Dawkins strips away religion's dead wood

O'Coonassa

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/belief/2009/may/11/buddhism-religion-dawkins

Dawkins is doing religion a favour – by exposing faith and spirituality to criticism, he paves the way for their renewal



I doubt it was his intention, but in 100 years time Richard Dawkins could be hailed as a prime architect of 21st-century religion. Though strident to the point of comic fundamentalism, the New Atheist diatribe has not only laid bare the irrationalities of believers, but forced those of us who favour scientific-spiritual accommodation to sharpen our arguments. And that can only aid the development of spiritual forms fit for the modern world.
When I first picked up The God Delusion, I was a bit disappointed to find it was rather polite about my own tradition. Right up there in chapter one, Dawkins sensibly suggests that Buddhism might be seen as an ethical or philosophical system rather than a religion, and so not a major focus for his ire. We've got off lightly from other anti-religionists too – Sam Harris even goes on Buddhist meditation retreats.


The International Buddhist Film Festival, which opened in London last week, has at least provoked a bit of poking at our flabby underbelly. On Radio 3, Martin Palmer accused western Buddhists of creating their own version based on "the religion we don't want, which is Judeo-Christian, and the religion we would love to have, which isn't quite religion, which … doesn't have too many rules, and the rules it does have, like the Tibetan ban on homosexuality, are conveniently forgotten." Mark Vernon, relaying Palmer's comments on his blog, agreed, describing western Buddhism as "deeply partial, a pick 'n' mix religion". Their criticisms would appear to be supported by a glance at the IBFF schedule, which includes films – such as Donnie Darko and Hamlet – for which the label Buddhist seems pretty tenuous.


But Buddhism has always changed shape according to place and time. Impermanence, as one of the three marks of existence, must apply also to Buddhism itself. It accepts, even demands, that every culture must find its own unique expressions of awakening. To prevent them becoming pieces of stale ideology, its discoveries must be tested anew by each practitioner, rather than being swallowed from scripture. Whenever Buddhism is embraced in a new location, it has mixed with pre-existing wisdom – hence, for example, why Zen looks so different from Tibetan Vajrayana.


In Buddhism there should be no room for dogma – the ultimate criteria for performing an action is its role in alleviating the suffering of oneself and others. A course of action could reduce suffering in one circumstance and magnify it in another, so the rules are there to be broken and the traditions are there to be changed, provided, of course, you can do it skilfully. When asked to sum up the essence of Buddhism, Japanese teacher Shunyru Susuki replied "Not always so". The pliability of the teachings means that mistakes can be learned from, and culturally created doctrines or codes of behaviour that are unwise, outdated or harmful – the aforementioned approach to homosexuality for example – can be freely consigned to the bin.


Does that make western Buddhism a pick 'n' mix religion? Perhaps it does – but if we pick and mix well, we might create something good. Indeed, if we pick wise insights from the past and mix them with the ever-accumulating knowledge from our own cultural heritage, then what we might have a viable model for 21st-century spirituality. It needn't even be called Buddhism, which is, after all, just a word.


As a path that simultaneously emphasises both constant change and a relentless search for truth, perhaps Buddhism is in a good position to develop more mature forms. However, the rational onslaught must inevitably spur other traditions to self-question and adapt too. And this is where Richard Dawkins may well be one of religion's greatest allies. The old code that sacred beliefs cannot be challenged for fear of causing offence has been shattered – and it needed shattering. If the sacred dimension just means articles of faith that provoke outrage when assaulted, then religion and the religious would be better off without them. Dawkins and his ilk may have their sights trained on eliminating religion, but what they are actually doing is exposing its dead wood, the anachronisms that have been protected from critical thinking, and that needed cutting away.


Claims to special privilege in society, indoctrination of belief as fact, repressive or violent acts as a means of evangelism, and the upholding of outdated worldviews on scriptural grounds – all these and many other examples of the misuse of spiritual traditions do them no favours and should be dropped. If that is pick 'n' mix religion, can I be first in the queue at the sweet counter?

I lol'ed when I read this, he's probably quite right

5uspect

It doesn't take a gibe at Dawkins to realise that most believers take an al la carte approach to their beliefs.
I know many Catholics that believe that God isn't ominpresent, that Jesus married Mary Magdalene, that the Pope is wrong about most things and that contraception is a good thing and I'm sure you do too.

Religion evolves with social norms. To pin it on Dawkins et al. is to ignore our very nature. The only ones that actually tak it as absolute and unchanging are by definition the fundies becasue they're generally read their holy book.

adamd164

When it begins with a reference to Dawkins et al being "strident", you know whoever wrote it isn't worth listening to. Dawkins is a pussycat; a damn intelligent and eloquent one at that.

philologos

How do we decide what is dead wood? I don't think it is our choice to remove things from Christianity but that it is as it has been revealed. Change in practice and the way we do church is perfectly fine by me but I don't know where to begin when we are starting to dump passages of the Bible out.

Stercus Accidit

Ah, the new religion will have the dead wood stripped away, excellent.

So no more self contradicting 'infallible' books?
No more superstition?
Blind faith?
Rejection of free thought and logic?
No more creepy rituals and corpse worship?
No more guilt, sin, and condemnation of those different to you?
No more holy wars?

That sounds great, if Dawkins and his ilk have trimmed that deadwood, I think he'll be pretty happy with the results.

Except,

That doesn't really leave much of religion left does it, except maybe the peace and love, forgiveness and consideration of your fellow man, which maybe is what current believers should focus on, rather than all the associated superstitious crap jazz.

Theres a word for that though, its called morality, and you don't need the 'dead wood' of organised religion or blind faith to achieve that, just some empathy and good will.

passive

Dawkins as the new Martin Luther?

philologos

Stercus Accidit wrote: »

So no more self contradicting 'infallible' books?
No more superstition?
Blind faith?
Rejection of free thought and logic?
No more creepy rituals and corpse worship?
No more guilt, sin, and condemnation of those different to you?
No more holy wars?

1) Many people would also dispute the notion that the Bible is heavily contradictory given that Jesus fufilled many of the prophesies of the Tanakh and certain Torah laws. People would also inform you about covenant theology, i.e God having a relationship with the Jews in the Old Covenant, and with Jews and Gentiles who come to Christ in the New Covenant. There are many Tanakh passages that justify this position.

2) Depends on what you describe as superstition and whether or not you see it as being different from religion. Many would differentiate between the two.

3) People can be Christians and can think freely and can be logical about many different things. However how logical one is is by and large at the eyes of the beholder or the one listening.

4) Creepy rituals such as? Corpse worship? Well, if Jesus raised from the dead it's hardly worshipping a corpse it's praising a miracle.

5) Why would I condemn anyone? You might have missed this bit in the Bible, but we are all equal in our sins, and it is crystal clear in the Christian faith that this is true. There are commandments to follow, and telling people that x, y and z are sins isn't condemnation it's merely stating what God has revealed.

6) Holy wars aren't advocated in the New Testament or Christian texts. Infact Biblical evangelism was by and large peaceful other than what oppressive nations did to the Christians themselves such as throwing them into the lions, using them to entertain friends and even hanging them up on lampposts according to the writings of Romans.

passive: The difference between Dawkins and Martin Luther is that Martin Luther stood up for God's truth and what the Bible had said and showed the Church clearly their errors on indulgences and what they had done. Dawkins doesn't care for God, he has a secular motivation rather than one that really is about helping the church to be Reformed.

5uspect

Jakkass wrote: »

How do we decide what is dead wood? I don't think it is our choice to remove things from Christianity but that it is as it has been revealed. Change in practice and the way we do church is perfectly fine by me but I don't know where to begin when we are starting to dump passages of the Bible out.

Why not? Isn't the New testament effectively a replacement for the old? Hasn't the general populace always cherry picked their beliefs?

From my perspective Religion is nothing more than an artefact of our morals. I've heard it said that religion is essentially a technology in much the same way as language or art.

From your perspective, of course, your beliefs are probably about as much a fact as the earth spinning around the sun. I doubt many hold this view and I therefore would call you a fundamentalist (in the nicest way possible without evoking the usual nasty images that term brings).

Stercus Accidit

Jakkass wrote: »

1) Many people would also dispute the notion that the Bible is heavily contradictory given that Jesus fufilled many of the prophesies of the Tanakh and certain Torah laws. People would also inform you about covenant theology, i.e God having a relationship with the Jews in the Old Covenant, and with Jews and Gentiles who come to Christ in the New Covenant. There are many Tanakh passages that justify this position.

Relevance to my statement? 'self contradictory', example, 'eye for an eye', 'turn the other cheek'

Now, these are completely plucked out of thin air, If you sat a bible or some other holy book in front of me, I could likely with a matter of minutes find several 'self contradictory' statements.

2) Depends on what you describe as superstition and whether or not you see it as being different from religion. Many would differentiate between the two.

Many state the camera steals your soul! Thats a non-statement, 'many would..', and means nothing.
Religion - large scale belief in ideas of the super natural with no hard evidence other than the word of men.

Superstition - insert above statement

3) People can be Christians and can think freely and can be logical about many different things. However how logical one is is by and large at the eyes of the beholder or the one listening.

They can be logical about many things, but fear of death, the unknown, hard realities of life can lead many to overlook this logic when looking at their indoctrinated superstitious beliefs.

4) Creepy rituals such as? Corpse worship? Well, if Jesus raised from the dead it's hardly worshipping a corpse it's praising a miracle.

If he rose from the dead, he is a zombie, zombies are reanimated corpses :P
Sorry, but seriously, worship of a dead mans words and deeds so long ago and by so many differing accounts, with no evidence other than these 2000 year old accounts of these amazing miracles as you put it, is just not sensible IMO, as above, logic issue.

5) Why would I condemn anyone? You might have missed this bit in the Bible, but we are all equal in our sins, and it is crystal clear in the Christian faith that this is true. There are commandments to follow, and telling people that x, y and z are sins isn't condemnation it's merely stating what God has revealed.

There is a lovely thread on the Christianity forum that says otherwise, everyone is going to burn in hell bar those who are christian devout, or unaware of christianity at all, bless them. (though I thought they were also meant to go to hell, or was it limbo, but of course limbo was a tester by the church which they scrapped, so did it ever exist?)

6) Holy wars aren't advocated in the New Testament or Christian texts. Infact Biblical evangelism was by and large peaceful other than what oppressive nations did to the Christians themselves such as throwing them into the lions, using them to entertain friends and even hanging them up on lampposts according to the writings of Romans.

But wars over religion involving chritianity have occured, yes?

philologos

No the New Testament isn't a replacement of the Old it is merely an extension of the Old Covenant to other nations and groupings, and a revelation that is for both Jews and Gentiles. Many Old Testament laws are to be retained. Infact if you see Charco around these parts he will tell you just as much as I will that much of the Old Testament is very relevant to Jesus' teachings. I infact think that Jesus preached Judaism to the Pharisees and to the people to Israel. He however told people that moral laws were of principal importance. Ceremonial laws were misinterpeted to puff people up.

Examples of affinity between Old Testament and New Testament teaching:

1) On prayer:

Ecclesiastes 5:2 wrote:

Never be rash with your mouth, nor let your heart be quick to utter a word before God, for God is in heaven, and you upon earth; therefore let your words be few.

Matthew 6:7-8 wrote:

‘When you are praying, do not heap up empty phrases as the Gentiles do; for they think that they will be heard because of their many words. Do not be like them, for your Father knows what you need before you ask him.

2) On salvation:

Isaiah 43:11 wrote:

I, I am the Lord,
and besides me there is no saviour.

John 14:6 wrote:

Jesus said to him, ‘I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.

Isaiah 43:13 wrote:

I am God, and also henceforth I am He;
there is no one who can deliver from my hand;

John 10:28 wrote:

I give them eternal life, and they will never perish. No one will snatch them out of my hand.

3) On the New Covenant

Isaiah 42:6 wrote:

I have given you as a covenant to my people, a light to the nations, to open the eyes that are blind, to bring the prisoners from the dungeon, from the prison those who wait in darkness.

Jesus was given up as a new covenant in His blood. (Luke 22:20)

Isaiah 42:9 wrote:

See, former things have come to pass, and new things I now declare, before they spring forth, I tell you of them

We become a new creation in Christ Jesus, our old lives are the past our new lives are the future. (2 Corinthians 5:17)

The Old Covenant is fulfilled by Jesus Christ, the New Covenant will not be like the Old (Jeremiah 31:31-34). Much will be fulfilled.

Jesus is the fulfilment of Judaism, he brought just as much of the same as He brought what was new. The priestly class of his time had strayed from the faith that Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Moses etc had revealed to them. They had become hardened and they had misunderstood God's mission.

stevejazzx

I don't see how (the author certainly doesn't explain how) 'trimming away the dead wood' will make religion better, I imagine it stays afloat with that 'dead wood' so trimming it away would surely sink the ship? Or are we about to suggest that the irrational would take heed and become decidedly rational overnight? I think the further into demise a strained belief goes the opposite happens, which is fundamentalism.

pts

stevejazzx wrote: »

'trimming away the dead wood' will make religion better, I imagine it stays afloat with that 'dead wood' so trimming it away would surely sink the ship?

Very good point, it's funny because it is true. Contender for quote of the week!

Zombrex

Jakkass wrote: »

1) Many people would also dispute the notion that the Bible is heavily contradictory given that Jesus fufilled many of the prophesies of the Tanakh and certain Torah laws.

I think those people are the ones this article reference, those who's religious positions are becoming less and less tenable in modern society as "the New Atheist diatribe has ... laid bare the irrationalities of believers"

You can, and no doubt will, disagree that your beliefs are irrational, but this position is become less and less privileged or protected from ridicule in society, at least in Western society. I think over the next we years we will find a lot more people going "No wait, that is just nonsense" and rejecting dogma of your religion and others and dear I say thinking less of them because of this.

The point of the article though is that these people won't necessarily become atheists.

It reminds me of the old saying that once you stop believing in God you don't believe in nothing, you believe in everything (ie New Age spirituality where everyone has a different version).

So I can easily see the structured organised religions such as Christianity and Islam being replaced by New Age spiritualism rather than atheism.

(before anyone quotes China or Africa, I'm talking about western soceity, where this debate is taking place)

Jakkass wrote: »

People would also inform you about covenant theology, i.e God having a relationship with the Jews in the Old Covenant, and with Jews and Gentiles who come to Christ in the New Covenant. There are many Tanakh passages that justify this position.

Yes, perhaps you should talk to Orthodox Jews about their covenant with God and how Jesus is supposed to have fulfilled it. And when I say Jews I don't mean "Jews for Jesus" :pac:

Jakkass wrote: »

5) Why would I condemn anyone? You might have missed this bit in the Bible, but we are all equal in our sins

Yes your religion condemns everyone. Saying this is merely what God has revealed is a bit silly. All religious based around a deity use the said deity to justify what they say.

Again this is a type of religion that I see as being on the way out in Western society. "God says so" is becoming less and less of a tenable position as all the irrationality behind such statements are discussed and debated.

philologos

Wicknight wrote: »

I think those people are the ones this article reference, those who's religious positions are becoming less and less tenable in modern society as "the New Atheist diatribe has ... laid bare the irrationalities of believers"

We have no evidence that Christianity is not going to remain a reasonably strong force in the West. None whatsoever. We certainly have no evidence that it is going to do anything but grow worldwide.

Wicknight wrote: »

You can, and no doubt will, disagree that your beliefs are irrational, but this position is become less and less privileged or protected from ridicule in society, at least in Western society. I think over the next we years we will find a lot more people going "No wait, that is just nonsense" and rejecting dogma of your religion and others and dear I say thinking less of them because of this.

I really couldn't care how much:
a) You ridicule me, for the pure reason that it isn't going to have any bearing on my current religious beliefs.

or

b) People will find that it is a load of nonsense, due to the very fact that there are very capable Christian apologists all over the world who know what they are dealing with and know how to refute arguments x, y and z. There is and there always will be a way to explain these things to people. It depends on how stubborn they are. Believe it or not however there will be many people who have thought that Christianity doesn't make sense before and when they are corrected they will try it for themselves. Such a position would actually give Christians new opportunities to reach out to people.

Concerning belittling others: I have no interest in belittling you and others. I think that you are actually a rather intelligent person Wicknight from our encounters, I just think that you have well and truly pulled the shutters on God though. Hey, but everyone has pulled the shutters on God at some point in their lives. I certainly have. We have all messed up and therefore we are all equal in this respect. I don't consider myself any "better" than you or any other on the A&A forum.

Wicknight wrote: »

The point of the article though is that these people won't necessarily become atheists.

Granted.

Wicknight wrote: »

It reminds me of the old saying that once you stop believing in God you don't believe in nothing, you believe in everything (ie New Age spirituality where everyone has a different version).

I have actually noted that this is quite common in cases of people who have rejected any form of organised church or religious institution they tend to try out the paranormal in many cases.

Wicknight wrote: »

So I can easily see the structured organised religions such as Christianity and Islam being replaced by New Age spiritualism rather than atheism.

I doubt they will be replaced entirely in the West. Considering Islam's rapid growth in Europe and the United States it will most likely have a considerable share of the population in a few decades time. Forms of Christianity will decline, and forms will grow. Some have speculated that the deficit from Christianity to more secular beliefs will halt around 2040 in Europe and the USA. Christianity certainly won't have a net loss worldwide though rather a huge growth.

Wicknight wrote: »

(before anyone quotes China or Africa, I'm talking about western soceity, where this debate is taking place)

Too late, I have implicitly.

Wicknight wrote: »

Yes, perhaps you should talk to Orthodox Jews about their covenant with God and how Jesus is supposed to have fulfilled it. And when I say Jews I don't mean "Jews for Jesus" :pac:

If I had the opportunity I would.

Wicknight wrote: »

Yes your religion condemns everyone. Saying this is merely what God has revealed is a bit silly. All religious based around a deity use the said deity to justify what they say.

It does not condone me saying that I am better than you. Christianity condemns all, but it also leaves salvation as a real option.

Wicknight wrote: »

Again this is a type of religion that I see as being on the way out in Western society. "God says so" is becoming less and less of a tenable position as all the irrationality behind such statements are discussed and debated.

Highly doubtful. The religion that is growing the most rapidly in the Western world is actually the more conservative sort. This is particularly the case with Christianity and Islam I have found.

CerebralCortex

Jakkass wrote: »

.....I think that you are actually a rather intelligent person Wicknight from our encounters, I just think that you have well and truly pulled the shutters on God though. Hey, but everyone has pulled the shutters on God at some point in their lives. I certainly have. We have all messed up and therefore we are all equal in this respect. I don't consider myself any "better" than you or any other on the A&A forum....

Well of course he has closed the shutters. In case you hadn't noticed he's an atheist. I find the above post quite offensive actually by it's nature it implies that an atheist is someone who is denying a certain part of their intellectual conclusions. That we're being silly which is nonsense. But I must applaud you it's particularly stinging and inflammatory.

Stage 1: The Attack

Jakkass wrote: »

.....I think that you are actually a rather intelligent person Wicknight from our encounters, I just think that you have well and truly pulled the shutters on God though.

Stage 2: The tactical retreat

Jakkass wrote: »

Hey, but everyone has pulled the shutters on God at some point in their lives. I certainly have. We have all messed up and therefore we are all equal in this respect.

:pac:

Stage 3: Cover the tracks/Evasion

Jakkass wrote: »

I don't consider myself any "better" than you or any other on the A&A forum....etc

Again :pac:

philologos

CerebralCortex wrote: »

Well of course he has closed the shutters. In case you hadn't noticed he's an atheist. I find the above post quite offensive actually by it's nature it implies that an atheist is someone who is denying a certain part of their intellectual conclusions. That we're being silly which is nonsense. But I must applaud you it's particularly stinging and inflammatory.

You agree with me, and then you say that it is offensive? One can only be confused at that. I didn't intend any offence, or to be inflammatory however you can take it whatever way you want.

How would it be saying that they are denying a certain part of their intellectual conclusions? It means people put up walls in their thought process so as to come to a certain conclusion and reject other possible conclusions.

Zombrex

Jakkass wrote: »

We have no evidence that Christianity is not going to remain a reasonably strong force in the West. None whatsoever.

Depends on how you define reasonably strong force. I would imagine that Christians would still consider themselves influential in society even when they are only a tiny handful left. The smaller a group is the more vocal they will be. But there is a difference between being vocal and between people listening to and accepting your message.

Jakkass wrote: »

We certainly have no evidence that it is going to do anything but grow worldwide.

Yes if Christianity has a future it will be in emerging places such as Africa and China, at least until they become more free and more open societies to the level of Europe.

Jakkass wrote: »

I really couldn't care how much:
a) You ridicule me, for the pure reason that it isn't going to have any bearing on my current religious beliefs.

It isn't about ridiculing you it is about ridiculing your beliefs.

Christianity is losing its privileged position in society as something beyond ridicule or satire, we have seen more and more piece of media that ridicule and poke fun at Christian beliefs.

Satire if done properly can really have a devastating effect on a religion. Look at Scientology and those South Park episodes. It triggered huge debate and the CoS has been doing damage control on that for the last 3 years.

Jakkass wrote: »

b) People will find that it is a load of nonsense, due to the very fact that there are very capable Christian apologists all over the world who know what they are dealing with and know how to refute arguments x, y and z.

Yeah, your definition of "very capable" and mine might be slightly different

Jakkass wrote: »

There is and there always will be a way to explain these things to people. It depends on how stubborn they are.

Well no there hasn't. I think even Christians if they thought about it would see this.

How many times has the response to a question about Christianity been to go spend time with Christians, see how they live, etc etc. Which is basically saying we don't have a plain answer to your question but if you go look at how happy and content Christians are you will see the effect of God on their lives.

That is becoming less and less an acceptable answer to people as we understand more and more about human psychology and how humans operate. The Christians probably are perfectly happy but we can explain why they are happy without God doing anything.

Likewise response such as I can't imagine a universe existing that wasn't created by God are becoming less and less convincing to people. Or how do you explain morality with God, evolution has pretty much explained that into irrelevance.

Jakkass wrote: »

Believe it or not however there will be many people who have thought that Christianity doesn't make sense before and when they are corrected they will try it for themselves. Such a position would actually give Christians new opportunities to reach out to people.

I'm sure there are. You can say the same about any religion, from Christianity to Scientology.

My point is that this will become less and less effective in converting people to a religion as people learn more and more about it, particularly as people learn more and more about how the effects of religion can take place without the religion doing anything, the If the religion isn't true why do I feel like this issue.

People, in general, tend to take natural explanations over supernatural ones. The more of the effects of religion that are explained without invoking God the less effective the religion is going to be at convincing people that something supernatural is taking place in their lives.

Jakkass wrote: »

Concerning belittling others: I have no interest in belittling you and others.

Not sure what that refers to.

Jakkass wrote: »

I have actually noted that this is quite common in cases of people who have rejected any form of organised church or religious institution they tend to try out the paranormal in many cases.

There is a human instinct, relatively well understood, to see agency in nature

I think, ironically, religions have pushed this a bit too far in these post Enlightenment times, people don't buy the convoluted doctrine of religions any more when faced with a modern understanding of the universe around us, but this instinct still remains so people seem happy to embrace similar yet still supernatural agents.

Jakkass wrote: »

I doubt they will be replaced entirely in the West. Considering Islam's rapid growth in Europe and the United States it will most likely have a considerable share of the population in a few decades time.

Islam is growing mainly through immigration rather than conversions (in the west at least). Will be interesting to see if this trend continues in second and third generations

Jakkass wrote: »

It does not condone me saying that I am better than you. Christianity condemns all, but it also leaves salvation as a real option.

That wasn't really my point. The Christian condemnation of all as inherently having a sinful "nature" as an explanation for human behaviour looks less like a plausible explanation for human behaviour and more like how a bunch of middle eastern nomads might have tried to explain human psychology without any understanding of topics such as psychology or evolution.

In the face of modern understandings of the complexity of human behaviour this idea is becoming rather difficult to defend. You can see this in fact in the way that some Christians don't even seem to actually think this is what Christianity teaches and in fact go so far as to deny it is. Even for some Christians this idea is become untenable in the face of what we know about where morality, good and evil behaviour, comes from.

Jakkass wrote: »

Highly doubtful. The religion that is growing the most rapidly in the Western world is actually the more conservative sort. This is particularly the case with Christianity and Islam I have found.

Yes but this form of fundamentalism is growing in response to the rapid decline of mainstream religion. As mainstream membership decrease, or feel under threat, it is expected that a more extreme form emerges on the fringes. This is possibly all that will be left, a small extreme form of Christianity.

Zombrex

CerebralCortex wrote: »

Well of course he has closed the shutters. In case you hadn't noticed he's an atheist. I find the above post quite offensive actually by it's nature it implies that an atheist is someone who is denying a certain part of their intellectual conclusions.

I wasn't offended so I don't think anyone else needs be

CerebralCortex

Jakkass wrote: »

You agree with me, and then you say that it is offensive? One can only be confused at that. I didn't intend any offence, or to be inflammatory however you can take it whatever way you want.

How would it be saying that they are denying a certain part of their intellectual conclusions? It means people put up walls in their thought process so as to come to a certain conclusion and reject other possible conclusions.

Jakkass rest assured I never agree with you man. What I'm applauding is how well you convinced yourself how absolutely logical and water tight your point of view regardless of the countless times you've been showed otherwise. Essentially I'm saying you have an answer for everything correct or not and you're brilliant at it. I don't where you get the time.

You may not have intended offense I'll never know but thats certainly how it came off to me.

Obni

Jakkass wrote: »

I didn't intend any offence, or to be inflammatory however you can take it whatever way you want.
How would it be saying that they are denying a certain part of their intellectual conclusions? It means people put up walls in their thought process so as to come to a certain conclusion and reject other possible conclusions.

While I completely accept your assurance that no offence was meant, I can see how your unfortunate choice of metaphor could be construed as offensive.
Consider the following:
(a) I have thrown back the shutters and let the light of God's love into my life. All of the dark places in my soul have suddenly been filled with his radiant - etc...
or
(b) I have closed the shutters against those who seek to attack my faith. I have thrown up barricades to stop the advancing atheism that masquerades as science. Secure behind my defensive walls I can - etc...

Both are possible declarations of a standpoint taken by a person of faith. The former implying that the position is reached through a willingness to be open and engaging, the latter that it is only through blindly rejecting all counter-arguments that faith can be maintained.

Your comments about pulling up shutters on God, or putting up walls in their thoughts, could cause people to infer that atheism is only maintained by a stubborn refusal to engage in an investigation of the basis of faith. Ironically, it very often an attempt to understand the basis of a faith that we inherited culturally, that leads from the shadowy valleys of religious belief to the sunny uplands of intellectual atheism (see how it works?).

philologos

Wicknight wrote: »

Depends on how you define reasonably strong force. I would imagine that Christians would still consider themselves influential in society even when they are only a tiny handful left. The smaller a group is the more vocal they will be. But there is a difference between being vocal and between people listening to and accepting your message.

I mean a sizable proportion of a population. Not "tiny" by any means. I can't imagine those who claim to follow Christ falling any lower than 20% in Europe as a whole. I don't think there will be a severe impact at all in the USA. That's still quite a big proportion of the population to serve in missionary activity and other things. Mind you I'd personally regard 20% as the worst case scenario, I don't think we are on a continuous downward spiral I have little reason to doubt that this is merely a trend that is occurring in this particular time frame and that there will be other time frames whereby religion sees a revival. Sounds a lot like the general sphere of history in relation to religion. I see it as being fanciful that religion will have a tiny role, or will be obsoleted in Europe altogether.

Wicknight wrote: »

Yes if Christianity has a future it will be in emerging places such as Africa and China, at least until they become more free and more open societies to the level of Europe.

See, this is the issue though. You're making a rather big assumption here and that is that Christianity has no place in free societies although it has existed in free societies for quite a long time now. It's not only in oppressive nations where Christianity has grown, but also in free societies like South Korea. Infact I'd argue that freedom, forgiveness and other Western values were buiilt from Christian principles but were eventually adapted into secular discourse as well.

Wicknight wrote: »

It isn't about ridiculing you it is about ridiculing your beliefs.

Christianity is a rather big chunk of who I am, it's how I identify myself mainly. As I say feel free.

Wicknight wrote: »

Christianity is losing its privileged position in society as something beyond ridicule or satire, we have seen more and more piece of media that ridicule and poke fun at Christian beliefs.

As I say, I don't mind that at all. I advocate free speech. As long as atheism and agnosticism are subject to the same criticism go nuts.

Wicknight wrote: »

Satire if done properly can really have a devastating effect on a religion. Look at Scientology and those South Park episodes. It triggered huge debate and the CoS has been doing damage control on that for the last 3 years.

Yes, and Richard Dawkins had his moment in the spotlight. Everyone is accountable to said ridicule. I think the message is more that with Trey Parker and Matt Stone that it is better just to take the ridicule instead of bringing lawsuits to light.

Wicknight wrote: »

Yeah, your definition of "very capable" and mine might be slightly different

Perhaps, but only slightly

Wicknight wrote: »

Well no there hasn't. I think even Christians if they thought about it would see this.

I don't know how much you have read of Christian apologetics or who you have read so I can't really comment until you have clarified that much. Although you did admit to having consulted some C.S Lewis a while back. I will say that you are probably more open minded than many others.

Wicknight wrote: »

How many times has the response to a question about Christianity been to go spend time with Christians, see how they live, etc etc. Which is basically saying we don't have a plain answer to your question but if you go look at how happy and content Christians are you will see the effect of God on their lives.

Individual Christians can be a terrible example. C.S Lewis also deals with this extensively in Mere Christianity.

Wicknight wrote: »

That is becoming less and less an acceptable answer to people as we understand more and more about human psychology and how humans operate. The Christians probably are perfectly happy but we can explain why they are happy without God doing anything.

This doesn't mean that it is the correct answer at all though Wicknight. In fairness do you not find it absurd that other people are somehow qualified to speak about the lives of others?

As for happiness, I've said before there will be challenges and struggles in any persons faith. It won't be all roses but standing up for Christ is a fulfilling path for anyone to lead.

Wicknight wrote: »

Likewise response such as I can't imagine a universe existing that wasn't created by God are becoming less and less convincing to people. Or how do you explain morality with God, evolution has pretty much explained that into irrelevance.

I'm not quite as sure about this. Many people do see compatibility between Christianity and evolution. Many would also argue there is no reason whatsoever why they aren't compatible.

Also I'm not sure if the question has been snuffed out at all really. There will always be people such as myself who find it more logical that the creation cannot be the creator.

However, in terms of morality I think you're way out on this one. You need to learn that morals and ethics are distinct.

Ethics: What man deems it appropriate to do.
Morals: What is objectively right and wrong.

It's impossible to have morals unless that you feel that you are justified from an all seeing perspective.

I've studied a lot of secular ideas on morality and ethics in philosophy this semester and I will admit some of the ideas from Hannah Arendt and Jurgen Habermas in particular are very interesting. I consider them both to have shortcomings, but I'm not saying that a secular framework of morals is impossible but it is extremely difficult to establish in a plurality. Religion has had considerably more success in forming moral cohesion than any secular framework to date. I will be patient in this regard however if other people have better notions of it than I do. I personally think the Action Theory of Thomas Aquinas is far more comprehensive than the work of either of these philosophers.

Evolution as a biological theory, I would find has nothing to do with the secular efforts of people to establish moral theories. As such I find it irrelevant to invoke evolution even into the equation if we are to agree not to invoke God in the discussion of ethics that is.

Wicknight wrote: »

I'm sure there are. You can say the same about any religion, from Christianity to Scientology.

Of course it can and will be said about any religion.

Wicknight wrote: »

My point is that this will become less and less effective in converting people to a religion as people learn more and more about it, particularly as people learn more and more about how the effects of religion can take place without the religion doing anything, the If the religion isn't true why do I feel like this issue.

I'd argue that that is effectively a non-point though. Atheists have been coming back to Christ all over the world. There is absolutely no reason why this cannot happen in Europe or any other region of the world. People have been saying the same type of nonsense that you have been spouting since the 18th century. It's much much easier to realise that religion will always have a role, religion will always have it's up points it's down points. This talk point of demise of Christianity is ridiculous considering the truth of the situation in the past. Religious revivals in the last few centuries, rebellions against religion and the like. They occur on an on and off basis.

Why do you seem to think there will be this point of demise at all? Why are you interested in the destruction of religion? I would have thought this would have been a good time to make a common framework to co-exist together rather than rambling about the demise of the other.

Wicknight wrote: »

People, in general, tend to take natural explanations over supernatural ones. The more of the effects of religion that are explained without invoking God the less effective the religion is going to be at convincing people that something supernatural is taking place in their lives.

This doesn't mean that it is true, and there will be events in peoples lives that cannot be accounted for by pure naturalism. Mind you C.S Lewis makes a pretty good case in Miracles of why the supernatural indeed does exist and focusing on an entirely natural world is absurd. I welcome you to let me know your thoughts on it at another point.

Wicknight wrote: »

There is a human instinct, relatively well understood, to see agency in nature

I think, ironically, religions have pushed this a bit too far in these post Enlightenment times, people don't buy the convoluted doctrine of religions any more when faced with a modern understanding of the universe around us, but this instinct still remains so people seem happy to embrace similar yet still supernatural agents.

If it is a human instinct why do you have some notion that it will magically dissapear from Western life?

People do buy into religion I think you'll find and at quite a large rate. This speak of "people" doesn't really make much sense. You are clearly referring to a current minority rather than a majority.

Wicknight wrote: »

Islam is growing mainly through immigration rather than conversions (in the west at least). Will be interesting to see if this trend continues in second and third generations

You'd be surprised. There have been quite a large amount of conversions in the United States in particular in the Latino community. I have no reason this isn't happening in other countries with relatively large Islamic populations.

Wicknight wrote: »

That wasn't really my point. The Christian condemnation of all as inherently having a sinful "nature" as an explanation for human behaviour looks less like a plausible explanation for human behaviour and more like how a bunch of middle eastern nomads might have tried to explain human psychology without any understanding of topics such as psychology or evolution.

Well we are, it's pretty much observable in our midst that humans have a failed condition and make mistakes continually in their lives. Again you're pulling out the whole psychology vs religion argument to make your argument seem as if it has more credence. I have no reason to believe why it cannot be psychology and religion and so on. These things aren't exclusive. One can explain the other. There isn't this science vs religion diachotomy for me.

Wicknight wrote: »

In the face of modern understandings of the complexity of human behaviour this idea is becoming rather difficult to defend. You can see this in fact in the way that some Christians don't even seem to actually think this is what Christianity teaches and in fact go so far as to deny it is. Even for some Christians this idea is become untenable in the face of what we know about where morality, good and evil behaviour, comes from.

It really isn't becoming difficult to defend at all Wicknight. We have nothing to defend it from. Other disciplines in and of themselves have nothing much to actually say about God. Not even evolution is discussed with the intent of excluding a higher power in scientific discourse that is just adding atheist popular opinion onto science. Infact it's a highly corrupting influence.

Carrying on people like John Watson and logical behaviourists have all said that same arguments you have made before, yet people weren't that bothered in the 1920's, or in the 1940's when Gilbert Ryle started his philosophy on it.

Wicknight wrote: »

Yes but this form of fundamentalism is growing in response to the rapid decline of mainstream religion. As mainstream membership decrease, or feel under threat, it is expected that a more extreme form emerges on the fringes. This is possibly all that will be left, a small extreme form of Christianity.

I disagree though. Fundementalism was always a part of society beforehand. There are certain things about certain churches and mosques that clearly appeal to rational thinking people even if you disagree with their ideologies. There are certain mainline churches which have indeed grown to quite a large extent. My church has clearly grown rather than declined, I've been in many prosperous chuch groupings in the past when I have gone a friend of mine, or when I have discussed with people about their churches. I have no reason to think of this as the demise. Simply, you are likely to be wrong just as much as Friedrich Nietzsche was wrong. It's merely jibber jabber.

EDIT:

Obni wrote: »

Consider the following:
(a) I have thrown back the shutters and let the light of God's love into my life. All of the dark places in my soul have suddenly been filled with his radiant - etc...
or
(b) I have closed the shutters against those who seek to attack my faith. I have thrown up barricades to stop the advancing atheism that masquerades as science. Secure behind my defensive walls I can - etc...

I would have never used b at all ever. I'm willing to assess your criticisms of my faith and how I demonstrate it here. I want to leave the shutters as open as I humanly can have them open.

Atheism does masquerade sometimes as science, which is unfortunate and should be left out just as much as people insist that Christianity should be left out of science. Philosophical opinions have no place in science.

Obni wrote: »

Both are possible declarations of a standpoint taken by a person of faith. The former implying that the position is reached through a willingness to be open and engaging, the latter that it is only through blindly rejecting all counter-arguments that faith can be maintained.

As I say, I don't think b really is.

Obni wrote: »

Your comments about pulling up shutters on God, or putting up walls in their thoughts, could cause people to infer that atheism is only maintained by a stubborn refusal to engage in an investigation of the basis of faith. Ironically, it very often an attempt to understand the basis of a faith that we inherited culturally, that leads from the shadowy valleys of religious belief to the sunny uplands of intellectual atheism (see how it works?).

I argue that atheists do not have a full understanding of this basis for faith at all and can't do actually unless they understand religious experience. It's futile to discuss something that another doesn't have any understanding of at all in an argument though.

Dades

CerebralCortex wrote: »

Well of course he has closed the shutters. In case you hadn't noticed he's an atheist. I find the above post quite offensive actually by it's nature it implies that an atheist is someone who is denying a certain part of their intellectual conclusions. That we're being silly which is nonsense. But I must applaud you it's particularly stinging and inflammatory.

Oh come on.

For every remark like that here from a believer, we have a dozen implying that religious people are deluded/stupid/disingenuous.

If we give it, we have to be able to take it.

Kipperhell

In fairness it seems best to not even engage Jackass. I think it has been pointed out on numerous threads the tendency to avoid the difficult questions and there is a general pattern to how he argues. The technique is pretty impenetrable and not a form of debate but perpetual argument. It may be passive aggressive but ultimately there will never be an end so best to walk away from it as he does when he is cornered. It is nothing personal just a devout belief that he can't see past and is blinded by.

The article is pretty poor but may have a point of a new philosophical arguments and movement that Dawkins is spreading this belief in more acceptable way. Of course the times have a lot to do with it too.

liamw

Jakkass wrote:

How would it be saying that they are denying a certain part of their intellectual conclusions? It means people put up walls in their thought process so as to come to a certain conclusion and reject other possible conclusions.

I think you would find it difficult to find an atheist that wouldn't consider the christian god as truth given evidence and reason to do so. Just like you may consider fairies as truth given evidence and reason. But I guess it would be accurate to say that you have 'put up walls' to reject fairies and invisible pink unicorns as existing?

philologos

liamw wrote: »

I think you would find it difficult to find an atheist that wouldn't consider the christian god as truth given evidence and reason to do so. Just like you may consider fairies as truth given evidence and reason. But I guess it would be accurate to say that you have 'put up walls' to reject fairies and invisible pink unicorns as existing?

I would agree with you, but I have heard people who say that even if God did exist they would reject belief in Him even if it was crystal clear that it was the case.

Kipperhell: Nothing I say or do will ever please you. I have taken a lot of consideration into Wicknights points and I've tried to deal with them as best as I can. If all you can do is moan about the discussion what's the point in even posting anything? If all you can do is raise ad-hominems that really shows how limited what you have to bring to the discussion actually is.

I'm looking forward to Wicknights response and I aim to keep it a peaceable back and forth.

Dades

Jakkass wrote: »

I would agree with you, but I have heard people who say that even if God did exist they would reject belief in Him even if it was crystal clear that it was the case.

Would need to see a quote before I'd believe that one.

I can see how if it was made crystal clear that God did exist that people might 'reject' joining his club because he is such a despot, rather than rejecting his actual existence.

philologos

Thanks for clarifying that Dades, it would be more along the lines that they have issue with the character of the higher power that is described in the Biblical text that they would refuse to accept Him.

MrPudding

Dades wrote: »

Would need to see a quote before I'd believe that one.

I can see how if it was made crystal clear that God did exist that people might 'reject' joining his club because he is such a despot, rather than rejecting his actual existence.

Exactly. I can envisage actually believing in god, were the evidence strong enough, but I would not want anything to do with it. Evil, nasty, manipulative, small minded, childish, vindictive are just a few words I would use to desscribe it and most certainly would not want to join the sycophants in feeding its ego.

MrP

Popinjay

Jakkass wrote: »

I would agree with you, but I have heard people who say that even if God did exist they would reject belief in Him even if it was crystal clear that it was the case.

Well if you're talking about on here, I think you'll find you're confusing yourself a tad. You've made this point more than once recently and at least one of those times directly referred to comments made on this forum. I'm surprised that no-one picked you up on it before.

You seem to be conflating two different and unrelated statements that have been made over time in this forum. Many people have said that if a voice from the sky proclaimed itself to be god, they would withold belief pending further evidence (as anyone that can make a disembodied voice boom across the sky can also make a claim that they are god - heck I can claim to be god, they won't belive me either).

In a seperate thread, many were asked would they or would they not worship the Judeo/Christian god should they be provided with incontrovertible evidence of his existence and many people voiced the opinion that in their view, a murderous, jealous, childish, petty, vengeful, split-personality-disorder-suffering maniac wasn't worthy of worship in any way but rather of contempt and defiance.

Given that no poster here has ever said they wouldn't believe in god should undeniable proof be found of his existence, I think it's unfair of you to repeatedly conflate these two distinct statements, unless of course it was unintentional.

Click all of us for evidence (Dammit, one link short).

*Takes a bow!*

philologos

Fair enough Popinjay, I concede that point. Might have been a bit rash in that respect.

Popinjay

Jakkass wrote: »

Fair enough Popinjay, I concede that point. Might have been a bit rash in that respect.

Well, fwiw, I don't think you were deliberately misrepresenting anyone, just a simple matter of confusion regarding the points being made in those threads.

CerebralCortex

Dades wrote: »

Oh come on.

For every remark like that here from a believer, we have a dozen implying that religious people are deluded/stupid/disingenuous.

If we give it, we have to be able to take it.

I agree up to a point but we're (well my self at least) are not the ones making claims of knowledge about the truth of existence on zero evidence. As I said though I applaud Jakkass ability to persist.

Kipperhell

Jakkass wrote: »

Kipperhell: Nothing I say or do will ever please you. I have taken a lot of consideration into Wicknights points and I've tried to deal with them as best as I can. If all you can do is moan about the discussion what's the point in even posting anything? If all you can do is raise ad-hominems that really shows how limited what you have to bring to the discussion actually is.

I'm looking forward to Wicknights response and I aim to keep it a peaceable back and forth.

I have repeatedly told you that if you actually responded to what is put to you I would be quite happy. Just explaining the nature of the barriers you use which would be useful for other users. Just more detail in it than just saying there are barriers or blinkers. I point out it is nothing personal just the method of argument applied is constructed in a manner that it is insular.

Effectively your points are all based on faith if I reject this faith personally at the root the logical arguments are impossible for you to discuss as you use faith to answer them.

It isn't a personal attack it is an attack on the system of self supporting belief and after trying to discuss the flaws of such discussion it is apparent that some people can't see the problem. I don't see why so many discussions need to include one persons personal belief repeated at tedium without ever answering them directly.

That last sentence is personal not as an attack but out of pure frustration having to hear the same unquestionable statements made

liamw

Jakkass wrote:

As I say, I don't mind that at all. I advocate free speech. As long as atheism and agnosticism are subject to the same criticism go nuts.

I don't see how atheism (a non belief in something) can be subject to the same criticism. Can you criticize atheism please?

philologos

CerebralCortex wrote: »

Jakkass rest assured I never agree with you man. What I'm applauding is how well you convinced yourself how absolutely logical and water tight your point of view regardless of the countless times you've been showed otherwise.

I'd say the same for you

CerebralCortex wrote: »

You may not have intended offense I'll never know but thats certainly how it came off to me.

I can assure you I certainly didn't. It just depends on how much you trust me I guess.

CerebralCortex wrote: »

I agree up to a point but we're (well my self at least) are not the ones making claims of knowledge about the truth of existence on zero evidence. As I said though I applaud Jakkass ability to persist.

I'd argue that neither has done this. Atheists argue they have indication for their viewpoint, and Christians argue that they have indication for theirs. Indication is really evidence by implication. What implies to me that this is the truth is the only real main point of discussion we can come from in a discussion like this where there is quite a good bit of ambiguity otherwise.

liamw wrote: »

I don't see how atheism (a non belief in something) can be subject to the same criticism. Can you criticize atheism please?

Anyone who puts forward a position on any particular issue is subject to criticism for said position. I could criticise atheism if I really wanted, but I am here to try and understand more instead of just getting into another waste of a discussion here that will end up with a lot of people getting hot and bothered. You can understand that right considering the recent failures of discussion here.

Kipperhell: I'd like to discuss the topic rather than discuss your view of me (which would be an ad-hominem) or with how you think I conduct my discussion. It's wholly irrelevant. Even in terms of Wicknight we have been sharing our opinions and I have been considering what he says. I don't agree with him, but I want to see where he is coming from more. Then again who on earth has discussions with people just to get the other to agree. There is more to talk than this.

CerebralCortex

Jakkass wrote: »

I'd say the same for you

Care to publish this conclusive, undeniable evidence that god exists you have?

Jakkass wrote: »

Atheists argue they have indication for their viewpoint.

I find most of the time I argue against the indications of the religious. I mean as an atheist what indicators am I looking for? That said when anybody provides a suitable indicator of any god I am no longer an atheist. You will of course say that there are plenty worthy indicators but if that were the case why would you bother trying to understand the atheist point of view as you claim to be doing here. All I need to understand about the Xtian position is that it requires faith.

philologos

CerebralCortex wrote: »

Care to publish this conclusive, undeniable evidence that god exists you have?

I believe they call that proof. Proof isn't the same as indication. Indication isn't conclusive or undeniable, it is merely something that suggests that something is likely to be true. Evidence doesn't necessarily mean proof.

CerebralCortex wrote: »

I find most of the time I argue against the indications of the religious. I mean as an atheist what indicators am I looking for? That said when anybody provides a suitable indicator of any god I am no longer an atheist. You will of course say that there are plenty worthy indicators but if that were the case why would you bother trying to understand the atheist point of view as you claim to be doing here. All I need to understand about the Xtian position is that it requires faith.

What do you decree to be a suitable indicator without it being absolute proof? Remember indications are not the same thing as proof.

I do note that this could be a tedious path of discussion to go down if we want to remain on topic and to stop people getting hot and bothered about evidence after the vast amount of times we have done it before.

I'd far prefer to discuss what potential changes would have to be made to religion according to you guys for it to survive in the Western world as we haven't really discussed that before.

Popinjay

Jakkass wrote: »

I'd far prefer to discuss what potential changes would have to be made to religion according to you guys for it to survive in the Western world as we haven't really discussed that before.

:pac:

"Atheists, advising Christians on how to propogate their religion since 2009."

O'Coonassa

Jakkass wrote: »

I'd far prefer to discuss what potential changes would have to be made to religion according to you guys for it to survive in the Western world as we haven't really discussed that before.

Well as you know I'm not one of these guys lol However the whole angle of Jesus being God come down to Earth would seem like it needs pruning if the religion is ever to regain it's former credibility in the West.

pts

Jakkass wrote: »

I'd far prefer to discuss what potential changes would have to be made to religion according to you guys for it to survive in the Western world as we haven't really discussed that before.

Maybe replace the Bible with the Jefferson Bible.

Sam Vimes

Jakkass wrote: »

I'd far prefer to discuss what potential changes would have to be made to religion according to you guys for it to survive in the Western world as we haven't really discussed that before.

For me there would have to be absolute proof. No matter how much so called evidence by indication you have there will always be an element of believing because you want to believe as opposed to believing because it's been shown to be true. I don't consider faith, ie belief without evidence, to be an admirable quality.

JC 2K3

Jakkass wrote: »

I argue that atheists do not have a full understanding of this basis for faith at all and can't do actually unless they understand religious experience. It's futile to discuss something that another doesn't have any understanding of at all in an argument though.

So why do you argue about religion on Boards so damn often?

I don't think people who claim to have had 'religious experiences' really understand just how severely the human mind can deceived.

At the same time, perhaps it's just that I've never had a religious experience, and if I had one, I'd know it was real and that God existed.

Either way, this shows that religious belief cannot be arrived at through study, arguments etc., but by random 'experiences'.

With this established, why consider your pursuit of debate with atheists?

philologos

Sam Vimes wrote: »

For me there would have to be absolute proof. No matter how much so called evidence by indication you have there will always be an element of believing because you want to believe as opposed to believing because it's been shown to be true. I don't consider faith, ie belief without evidence, to be an admirable quality.

I don't think that faith does mean belief without evidence. If you replaced the word evidence with "proof" then that would be more useful at least from my understanding of it. What is indicated to you from various different sources is still very much evidence, it just isn't proof. So yes that's fine.

JC 2K3 wrote: »

So why do you argue about religion on Boards so damn often?

Well, for a number of reasons. To clear up misconceptions about the Christian faith that I hear, to see how other people think, and to share my understanding of the world with other people primarily. It challenges me to find out answers to questions I've never thought about. The scrutiny of an atheist is beneficial to Christian faith. Additionally because I'm somewhat interested in it.

JC 2K3 wrote: »

I don't think people who claim to have had 'religious experiences' really understand just how severely the human mind can deceived.

Do you? If so please elaborate on this further.

JC 2K3 wrote: »

Either way, this shows that religious belief cannot be arrived at through study, arguments etc., but by random 'experiences'.

I'd agree with this much. However faith can be aided by reason, and if faith is without reason it is well and truly blind.

JC 2K3 wrote: »

With this established, why consider your pursuit of debate with atheists?

See above

Sam Vimes

JC 2K3 wrote: »

I don't think people who claim to have had 'religious experiences' really understand just how severely the human mind can deceived.

At the same time, perhaps it's just that I've never had a religious experience, and if I had one, I'd know it was real and that God existed.

I know I wouldn't. Having what I'd consider a religious experience wouldn't erase the knowledge that the human mind can be easily deceived.

philologos

Stercus Accidit wrote: »

Relevance to my statement? 'self contradictory', example, 'eye for an eye', 'turn the other cheek'

Yes "turn the other cheek" was Jesus fulfilling the previous commandment. It makes that perfectly clear in the New Testament. He even says that the prophets told you "an eye for an eye a tooth for a tooth a life for a life", but I tell you "turn the other cheek". This is the New Covenant fulfilling the Old Covenant. If you don't see the explanation for why the Scriptures are the way they are of course they will seem that way.

Stercus Accidit wrote: »

Now, these are completely plucked out of thin air, If you sat a bible or some other holy book in front of me, I could likely with a matter of minutes find several 'self contradictory' statements.

I'm sure you could by misinterpreting it.

Stercus Accidit wrote: »

They can be logical about many things, but fear of death, the unknown, hard realities of life can lead many to overlook this logic when looking at their indoctrinated superstitious beliefs.

Again I don't get the fear of death excuse. It's not a major part of my faith. Even if there was no afterlife in Christianity I still would hold to the virtues that Jesus taught. It's hardly the primary reason for my faith anyway.

Stercus Accidit wrote: »

If he rose from the dead, he is a zombie, zombies are reanimated corpses :P
Sorry, but seriously, worship of a dead mans words and deeds so long ago and by so many differing accounts, with no evidence other than these 2000 year old accounts of these amazing miracles as you put it, is just not sensible IMO, as above, logic issue.

Fair enough on the zombie definition.

Carrying on however you have to note that Christians don't believe that Jesus has died but rather the Church on earth is the body of Christ.

Why not follow the ethical commands of Jesus, or what can you find wrong with them? That would probably be best in another thread. Feel free to start one in the Christianity forum if you want

Bear in mind, without descending into the "logic" rhethoric. What is logical for one may not be logical for another.

The Bible even makes this clear, the cross is foolishness for those who are perishing (1 Corinthians 1:18). Every time I come onto this forum this makes more and more sense.

Stercus Accidit wrote: »

There is a lovely thread on the Christianity forum that says otherwise, everyone is going to burn in hell bar those who are christian devout, or unaware of christianity at all, bless them. (though I thought they were also meant to go to hell, or was it limbo, but of course limbo was a tester by the church which they scrapped, so did it ever exist?)

This decision is up to God. Your life is not over there is plenty of opportunity for you to seek God later on in your life. As such I don't think it's appropriate to tell you or anyone else that they are going to hell. We have been revealed that if you reject Jesus in public, He will reject you before the Father. We don't know about those who haven't heard Christ at all, I trust that God as a righteous judge will make the correct judgement.

Stercus Accidit wrote: »

But wars over religion involving chritianity have occured, yes?

I don't think the Crusades or the Inquisition involved true Christianity as Jesus thought it. They did involve human greed. Corrupt men did horrible things in the name of God. I consider both these acts and other acts abhorrent.

However I don't think Christianity is accountable for this any more than I think that atheism is accountable for Stalin, Mao, Hoxha, and Pol Pot and their acts in the 20th century. Fair enough point, no?

Apologies for not replying, I didn't see your post until just then.

JC 2K3

Jakkass wrote: »

Do you? If so please elaborate on this further.

Seen the Matrix? I find no reason not to believe that that could not be possible (although probably unfeasible).

See my reply to Sam Vimes below also, it's quite relevant here.

Sam Vimes wrote: »

I know I wouldn't. Having what I'd consider a religious experience wouldn't erase the knowledge that the human mind can be easily deceived.

Yeah, unless there was something REALLY, amazingly special about it, and you just knew that God was real because of that.

However, considering the studies they did back in the 60s on the similarities between religious experience and the effects of certain psychedelic drugs, I find myself arriving at the conclusion that such states of mind can be achieved by naturalistic means, and that, in fact, people who have claimed to have had religious experiences are just misinterpreting a profound, but natural experience.

Sam Vimes

Jakkass wrote: »

I don't think that faith does mean belief without evidence. If you replaced the word evidence with "proof" then that would be more useful at least from my understanding of it. What is indicated to you from various different sources is still very much evidence, it just isn't proof. So yes that's fine.

Well ok let's clarify. The amount of evidence I require is inversely proportional to the likelihood of the event. For example I have learned that St Patrick came to Ireland in 432. I don't need to have that to be absolutely proven to me for two reasons:

• It doesn't make that much difference when he came
• I see no reason to doubt it. It seems perfectly plausible considering he lived from 390 – 460

It's enough for me that it has been recorded. However it is also claimed that he banished the snakes from Ireland. That claim requires more than simply reading it in a book because:

• There is no indication that there ever were snakes in Ireland
• It seems unlikely that one man could remove all the snakes
• History is littered with such unbelievable claims

In that case a lot more than a single book would be needed because it doesn't fit with what seems likely and with the universe that we're used to

To get to religion, if you want to tell me that there was a man called Jesus who lived around 0 AD who had disciples and preached a message of peace I would most likely be willing to accept a book that claimed such because that all seems very plausible. This is where evidence by indication is useful. However, if you want to claim that he walked on water, healed the sick and was raised from the dead you're going to need a lot more than a 2000 year old book claiming as much. You must first show that such things are even possible before you can start to give indication that they happened in the past.

For example if you prove to me that there was a city called Sodom that was destroyed all that indicates to me is that there was a city called Sodom that was destroyed. A good first step would be to show that it couldn't have been destroyed by an earthquake, a hurricane or a flood as common sense would suggest

To quote David Hume: "We should only believe in a miracle if the possibility of the witness being deceived or lying would be more "miraculous."

philologos

JC 2K3 wrote: »

Seen the Matrix? I find no reason not to believe that that could not be possible (although probably unfeasible).

Indeed, and there are academics who say that there is a 33% likelihood that we are in a simulated universe being processed by a computer. In Computer Science there was a few lectures on this when we were discussing that modern computers if given enough memory and time can simulate the entire universe (based on the theories of Alan Turing). I have no reason to believe that this isn't possible either. I'd regard it as highly unlikely.

JC 2K3 wrote: »

Yeah, unless there was something REALLY, amazingly special about it, and you just knew that God was real because of that.

This is the issue. You will have theists saying that they are amazingly special, and you will have atheists saying that they aren't. This is why it is a useless argument for atheists because they can't relate to said position. However it is a key part of the faith of a Christian.

JC 2K3 wrote: »

However, considering the studies they did back in the 60s on the similarities between religious experience and the effects of certain psychedelic drugs, I find myself arriving at the conclusion that such states of mind can be achieved by naturalistic means, and that, in fact, people who have claimed to have had religious experiences are just misinterpreting a profound, but natural experience.

You noted this before. I found it interesting. However this doesn't rule out God in any meaningful sense of the word. I would argue that this would be merely an argument based on the how and not the why. You would agree that the how (as explained by science) is different from the why (based on philosophical questioning and metaphysics)?

I would find the retort of a natural experience to be somewhat of a cop out for not explaining the why, what purpose does this serve. Interesting all the same.

Sam Vimes

JC 2K3 wrote: »

However, considering the studies they did back in the 60s on the similarities between religious experience and the effects of certain psychedelic drugs, I find myself arriving at the conclusion that such states of mind can be achieved by naturalistic means, and that, in fact, people who have claimed to have had religious experiences are just misinterpreting a profound, but natural experience.

Exactly. Just look at all the religions that take psychotropic substances in order to "communicate with their gods"

philologos

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Well ok let's clarify. The amount of evidence I require is inversely proportional to the likelihood of the event. For example I have learned that St Patrick came to Ireland in 432. I don't need to have that to be absolutely proven to me for two reasons:

That's fine, I don't have any issue with that.

Sam Vimes wrote: »

It's enough for me that it has been recorded. However it is also claimed that he banished the snakes from Ireland. That claim requires more than simply reading it in a book because:

• There is no indication that there ever were snakes in Ireland
• It seems unlikely that one man could remove all the snakes

As for the snakes, it isn't reported on in any piece of literature that is attributed to Patrick himself from what I can recall from looking at Patricks Confessions. We also have reason to suspect that Christianity existed in Ireland before his arrival too. Again, no problem understanding this.

Sam Vimes wrote: »

To get to religion, if you want to tell me that there was a man called Jesus who lived around 0 AD who had disciples and preached a message of peace I would most likely be willing to accept a book that claimed such because that all seems very plausible. This is where evidence by indication is useful. However, if you want to claim that he walked on water, healed the sick and was raised from the dead you're going to need a lot more than a 2000 year old book claiming as much. You must first show that such things are even possible before you can start to give indication that they happened in the past.

Of course I would need more than a 2000 year old book to claim such. Many people have argued for miracles without basing it on the Christian text, but looking outside and reasoning it logically. I personally had issues with accepting miracles, however C.S Lewis did make a lot of sense about it and how the supernatural manifests itself in a natural world. Hence upon finding that reasonable I adopted such an understanding as it was very well explained. So yes, I think that you are fine to have this standard for miracles. Of course one needs to have assurance that such things are possible before one believes in such things. Again I have no argument with you here.

Sam Vimes wrote: »

For example if you prove to me that there was a city called Sodom that was destroyed all that indicates to me is that there was a city called Sodom that was destroyed. A good first step would be to show that it couldn't have been destroyed by an earthquake, a hurricane or a flood as common sense would suggest

Yes, it's a minor indication of Biblical validity, it doesn't prove that God exists, or that every other claim in the Bible is true. I never actually argued this ever when I used such a point in the past. It does mean that the Bible does contain some truth. As I've also said, it's one of many indications one can have for Christianity.

Sam Vimes wrote: »

To quote David Hume: "We should only believe in a miracle if the possibility of the witness being deceived or lying would be more "miraculous."

Yes Hume was a good philosopher I will say that for him. It is also best we remember what bias he had . I think some of his stuff on the cosmological and teleological arguments are very good in thinking about their shortcomings. (I must consult the philosophy of religion book I have again soon).

Sam Vimes

Jakkass wrote: »

I personally had issues with accepting miracles, however C.S Lewis did make a lot of sense about it and how the supernatural manifests itself in a natural world. Hence upon finding that reasonable I adopted such an understanding as it was very well explained

What did he say about them?

Jakkass wrote: »

It does mean that the Bible does contain some truth. As I've also said, it's one of many indications one can have for Christianity.

Well of course the bible contains some truth. No one has ever suggested that every single word in it was made up. It would be ridiculous for the story of Sodom to be based on a fictional city instead of an actual place that was actually destroyed. I'd see it the same way some people blamed hurricane Katrina on the gay accepting lifestyle in New Orleans. These bigots exist even in the 21st century so of course they existed 2000 years ago when such claims carried more weight

The only parts of the bible that I am interested in seeing the evidence for are the miraculous parts and proving Sodom does not indicate anything supernatural unless you can also show that it couldn't have been destroyed by a natural disaster. To use the old theist argument: "you can't prove it wasn't an earthquake!"