing a portrait that will surprise most readers. Many of the authors, for example, express great affection for particular religious traditions, even as they explain why they cannot, in good conscience, embrace them. None of the contributors dismiss religious belief as stupid or primitive, and several even express regret that they cannot, or can no longer, believe. Perhaps more important,
in these reflective pieces, they offer fresh insight into some of the oldest and most difficult problems facing the human mind and spirit. For instance, if God is dead, is everything permitted? Philosophers Without Gods demonstrates convincingly, with arguments that date back to Plato, that morality is independent of the existence of God. Indeed, every writer in this volume adamantly affirms the objectivity of right and wrong. Moreover, they contend that secular life can provide rewards as great and as rich as religious life. A naturalistic understanding of the human condition presents a set of challenges--to pursue our goals without illusions, to act morally without hope of reward--challenges that can impart a lasting value to finite and fragile human lives.

Collectively, these essays highlight the richness of atheistic belief--not only as a valid alternative to religion, but as a profoundly fulfilling and moral way of life.

Philosophers Without Gods: Meditations on Atheism and the Secular Life (http://www.amazon.co.uk/Philosophers-Without-Gods-Meditations-Atheism/dp/0195173074)

rjamortega

10-08-2007, 06:10 PM

Do you believe it, or are you only placating?

The important distinction between "knowing" and "lacking" is that someone can always learn what they lack, but it is so much more difficult to learn when they already think they know.

In this age you have the option to find virtually any information you wish in very short order, often without leaving your home. Is it enough to claim ignorance for its own sake, or do you ever intend to learn what you think you "know"?

Philosophers Without Gods: Meditations on Atheism and the Secular Life (http://www.amazon.co.uk/Philosophers-Without-Gods-Meditations-Atheism/dp/0195173074)

Oh, well now we're talking about two different things. I was speaking of Harris/Hitchens and the common atheist on the street. But if you want to consider keen philosphers, then yes, I will grant you that many of these intellectual thinkers actually get to the same place religion seeks but by a different avenue. Both can be good, and both can be bad depending on what exactly it is we are concentrating on. But both can and do work for many.

Ethos

10-08-2007, 06:32 PM

Oh, well now we're talking about two different things. I was speaking of Harris/Hitchens and the common atheist on the street. But if you want to consider keen philosphers, then yes, I will grant you that many of these intellectual thinkers actually get to the same place religion seeks but by a different avenue. Both can be good, and both can be bad depending on what exactly it is we are concentrating on. But both can and do work for many.

I'm not sure you can dismiss the full accumulation of work from Harris or Hitchens based on a single articulation. I would also not be so quick to marginalize the "common atheist on the street" as if the Common Man (or Woman) is less capable than keen (or shall we say published) intellects of gleaning fundamental truths from life.

What exactly do you know of Sam Harris or Chris Hitchens beyond the rather brief constraints of this thread? What do you know of the "common atheist on the street", for that matter?

Ethos

rjamortega

10-08-2007, 07:04 PM

I'm not sure you can dismiss the full accumulation of work from Harris or Hitchens based on a single articulation. I would also not be so quick to marginalize the "common atheist on the street" as if the Common Man (or Woman) is less capable than keen (or shall we say published) intellects of gleaning fundamental truths from life.

What exactly do you know of Sam Harris or Chris Hitchens beyond the rather brief constraints of this thread? What do you know of the "common atheist on the street", for that matter?

Ethos

Excuse me. I go on certain assumptions and generalizations. I assume that most do not spend their lives deep in such thoughts, but instead, like myself, only peck on the surface to varying degrees. Therefore, I give both the religious and secular intellectual scholars the benefit of the doubt.

However, I do tend to believe the more highly thought out the secular philospher is, the less prone he is to attack religion, with the same true for the well thought out theologians.

Ethos

10-08-2007, 07:13 PM

Excuse me. I go on certain assumptions and generalizations. I assume that most do not spend their lives deep in such thoughts, but instead, like myself, only peck on the surface to varying degrees. Therefore, I give both the religious and secular intellectual scholars the benefit of the doubt.

Devaluing the contributions of countless laymen in the process, apparently.

Harris and Hitchens both have degrees in philosophy. Harris's includes Eastern and Western religion. Are these intellectual scholars?

However, I do tend to believe the more highly thought out the secular philospher is, the less prone he is to attack religion, with the same true for the well thought out theologians.

You have never met a highly educated, yet supremely unintelligent individual in your life? Or perhaps extreme intelligence, yet little education?

I believe you give far too little credit to those who deserve more, and far too much to those who deserve less. Even accredited scholars are nothing more than men. We have always been clever and insightful, it is a most basic principle of our species.

Ethos

rjamortega

10-08-2007, 08:13 PM

Devaluing the contributions of countless laymen in the process, apparently.

Harris and Hitchens both have degrees in philosophy. Harris's includes Eastern and Western religion. Are these intellectual scholars?

You have never met a highly educated, yet supremely unintelligent individual in your life? Or perhaps extreme intelligence, yet little education?

I believe you give far too little credit to those who deserve more, and far too much to those who deserve less. Even accredited scholars are nothing more than men. We have always been clever and insightful, it is a most basic principle of our species.

Ethos

Your last two paragraphs are totaly reasonable to me. You are quite right in assessing the capabilities and shortcomings of the various groups. I am not about to structure my statements so detailed and articulate that you cannot find something to take exception to. I give you that. So let me assume that so many are so well thought out as to have the answers to the universe and humanity. And let me assume that Harris/Hitchens are just two of them. Then I have to conclude that they too are guilty of the same things their opposition is. In their case that is generalization of theology. I do not see them pointing to a particular group of thought. They merely assume any and all religious belief is misplaced to the point of being some sort of danger.

Now this may be my mistake, but I just happen to believe any secular thinker with a deep sense of humanity isn't even going to consider criticism of the major religions, but will instead have an acute understanding of why it exists and how it fits man's needs. They certainly will not bother to combat it as aggressively and one-sided as Harris and Hitchens do.

But again, I believe the same is true of the deep religious thinkers also. This is the biggest reason why I respect Dennis Prager. He lives by faith and does not condemn secular philosphers as false or dangerous. He only calls out the dangers that can stem from strict secular-only adherence while admitting the same of the religious. I know of few people who will do that.

(and just in case, please do not confuse me with any religious group or church. I do not keep any mainstream religion's traditions)