Atheism is "cool"

MackDeToaster

PDN wrote: »

I would reassess my views on the Holocaust if documents were discovered and verified where most or all of the witnesses admitted that they were committing a hoax. So, in our little imaginary exercise, if signed confessions were discovered by all of the Gospel writers and Paul admitting they made the whole thing up, and if these signed confessions were verified, then I find it difficult to see how I could remain a Christian.

But, from what I can see, this again is the subjective bias. There are no signed confessions admitting the falsification of the religions of the Inca, Hindus, Maoris, the Jicarilla Apaches, the ancient Greek gods, ad infinitum. How then can you deny their truth other than you are culturally predisposed to follow Christianity first?

PDN

Wicknight wrote: »

Yes but "correctly" is within the framework that it still provides you with the trappings of religious faith. You have no motivation to reach a conclusion that calls into question the fundamentals of your faith (the Bible is self-contradictory for example, or Jesus didn't exist, or the prophecies in OT have nothing to do with the claimed fulfilled ones in the NT etc etc) and a huge motivation not to.

No, I think the very opposite is true. I have much more motivation than others to discover if the fundamentals of my faith are shaky. I would not want to build my life on a lie. That is why I have taken the time to carefully examine the evidence for the veracity of the New Testament documents.

Your problem is that you don't like the conclusions I have reached and so you start accusing me of dishonesty or even claim that my whole academic field of study is a made-up subject.

As I've grown older I've discovered that there's no point getting upset at people because they don't see things the way I see them. I've also learned that just because someone disagrees with me it doesn't automatically follow that they are stupid or dishonest. Someone may hold different views to mine but still be an educated thinking person who has thought deeply about their beliefs and holds them in perfect sincerity.

The idea that your, or Christians in general, religious faith is just the same type of bias that everyone takes into a study of a text or document is, frankly, ridiculous.

That is your opinion and you have a perfect right to hold it. Thankfully most universities disagree with you and Christians are permitted to study theology just as freely as other people that you would deem to be less objectionable.

Imagine a bunch of Scientologists sitting around assessing "Dianetics" .. you think that would produce a critical and even handed assessment that L Ron Hubbard was making this stuff up for money?

I think you know very well that is an appallingly bad analogy.

To be a true analogy it would need to be that Hubbard's works were subjected to academic scrutiny by Scientologists and non-Scientologists alike, and where all available historical and linguistic tools were used to determine as precisely as possible what Hubbard actually meant (without actually assessing its truthfulness).

Exegesis is not about determining whether Christianity is true or not, or whether God even exists. It is about determining what the original authors meant to say and about how that would have been understood by the first readers.

PDN

MackDeToaster wrote: »

But, from what I can see, this again is the subjective bias. There are no signed confessions admitting the falsification of the religions of the Inca, Hindus, Maoris, the Jicarilla Apaches, the ancient Greek gods, ad infinitum. How then can you deny their truth other than you are culturally predisposed to follow Christianity first?

I quite agree that faith in Jesus Christ is subject to a subjective bias. Your question is the sad result of a previous poster conflating two separate issues (and then getting all upset when I suggested such conflation was not a good idea).

My discussion in this thread about bias and objectivity has related to the exegesis of Scripture - determining as objectively as possible what the Bible actually says and how we know which passages are intended to be taken as literal history, which as parables, which as poetry, which as commands etc. That is a discipline where we should recognise our bias and minimise it as much as possible.

The same would apply to the sacred writings of the Inca, Apaches, Hindus etc. If I wanted to really understand those writings (as an anthropologist would) then I should not approach them as a Christian trying to prove them wrong. I should ask as objectively as possible how these writings were intended to be understood.

Now, the issue of whether these writings are truthful or not is a different matter entirely. Here I am quite happy to admit that objectivity goes out of the window and I am gloriously biased! Christianity has saved and enriched my life - therefore I view it very subjectively.

BTW, I don't think I was culturally predisposed to follow Christianity. My upbringing etc predisposed me towards atheism. People's lifestyle or faith choices are often influenced by factors other than cultural predisposition.

MackDeToaster

PDN wrote: »

I quite agree that faith in Jesus Christ is subject to a subjective bias. ...(snippety snip)....
Now, the issue of whether these writings are truthful or not is a different matter entirely. Here I am quite happy to admit that objectivity goes out of the window and I am gloriously biased! Christianity has saved and enriched my life - therefore I view it very subjectively.

This I think was Wicknights point (awaiting correction if needs be), and also what I was alluding to. You're only interested in the exegesis of scripture because you are Christian, you're in a feedback loop.

PDN wrote: »

BTW, I don't think I was culturally predisposed to follow Christianity. My upbringing etc predisposed me towards atheism. People's lifestyle or faith choices are often influenced by factors other than cultural predisposition.

Interesting. I don't see how anything could predispose you towards atheism, we all begin atheistic by default, then culture kicks in. Sure some people may change from one religion to another in later life but if, for example, you were born in Saudi Arabia then became Christian without somehow having any prior experience or knowledge of Christianity I'd be utterly amazed.

Ruskie4Rent

PDN wrote: »

A good rule of thumb is that Christians should never build any major doctrine or practice on any Scripture that is ambiguous or allows for differing valid interpretations.

There is a popular saying (by Rupertus Meldenius, but often wrongly attributed to Augustine of Hippo) "In essentials, unity; in doubtful matters, liberty; in all things, charity."

Why is that rule of thumb restricted to christians? Why can't they accept that non-believers deserve liberty when it comes to morally ambiguous things such as abortion?
If you can find common ground with christians that interpret they bible differently, then why not can you do the same with those that might interpret the whole existance of god thing as a 'doubt matter'?

Fanny Cradock

MackDeToaster wrote: »

This I think was Wicknights point (awaiting correction if needs be), and also what I was alluding to. You're only interested in the exegesis of scripture because you are Christian, you're in a feedback loop.

And what matters the motivation as long as any analysis is done so in an unbiased and open manner?

Ruskie4Rent

PDN wrote: »

I would reassess my views on the Holocaust if documents were discovered and verified where most or all of the witnesses admitted that they were committing a hoax. So, in our little imaginary exercise, if signed confessions were discovered by all of the Gospel writers and Paul admitting they made the whole thing up, and if these signed confessions were verified, then I find it difficult to see how I could remain a Christian.

I'd hate to break it you you but.................



I know it was the first century and all, and they didn't have much experience with ms paint, but their legibility is shocking.
I mean they wrote the friggin bible for god sake.

Ruskie4Rent, although I'm on the side of atheism, I think that comments and pictures like that demean our whole argument, especially yours. It isn't needed to be honest; we don't need to resort to childish behaviour to win an argument/get our point across.

Ruskie4Rent

-JammyDodger- wrote: »

Ruskie4Rent, although I'm on the side of atheism, I think that comments and pictures like that demean our whole argument, especially yours. It isn't needed to be honest; we don't need to resort to childish behaviour to win an argument/get our point across.

I'm sorry:(

Edit: Wait a minute, no i'm not. Didn't expect anyone to take it as a serious effort to win an argument, just trying to lighten the tone a bit.

Ruskie4Rent

Ruskie4Rent wrote: »

I'm sorry:(

Go into the bold corner for 15 minutes:p

Edit: Yah I know ruskie4rent, I can see that it's funny! But you can't give the Christians any ammunition to use against us!:p

AlMcC

Kids give stupid reasons because they are kids. Whether atheism is "cool" or otherwise has no bearing on whether it is logical (it is).

PDN

MackDeToaster wrote: »

This I think was Wicknights point (awaiting correction if needs be), and also what I was alluding to. You're only interested in the exegesis of scripture because you are Christian, you're in a feedback loop.

As Fanny Cradock has pointed out, your loop is an illusion created by your conflating two separate issues.

The motivation for doing something is entirely different from the objective application of methodology.

One person might do exegesis because they are a Christian. Another, like my atheist Professor, might do it because it was his job and he was paid to do it. That doesn't matter so long as they both follow the same methodology.

PDN

Ruskie4Rent wrote: »

Why is that rule of thumb restricted to christians? Why can't they accept that non-believers deserve liberty when it comes to morally ambiguous things such as abortion?
If you can find common ground with christians that interpret they bible differently, then why not can you do the same with those that might interpret the whole existance of god thing as a 'doubt matter'?

Or why not find common ground with those Nazis who deserve liberty when it comes to things they think are morally ambiguous - like killing Jews? If you want to discuss abortion more then we have a thread over on the Christianity forum where we can do that.

As for those who view the whole existence of God thing as a 'doubt matter', I'm happy to extend liberty to them. I let them get on with their thing.

Ruskie4Rent

PDN wrote: »

Or why not find common ground with those Nazis who deserve liberty when it comes to things they think are morally ambiguous - like killing Jews?

Killing Jews is morally ambiguous?:eek:

If you want to discuss abortion more then we have a thread over on the Christianity forum where we can do that.

Well the morality of abortion was not what i was getting at. I think its wrong btw, but that's besides the point. There are good arguments that suggest that there is morally ambiguity surrounding abortion. I'm not saying they are right, just that there is enough disagreement to have reasonable doubt over my position.

If some christians are able to agree to disagree about moral issues raised in the bible, why aren't christians able to agree to disagree with non-chistians about moral issues affecting our society?

PDN

Ruskie4Rent wrote: »

Killing Jews is morally ambiguous?:eek:

Only if they're inside their mothers' wombs apparently. :eek:

Dades

Ruskie4Rent wrote: »

just trying to lighten the tone a bit.

Consider it lightened. In other news...

PDN wrote: »

Only if they're inside their mothers' wombs apparently. :eek:

Zing!

PDN

PDN wrote: »

Only if they're inside their mothers' wombs apparently. :eek:

Oh he got you there Ruskie!

Ruskie4Rent

-JammyDodger- wrote: »

Oh he got you there Ruskie!

Well he missed my point.

The morality of abortion was not what i was getting at. I think its wrong btw, but that's besides the point. There are good arguments that suggest that there is morally ambiguity surrounding abortion. I'm not saying they are right, just that there is enough disagreement to have reasonable doubt over my position.

If some christians are able to agree to disagree about moral issues raised in the bible, why aren't christians able to agree to disagree with non-chistians about moral issues affecting our society?

MackDeToaster

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

And what matters the motivation as long as any analysis is done so in an unbiased and open manner?

I probably could have put it better, but the point is that as a Christian examing Christianity you are inherently biased, i.e. you have an emotional and subjective bias in favour of Christianity by dint of the very fact that you are a Christian.

PDN has said so much himself,

"Christianity has saved and enriched my life - therefore I view it very subjectively."

and this corker...

"As a Christian, rather than an atheist, I'm better at assessing actual evidence rather than imaginary evidence"

So, regardless of past form, I'm contending it cannot be accepted that the application of methodology by someone with a personal vested interest is wholly objective.

PDN

MackDeToaster wrote: »

I probably could have put it better, but the point is that as a Christian examing Christianity you are inherently biased, i.e. you have an emotional and subjective bias in favour of Christianity by dint of the very fact that you are a Christian.

So, regardless of past form, I'm contending it cannot be accepted that the application of methodology by someone with a personal vested interest is wholly objective.

I find this blindspot of being unable to differentiate between two very different issues to be most fascinating. Is MackDeToaster unique in this or is it a common trait among atheists? Maybe we could find an 'atheist gene'?

There is a world of difference between examining Christianity (ie assessing an entire religion's truth claims) and discerning the meaning of the language in the scriptural texts (without making any judgement as to whether it is true or not). I know educational standards are slipping a bit, but I don't think the difference between those two concepts is that difficult to grasp, is it?

MackDeToaster

PDN wrote: »

I find this blindspot of being unable to differentiate between two very different issues to be most fascinating. Is MackDeToaster unique in this or is it a common trait among atheists? Maybe we could find an 'atheist gene'?

There is a world of difference between examining Christianity (ie assessing an entire religion's truth claims) and discerning the meaning of the language in the scriptural texts (without making any judgement as to whether it is true or not). I know educational standards are slipping a bit, but I don't think the difference between those two concepts is that difficult to grasp, is it?

There is no blindspot, the difference is blatantly obvious so less of the educational slurs please. From my pov your blindspot appears to be that as a Christian you cannot accept that what you choose to interpret as the meaning of the language in those texts is coloured by the very fact of being Christian, whether or not they are true is an entirely separate matter. How much simpler can it be ?

I think I understand what PDN is saying.

One can study the Bible from an academic perspective - treat it as if it were any other ancient work. Seperating ones own personal convictions and biases as best they can from their study. Basically, studying the book. This wouldn't affect your own personal belief in God - as you're not studying God, you're studying the book.

And one can study the bible from a Christian perspective, not caring about how their own personal biases might affect their personal interpretation.

I can see what PDN is saying, that he studies it in an academic context. But, I can see that it would be hard to seperate personal biases from the conclusions that are drawn from the text - even if the biases are affecting your conclusions at a subconscious level. But, it being academia, there are peer review processes on any published paper/idea. So, unless every biblical scholar was affected with the same biases, no idea would take hold - and the discipline would die.

But, again, it must be a very difficult thing to seperate your own convictions from your study. If you can do it, then well done - as I doubt many could.

pH

There's academic studies of the biblical biblical texts and then there's theology (which those two nonsense words PDN likes using are from). Theology is all nonsense, utter rubbish, designed solely to give ridiculous beliefs a very thin veneer of academia and learning.

It really doesn't have anything to do with finding out or discovering things (it doesn't), its sole purpose is to make those who do it look smart.

MackDeToaster

-JammyDodger- wrote: »

(snippety)
But, again, it must be a very difficult thing to seperate your own convictions from your study. If you can do it, then well done - as I doubt many could.

I don't see how it is possible. It's trying to second-guess what authors two millenia ago meant. It isn't peer-reviewed in the same sense that science is, it doesn't have reproducible results with the implication that any conclusions are going to be subjective, the very fact that there are so many different conclusions from the same words quite clearly demonstrates that.

In Pdn's own words, "I am quite clear that exegesis and hermeneutics belong to the arts rather than to the sciences."
Now, if someone can convince me that art appreciation is an objective science then I'm listening...

Basically, I fail to see how Pdn can say it's an art (subjective), then immediately turn around and claim that by using various techniques and methodologies he can reach an objective conclusion as to whether or not it's good art (i.e. determine the truth) ? This is nothing but contradictions veiled by sophistry.

Zombrex

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

And what matters the motivation as long as any analysis is done so in an unbiased and open manner?

Yes but how does someone measure or assess that an interpretation of the Bible is not being motivated by personal bias?

Fanny Cradock

Wicknight wrote: »

Yes but how does someone measure or assess that an interpretation of the Bible is not being motivated by personal bias?

Well, assuming you couldn't rely on good old fashioned critical thought, I would imagine that there would be enough descenting voices from within the field to inform you of your error - so, not too dissimilar from the social sciences, history, economicd etc,. etc. Unless, of course, biblical exegesis (by Christians and non-Christians alike) is uniquely subject to bias and also incapable of rooting it out.

Zombrex

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Well, assuming you couldn't rely on good old fashioned critical thought, I would imagine that there would be enough descenting voices from within the field to inform you of your error - so, not too dissimilar from the social sciences, history, economicd etc,. etc. Unless, of course, biblical exegesis (by Christians and non-Christians alike) is uniquely subject to bias and also incapable of rooting it out.

Well the history of Biblical study is a history of descenting voices being ostracised and dismissed.

How many times has someone gone onto the Christianity forum mentioning a "got-cha" interpretation by some fringe Biblical scholar only to be ignored, or at worse dismissed as a troll, because the conclusions clash with mainstream Christian assertion?

It seems that any descenting voice is automatically dismissed as being something attacking Christianity with a motive other than simply pointing out a flaw in mainstream interpretation.

And quite astoundingly this is almost used as support feedback. How many times has it been mentioned on the Christian forum that in the 2000 years of Christianity "no one" has ever found serious flaws with what the Bible teaches, surely this means something in support of it's truth.

Not hard to do when anyone suggesting serious flaws is automatically dismissed as biased and agenda driven.

PDN

MackDeToaster wrote: »

There is no blindspot, the difference is blatantly obvious so less of the educational slurs please. From my pov your blindspot appears to be that as a Christian you cannot accept that what you choose to interpret as the meaning of the language in those texts is coloured by the very fact of being Christian, whether or not they are true is an entirely separate matter. How much simpler can it be ?

If the difference between the two issues is blatantly obvious then I can only assume that you were deliberately conflating them. Ah well!

I don't see how it is possible. It's trying to second-guess what authors two millenia ago meant.

It certainly isn't easy - but it is a recognised academic discipline. The same methodology can be applied to Shakespeare, Homer, the Bible, or the Gallic Wars.

Basically, I fail to see how Pdn can say it's an art (subjective), then immediately turn around and claim that by using various techniques and methodologies he can reach an objective conclusion as to whether or not it's good art (i.e. determine the truth) ? This is nothing but contradictions veiled by sophistry.

Ok, let me explain it to you. If you get to go to College when you grow up then you will discover that academic disciplines are divided into the arts and the sciences. Basically (unless you end up going to Oxford, Cambridge or Trinity) you will get a fairly hefty clue by the fact that the degree at the end of your hard work will be a BA or a BSc. The arts include Philosophy, Literature, Languages, Theology, History and, in some cases, Economics.

Now just because these academic disciplines are 'arts' it does not follow that they are completely subjective. There is certainly more of a subjective element that in science, but they all have recognised methodologies and only an absolute buffoon woould dismiss all philosophers, literary critics, linguists and historians as sophists necause they insist on using objective standards in their 'arts'.

Of course it is possible that you and others want to insist that only sciences are real academic studies and to consign all the arts to the dustbin. In that case may heaven help us as we enter a new Dark Ages!

JammyDodger wrote:

But, again, it must be a very difficult thing to seperate your own convictions from your study. If you can do it, then well done - as I doubt many could.

Not only can it be done, it is expected of every history student. If a history student allows his righteous indignation over stuff like the Holocaust or the Armenian genocide to ignore recognised methodology then he will fail to graduate - end of story. The same is true in biblical studies. That's why an atheist, a Jew, and an evangelical can study the Book of Hebrews and all come to the same conclusions as to the message that the author was trying to convey. Whether they personally agree with the author, of course, is another matter entirely.

Wicknight wrote:

Yes but how does someone measure or assess that an interpretation of the Bible is not being motivated by personal bias?

As Fanny Cradock has pointed out, any interpretation is assessed and reviewed by faculty from various kinds of backgrounds. My MTh was gained from a University where none of the Biblical Studies faculty believed in the inerrancy of Scripture and where I was the only evangelical in any of my lectures. My Philosophy of Religion Professor actually warned me on my first day that in his opinion a Pentecostal Christian must by definition be rather dim and that I shouldn't bother continuing with the course. However, in the end the faculty's biases didn't stop them from acknowledging that my work was conducted strictly in accordance with proper exegetical methodology and easily met the standard required for graduation.

Wicknight wrote:

Well the history of Biblical study is a history of descenting voices being ostracised and dismissed.

The history of any academic discipline is a history of dissenting voices being ostracised and dismissed. We call this consensus. For every dissenter who turns out to be a genius like Galileo or Einstein there are a hundred dissenters who are fools.

In biblical studies the dissenters who are dismissed or ostracised are just as likely to be taking a conservative stance as one that attacks Christian orthodoxy. For example, J.A.T.Robinson (the former Bishop of Woolwich who famously declared God to be dead in the 1960s and was no friend of Christian orthodoxy) argued for redating the Gospels much earlier than most other biblical scholars - to dates that strongly supported the idea that they were written by the apostles or by other eye-witnesses. Robinson was indeed dismissed as a crank and ostracised - not because he was challenging traditional Christian orthodoxy (in this case he was on the traditionalists' side) but because it was felt that he had not been sufficiently academically rigorous.

Wicknight wrote:

How many times has someone gone onto the Christianity forum mentioning a "got-cha" interpretation by some fringe Biblical scholar only to be ignored, or at worse dismissed as a troll, because the conclusions clash with mainstream Christian assertion?

No, you are dismissed as a troll when you start insisting that the fringe scholar's interpretation is the only honest one and when you attack the mainstream interpretations in a way that demonstrates you know little or nothing about the subject matter.

Wicknight wrote:

It seems that any descenting voice is automatically dismissed as being something attacking Christianity with a motive other than simply pointing out a flaw in mainstream interpretation.

No, not any dissenting voice, just your dissenting voice.

That's because your motive is to attack Christianity. Or are you now wanting to present yourself as a keen amateur biblical scholar with no axe to grind but armed simply with a noble desire to understand the Bible better?

MackDeToaster

PDN wrote: »

If the difference between the two issues is blatantly obvious then I can only assume that you were deliberately conflating them. Ah well!

Way to evade, since what you're mostly doing is posting lots of patronising willywaving bluster and sly slurs then I'll have to agree with Ph. I've seen plenty of your type on other forums so quite frankly I can't be bothered wasting my time with you anymore. And unless I'm very mistaken I can also guess what your response will be so just talk to the hand or whatever.

pH

PDN wrote: »

My Philosophy of Religion Professor actually warned me on my first day that in his opinion a Pentecostal Christian must by definition be rather dim and that I shouldn't bother continuing with the course.

Because even a stopped clock is right twice a day.